Je Suis Charlie - The Bear and Badger

Skerret

Yossarian wrote:

The right to free speech doesn't come without responsibilities.

Yes'm. It's something you learn how to use. Free speech without forethought is just noise and is too often mistaken for bigotry, particularly down here (hello Sen. Brandis).

IanHamlett

Yossarian wrote:

I think many people would have seen publishing pictures of Mohamed as an attack on their beliefs.

They can think that if they like, and then grow the fuck up about it. I shouldn't have to watch what I say because a tiny percentage of 1.5bn people might want to kill me for it and a surprisingly large chunk of the rest would be okay with it.

Vela

I think people have summed it up pretty well but in general we should have the right to say what we want, but also the perspicacity to say it in the right way.

People can be rude, but should not receive violent retribution in return. People can hold ridiculous beliefs or ideals, and should be able to distinguish between criticism of the ideas themselves and the people beholden to them.

Of course some people are always going to be precious about something. You can't please everyone, and for those who would resort to violence against words, their ideals are precisely the ones which need open criticism.

Kow

Freedom of speech is one of the great things we have and we should certainly rally behind it. But the borders of our world, physical and virtual, have stretched beyond the comfortable and familiar and we now share it with people who may not feel the same. We are as much responsible for this as anyone else. I'd imagine people will continue to have the same freedom of speech they always had but they will think a bit more before taking a swing. That's maybe a sad thing, but for all the protests and all the Je Suis Charlie, that's the way it's going to be. If you thought the future was going to be a continuous march towards liberty and progress then you only have to look at history to know you were wrong.

Yossarian

IanHamlett wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I think many people would have seen publishing pictures of Mohamed as an attack on their beliefs.

They can think that if they like, and then grow the fuck up about it. I shouldn't have to watch what I say because a tiny percentage of [the people around me] might [be offended by] it and a surprisingly large chunk of the rest would be okay with it.

I'm changing this quote slightly just to show that this is something we all do all of the time. To take an extreme example, if someone at your workplace had recently lost their mother, you'd probably lay off the 'your mum' jokes, and you certainly wouldn't dream of pointing out that you thought that their mother was actually a fairly nasty person. On the other side of the coin, this justification could be used word-for-word by the 'PC gone mad' brigade to defend making racist or sexist jokes.

Brooks

mistercrayon

IanHamlett wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I think many people would have seen publishing pictures of Mohamed as an attack on their beliefs.

They can think that if they like, and then grow the fuck up about it. I shouldn't have to watch what I say because a tiny percentage of 1.5bn people might want to kill me for it and a surprisingly large chunk of the rest would be okay with it.

This is how bullying and oppression of minorities works.

Brooks

The problem with that Olivier Tonneau thing is that trying to extricate religious history from political history is daft, because these are essentially about the same thing, the competition of ideologies of all descriptions - strictly, one cannot 'trump' the other, you have to be way more specific with your terms, and we have those, so use them. Moreover, 'criticising Islam not Arabs' is kind of moot when blatant racist caricatures are part of the mode.

To echo others - freedom of speech is no defence against accusations that one may be really shit at speaking.

Skerret

Kow wrote:

but they will think a bit more before taking a swing. That's maybe a sad thing

More thinking can only be a good thing.

RamSteelwood

i don't normally step into serious conversations for fear of revealing my true stupidity, and let me be clear that i'm not defending murder of people or this specific incident (just in case it ends up reading like that).

but isn't the 'right of free speech' simply a belief held by a particular group of people? isn't it just an element of the modern 'religion' of the west? we don't believe in god, we believe in 'rights' like free speech and buying as many ipods as you can carry. isn't it just arrogant to assume everyone else should have the same belief, or that any group that doesn't are inferior and behind the times?
even then, like most religions, aren't some beliefs open to interpretation? to some, the 'right' of free speech means no one has to suffer in silence, that if you disagree with things you have a right to speak up and be heard....but for others it means they can say whatever they want about whatever they want without any fear of repercussions?
again, not saying murdering people is right at all, i'm not talking about charlie hebdo in particular.
it's just there seems to be an element of "i can say what i want without fear because that's what i believe in, and therefore i can mock those that don't share my belief but I still expect them to react in line with my own beliefs".

Brooks

Well quite, I mean that further articulates my eye-rolling at the notion that politics aren't actually religion and vice versa.

They might read as separate institutions when we start capitalising their first letters and shit but.

Kow

Pretty much. It's a very good value but it's embedded in our culture, not necessarily in others. I think people are still trying to draw lines between them and us, but these kinds of lines make no real sense at this point in history.

Kow

I think almost everything comes down to power, it's just that we like to couch it in religion or nationality or left or right but it all amounts to the same thing.

Brooks

I mean you could almost call organised religion "the fate of the losing ideology" at this point. Commodified, left to the crazies. And those who the mainstream has completely fucking failed to ensure the material security of.

IanHamlett

The whole religion has to come to terms with its rules only applying to people that are part of that religion. You can't eat bacon, you can't draw mohammed, you can't earn interest on your bank balance.

I can do all those things and you don't have to punish me for it because the being that created the universe has got it covered.

Seriously though, Saudi just give someone lashes for blasphemy. Indonesia is jailing people for talking about atheism. A Nigerian dad married his daughter off to her rapist. 130 school kids killed by the taliban.

This is a religion that needs the piss ripping out of it.

Kow

Well you see, ripping the piss out of something is something we do as a means of retaliation. The problem is not everybody gets that kind of stance, not everybody understands and accepts that position. You can of course do that but you run the risk of people taking it rather seriously. In fact, Charlie Hebwhatever were told exactly that by both the French government and the Whitehouse - that pouring petrol on an already volatile situation was not a good idea. They didn't listen, of course. You are free to say and do whatever you wish but martyring yourself for free speech is little better than martyring yourself for Mohammed at this point. Being free to do something doesn't mean you are obliged to do it.

Yossarian

IanHamlett wrote:

The whole religion has to come to terms with its rules only applying to people that are part of that religion.

Utter nonsense. This is not an issue with the whole religion, it's an issue with certain, niche, interpretations of it. Saying the whole religion needs to face up to the issues you list is like saying Christianity has to face up to the 'Christians' who murder abortion doctors or persecute gays in parts of Africa.

Brooks

So you should ask: What is the utility of blasphemy laws in Saudi Arabia?

Kow

Hey, try going to one of those nasty stag places, where is it? Blackpool? Try chatting up one of those nice lads' girlfriends and then say well you're just exercising freedom of speech, and you are in no way going to get headbutted. Sometimes common sense dictates.

nick_md

This is a war on terror issue just as much as a freedom of speech issue, surely? Seems to be very little discussion in the media on the enabling-nature the WoT has for these kind of events, much like with the Rigby murder. Far easier to ask how young people are radicalised whilst completely ignoring the elephant of ME foreign policy.

The freedom of speech discussion is worth having, for sure, but it's not the whole, for me Clive.

IanHamlett

Yossarian wrote:

The whole religion has to come to terms with its rules only applying to people that are part of that religion.

Utter nonsense. This is not an issue with the whole religion, it's an issue with certain, niche, interpretations of it. Saying the whole religion needs to face up to the issues you list is like saying Christianity has to face up to the 'Christians' who murder abortion doctors or persecute gays in parts of Africa.

It's only a loony fringe that's blowing things up. It's not just a loony fringe that needs to come to terms with this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

Anyway that's just splitting hairs. Nobody says "the parts of the religion that haven't already come to terms with this, need to come to terms with this". Regardless of how many people already have come to terms with this, the whole religion needs to come to terms with this.

Kow

The powers that be don't seem to want to recognise that pumping money into Saudi Arabia has some unwanted side effects.

Ali

IanHamlett wrote:

It's only a loony fringe that's blowing things up. It's not just a loony fringe that needs to come to terms with this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html Anyway that's just splitting hairs. Nobody says "the parts of the religion that haven't already come to terms with this, need to come to terms with this". Regardless of how many people already have come to terms with this, the whole religion needs to come to terms with this.

If you polled ex pat Brits abroad on whether they'd like to have British law where they lived, they'd probably say yes. People want what they're comfortable with and have grown up being told about.

Kow

You could also have polled the Irish republic about the activities of the IRA in the 80s and a massive percentage would probably have agreed on motivations and causes but probably 99% would also have been categorically against violence.

Yossarian

Quite. There's also a very big difference between saying you'd like something and taking action to ensure it happens. I'd like to see Cameron and Osborne punched in the face, but I'm not about to commit assault.

IanHamlett

> Punching in the face

> Blowing up random people

A BBC poll in 2006 found that 10% of british muslims support killing someone that dishonours the family. Fucking 10%.

Definitely needs pulling into the 20th century.

Kow

It's true Islam needs to be dragged into the 21st century. But pushing them up against the wall will not do this. Nor will humiliating them while they're being kicked on the ground in so many countries.

IanHamlett

edit - not reply to kow

How many paedophile priests/supporters of paedophile priests would you need before you could say it was a problem for the church? One or two is bound to happen in any walk of life.

How many people that MURDER PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE DRAWINGS THEY DID would it take for there to be a problem.

@kow piss taking is how taboo subjects get brought up. After a while we have a grown up discussion about them. It all kinda hinges on both parties not completely loosing their shit though.

Yossarian

IanHamlett wrote:

> Punching in the face

> Blowing up random people

A BBC poll in 2006 found that 10% of british muslims support killing someone that dishonours the family. Fucking 10%.

Definitely needs pulling into the 20th century.

Heh. Did a quick google to have a look at this poll and came across this:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2012/honour-crimes/

It's looking specifically at young Asians, as opposed to all, but came up with two interesting stats: firstly, the proportion of young Muslims who support honour killings fell from 8% to 6% between 2006 and 2012, and secondly, when the first survey was done, 14% of young Asian Christians and Sikhs supported honour killings, almost twice the proportion of Muslims.

Drag Christianity into the 21st century, I say.

Kow

There already is a problem, nobody denies that. It's dealing with it that's the issue.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories