The myth of "free speech".....

[britbox]

^ No, the biggest threat to freedom of speech is from left wing secular "liberals" who seem to have a very low threshold of what is considered acceptable. I use the word "liberal" liberally because it's anything but. Sure, you might not be under pain of death, but you'll be readily ostracised.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Of course, there is a difference between holding people accountable and massacring 12 innocents. So let me be absolutely crystal clear again: What happened was a travesty and if there is an afterlife, I hope the assailants rot in hell. But, do I fully support the kind of drawings Charlie Hebdo publish in the name of free speech? Probably not, although they should be allowed to do their thing, the same way I should be allowed to criticize it, and this is coming from a non-religious person.

Let's be clear - and in fairness, you have been - "criticising it" and butchering innocent people are two different reactions. Totally different, actually.

This is literally what i'm saying: "Of course, there is a difference between holding people accountable and massacring 12 innocents."

Taken directly from my post which you quoted.

 

[Kieran]

Of course, there is a difference between holding people accountable and massacring 12 innocents. So let me be absolutely crystal clear again: What happened was a travesty and if there is an afterlife, I hope the assailants rot in hell. But, do I fully support the kind of drawings Charlie Hebdo publish in the name of free speech? Probably not, although they should be allowed to do their thing, the same way I should be allowed to criticize it, and this is coming from a non-religious person.

Let's be clear - and in fairness, you have been - "criticising it" and butchering innocent people are two different reactions. Totally different, actually.

This is literally what i'm saying: "Of course, there is a difference between holding people accountable and massacring 12 innocents."

Taken directly from my post which you quoted.

Which is why I agreed with you.

 

[Kieran]

And by the way, there's nothing for Charlie Hebdo to be "held accountable" for - they did nothing illegal.

But their schtick was satire: the news media are loudly proclaiming "Je Suis Charlie", as if they actually are, but they're not reporting the news, out of fear. This is not good...

 

[britbox]

One of the reasons I swapped Muslims for Jews in the context of the cartoons was because that Holocaust Denial is actually a criminal offence in 16 EU countries and can land you in prison. Many of the "deniers" claim they aren't "deniers" but historical revisionists on the numbers. I'll make it plain that I am not a denier and have reasonable faith in the historical record of the atrocities but in the name of "freedom of speech"... it seems like it doesn't span the full spectrum.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And by the way, there's nothing for Charlie Hebdo to be "held accountable" for - they did nothing illegal.

"They did nothing illegal" which I also, quite literally, stated in my post.

You don't need to do something illegal to be held accountable. You can do something irresponsible. Like I said, they have the right to do what they did, but it IS offensive. This is a fact.

Please consider my Martin Luther King example and tell me what do you think the reaction SHOULD be in such a situation.

 

[Kieran]

You don't need to do something illegal to be held accountable. You can do something irresponsible. Like I said, they have the right to do what they did, but it IS offensive. This is a fact.

If they were "held accountable" they would simply reply, this is satire. It's the funny pages. They only have an obligation to choose their targets and be funny about them.

This is different to criticising them, which I certainly would, given that equally provocative things have been done by so-called artists and satirists in depicting Church figures, as well as Jesus, but I would still hold that it's their right to publish these things, while also seeing it as a low form, and unnecessarily provocative.

We've all heard of the "P1$$ Christ" and know about the da Vinci Code and other nonsenses. Personally, I find them to be more demeaning to the creators of these things than to my religion, but I would defy either Dan Brown or the other guy to create similar stuff depicting Muhammad. You and I know why they won't. This is because their freedom to depict and insult is restricted by the threat of force.

Please consider my Martin Luther King example and tell me what do you think the reaction SHOULD be in such a situation.

Here it is here:

Now let's be clear, nothing justifies what happened. But, for argument's sake, if a cartoonist in the USA depicted Dr. Martin Luther King engaging in sexual activities with the devil, what would be the reaction? Would it not be deemed racist?

I don't know if it would be racist, but it would certainly be derogatory and offensive. I know where you're going - and I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. However, if people find these things offensive, they have recourse to the courts, they can protest to the magazine, there are a whole raft of measures they can take to complain and make their feelings heard.

It's one thing for art/satire to be restricted, and to be criticised, but we are entitled to print the news, tell what's happening, and show why. Despite all the marches and windbaggery about Je Suis Charlie from the press, they've been silenced out of fear. This is actually what's troubling me today...

 

[Riotbeard]

^ No, the biggest threat to freedom of speech is from left wing secular "liberals" who seem to have a very low threshold of what is considered acceptable. I use the word "liberal" liberally because it's anything but. Sure, you might not be under pain of death, but you'll be readily ostracised.

I don't think it's a bigger/smaller issue. Just different problems. Everyday free speech is far more curtailed informally by liberals. This is more of an everyday problem, but many people still make off color jokes, etc., so I think even though it's not on mainstream cable tv, it is still accessible. On the other hand, there is literally one narrow subject matter that no one will address, because a bunch of thugs in balaclavas might suicide bomb you. For me the liberal stuff affects me more on a day to day basis, but they aren't literally going to murder you. For one thing, South Park has only ever been censored by comedy central when they tried to depict Mohammed. You can't blaim comedy central though because the rest of the media won't publish it in solidarity...

 

[Riotbeard]

Now let's be clear, nothing justifies what happened. But, for argument's sake, if a cartoonist in the USA depicted Dr. Martin Luther King engaging in sexual activities with the devil, what would be the reaction? Would it not be deemed racist?

I don't know if it would be racist, but it would certainly be derogatory and offensive. I know where you're going - and I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. However, if people find these things offensive, they have recourse to the courts, they can protest to the magazine, there are a whole raft of measures they can take to complain and make their feelings heard.

It's one thing for art/satire to be restricted, and to be criticised, but we are entitled to print the news, tell what's happening, and show why. Despite all the marches and windbaggery about Je Suis Charlie from the press, they've been silenced out of fear. This is actually what's troubling me today...

I can imagine a context where this might be offensive to some and good satire to others. I could see, say The Final Call or it's 60s equivalent doing a political cartoon like that to say King compromised and made a deal with the devil. Or something to do with King being a womanizer, which is proven.

Don't get me wrong, as a lefty, pacifist, I think of King as probably the greatest major figure in 20th century U.S. politics, but I can imagine contexts, where a political cartoon like that could be a valid form of political expression. People don't have a right to not be offended. The easiest way to not be offended by something is to not watch/read it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You don't need to do something illegal to be held accountable. You can do something irresponsible. Like I said, they have the right to do what they did, but it IS offensive. This is a fact.

If they were "held accountable" they would simply reply, this is satire. It's the funny pages. They only have an obligation to choose their targets and be funny about them.

This is different to criticising them, which I certainly would, given that equally provocative things have been done by so-called artists and satirists in depicting Church figures, as well as Jesus, but I would still hold that it's their right to publish these things, while also seeing it as a low form, and unnecessarily provocative.

We've all heard of the "P1$$ Christ" and know about the da Vinci Code and other nonsenses. Personally, I find them to be more demeaning to the creators of these things than to my religion, but I would defy either Dan Brown or the other guy to create similar stuff depicting Muhammad. You and I know why they won't. This is because their freedom to depict and insult is restricted by the threat of force.

Please consider my Martin Luther King example and tell me what do you think the reaction SHOULD be in such a situation.

Here it is here:

Now let's be clear, nothing justifies what happened. But, for argument's sake, if a cartoonist in the USA depicted Dr. Martin Luther King engaging in sexual activities with the devil, what would be the reaction? Would it not be deemed racist?

I don't know if it would be racist, but it would certainly be derogatory and offensive. I know where you're going - and I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. However, if people find these things offensive, they have recourse to the courts, they can protest to the magazine, there are a whole raft of measures they can take to complain and make their feelings heard.

It's one thing for art/satire to be restricted, and to be criticised, but we are entitled to print the news, tell what's happening, and show why. Despite all the marches and windbaggery about Je Suis Charlie from the press, they've been silenced out of fear. This is actually what's troubling me today...

Then you're literally agreeing with me. I told you, it is their right to post whatever they want, and it is others' right to criticize it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

In defense of Charlie Hebdo, it bears mentioning that the one drawing of Mohammad I saw Charlie Hebdo publish (that's just the one I saw, I'm not saying that's the only one they published) was actually funny and straight to the point:

It depicted Mohammad returning to earth saying "I am Muhammad, I have returned" only for an ISIS terrorist to put a knife next to his throat and yell "infidel." It's actually quite powerful when you think about it.

 

[Kieran]

Then you're literally agreeing with me. I told you, it is their right to post whatever they want, and it is others' right to criticize it.

I never disagreed with you.

But what about the silencing of the media? I mean, the complete media, left, right, and other. It's long been a troubling thing, and it's been highlighted by the response to this massacre...

 

[calitennis127]

Really? You honestly believe these attacks are because some muslims are jealous of your 55" HD Television and other material trinkets of a prosperous society?

Suicide attacks, random killings et al, cannot be explained away by "envy of western civilization". Absolute rubbish. Western civilization is considered satanic by many of the islamic fundamentalists.

Britbox - you, Broken, and others have completely misinterpreted my comment on how the Muslim world envies the West. I was not talking about suicide attacks specifically. You and I agree on what Michael Scheuer has said, which is that there is such a thing as blowback and when you kill other people, they might just want to hit you back.

But I started this thread about free speech, and one of the points I made was that with the ever-growing Muslim populations in Western countries, the notion of "free speech" can be invoked by jihad-minded imams and sheikhs to preach that apostates and those who insult Muhammad must be killed. And, thus, I was also referring to the issue of Islamic immigration to the West, and how it is being managed. In that regard, the "envy" I spoke of is extremely significant.

I don't see Britons, Americans, Canadians, Frenchmen, Germans, etc. applying for passports to move to Pakistan or Iraq in search of a "better life" or more economic opportunity. But why is it that Pakistanis and Algerians are dying to come to Europe? There is an implied - but also extremely clear - envy on the part of the the Arab world toward the West for being so much wealthier and more successful. Otherwise, these immigrants would not be flocking to the West as they are. And many of these Muslims are not stupid people; they grow up in lands where poverty is rampant and social problems of the most severe nature are prevalent. Then they come to the West and they see everything about society run more efficiently.

I know that Afghanistan is an extreme example, but still, this story is telling. I have a friend in the Marines who did a tour of duty in Afghanistan. He said that boys as young as 5 or 6 in Afghanistan often walked up to him and other American soldiers with their mouths wide open, making a close-shut motion with their lips like they wanted to suck on a popsicle. This is because the elders in the villages had already trained them to provide oral services to elderly men. Is this one of the ways in which the Muslim world has been more advanced for centuries that riotbeard is referring to? I guess they discovered Alfred Kinsey's pedophilia-style perversion well before 1950.

But the point is, there is no way that many Muslim immigrants to the West do not recognize how savage their homelands are by comparison - the lavish international lifestyle of the Gulf princes notwithstanding.

To conclude, consider this recent quote from Hassan al-Turabi, the prominent Islamist leader in Sudan, that I ran across in a book on religion in Europe. You and riotbeard should take notice:

"Brother, our society needs to be reformed, and reform cannot emerge out of wretchedness, fear, and conservatism. What are we conserving? This backwardness? The Westerners ride our backs with their armies, with their economy, their media, and their science, and we just sit there being conservatives?...By Allah, our faith will become stronger if we go to the countries of the West. Our faith will only grow. My faith grew stronger in Europe, in France, in Britain. My faith grew stronger, and so did my knowledge, Allah be praised."

In this sense, it absolutely is significant to speak of an envy on the part of many Muslims toward the West for what it has. I am not saying that this envy explains terrorist attacks, but I am saying that it is a significant force in generating animosity among the large Muslim populations in European countries. In that sense, it is significant.

Also, here's a business question for a tennis board: why are there so few ATP events in the Middle East? There are none outside of the little paradise zones where the Gulf princes have their billions. I don't see any 250 or 500 events going down in Kabul or Karachi outside of Bin Laden's five-star palace.

 

[calitennis127]

Also, the notions that these attacks are carried out because of jealousy of the west is utter nonsense.

Never said that. I was talking about what imams and sheiks in Western countries say inside their mosques and community centers, and about the larger issue of massive Muslim immigration the West that allows these enclaves to be created.

See my reply above to Britbox.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, obviously everyone is looking for a better life for their families and a good future for their children. Right now, for many different reasons, those conditions are not present in most of middle east. But times change.

You know, Bagdat was the intellectual and scientific center of the world between the 8th and 12th centuries. When Europe was in dark ages at the time, anybody who was somebody from there, Christian and others, were living in or travelling to Bagdat to take part in the great environment of Abbasid Library (House of Light), studying science in medieval Islam, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, alchemy and chemistry, zoology, and geography etc....It was housing the largest collection of books in the world at the time. Everyone from every religion wanted to be there.



Times changed, Mongols came, destroyed the place and that was that...

Yemen, right now pretty much the armpit of the world, no offense, was the place to be in its time. Places like Sana'a and Aden were amazing centres for culture, business, everything. Tribalism, guarilla warfare, Western meddlings so on so forth, this is Yemen now.

All I am saying is, times change. Right now, better life and opportunities are in the West. I am an immigrant and I know for a fact there are not a lot of people from Middle East that would rather be here than home, if home was not so screwed up.

Why is home so screwed up, that is another discussion.

 

[calitennis127]

Murat, wouldn't you as an atheist be the first to say that Islam, as a religion, naturally suppresses the human intellect and holds back cultural progress? So why do you feel the need to defend Islam's impact on history?

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, obviously everyone is looking for a better life for their families and a good future for their children.

Funny how all that movement is going in one direction - Muslim world to Western world, and virtually none the other way around. I don't see the Murray families in Scotland going to Indonesia to look for jobs and to be part of more affluent societies with more opportunities.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murat, wouldn't you as an atheist be the first to say that Islam, as a religion, naturally suppresses the human intellect and holds back cultural progress? So why do you feel the need to defend Islam's impact on history?

I do not defend it, I just state facts. It was not suppressing anything at one time. It was the center of cultural progress. A well known hadith from Mohammed says " “Seek knowledge even as far as China.”

But later, just like every religion, it went to sh!t, in the hand of perverted mullahs. Now every religion offends human intellect . We have come so far as human beings that we do not create new gods and religions anymore, but not far enough to let the old ones go.

One can hope.

 

[calitennis127]

Murat, wouldn't you as an atheist be the first to say that Islam, as a religion, naturally suppresses the human intellect and holds back cultural progress? So why do you feel the need to defend Islam's impact on history?

I do not defend it, I just state facts. It was not suppressing anything at one time. It was the center of cultural progress.

But later, just like every religion, it went to sh!t, in the hand of perverted mullahs. Now every religion offends human intellect . We have come so far as human beings that we do not create new gods and religions anymore, but not far enough to let the old ones go.

One can hope.

Well, religion is the fountain of cultural development, and the disparity between the West and the Arab world is a reflection of the disparity between the two religions that are the foundation of each culture. To take one of many examples, the Catholic Church specifically and Christianity more generally fostered the growth of science and encouraged it; Islam, on the other hand, has suppressed it.

 

[calitennis127]

All I am saying is, times change. Right now, better life and opportunities are in the West. I am an immigrant and I know for a fact there are not a lot of people from Middle East that would rather be here than home, if home was not so screwed up.

I'm sorry, but the immense gap in achievement between the West and the Arab/Muslim world cannot be explained by just 150 years of technological advancement, which is basically what Riotbeard is saying. There are much deeper roots that go back a long way. Of course, the "Islamic world" is not a monolith and Islam certainly does have some redeeming qualities as a religion, but when we look at the Arab world as a whole, we see very deep-rooted backwardness.

The gap we see today cannot be explained by a sudden explosion of inventions in the West in the 20th century. That is a comical suggestion. Intellectually and socially, there are very deep-rooted differences between the Christian West and Muslim East that put the former at a huge advantage in terms of comparative achievement.