Founding Member of Charlie Hebdo Says Slain Editor "Dragged' Team to their Death

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:'Oh, how terrible, a German Newspaper accidentially published an antisemitic cartoon instead of an antimuslim cartoon. The drawing is exactly the same, but in the first case they apologized. If we need any more proof of the double standards, here they are.'

http://www.haaretz.com/.premium-1.637128

You subscribe to an Israeli paper?

[Anonymous]

Great points! Terrorism is always used to send a message, not to solve an issue.

Okay, Muslima. What was the message with the kosher deli?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html

I tried to find one of the existing threads for this post, but they've all gone so far off-topic that none of them seemed appropriate.

"One of the founding members of Charlie Hebdo has accused its slain editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, or Charb, of “dragging the team” to their deaths by releasing increasingly provocative cartoons, as five million copies of the “survivors’ edition” went on sale."

Not only is this criticism interesting, but the reaction of Charlie Hebdo's lawyer was interesting:

"The accusation sparked a furious reaction from Richard Malka, Charlie Hebdo’s lawyer for the past 22 years, who sent an angry message to Mathieu Pigasse, one of the owners of Nouvel Obs and Le Monde. 'Charb has not yet even been buried and Obs finds nothing better to do that to publish a polemical and venomous piece on him.'"

Once again, we see the hypocrisy of an advocate of free expression. Promoting "freedom of expression" as a slogan is easy and, as we've seen, is easily done even by political leaders whose jails are full of journalists. But, in actual practice, just about everyone draws lines somewhere and nobody likes when there own personal lines are crossed.

What inconsistency are you seeing in this position on freedom of speech? Pigasse is not a hypocrite. He didn't restrict the speech he objects to. He didn't kill anyone for saying it. He simply stated his objection to it. That IS free speech. Free speech doesn't mean "don't disagree with the other guy". It means "let the guy you disagree with talk". You can still say "You're wrong and you shouldn't have said that."

The lawyer, Richard Malka, didn't only object to the content of the article. He also objected to the fact that it was published. Everyone is quoting Voltaire (wrongly, since Voltaire never said it), about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it. It may be a small difference, but Malka is disagreeing with what was said and the fact that it was published. That is what I think is hypocritical. In contrast, I strongly disagree with the content of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons but equally strongly support the magazine's right to publish them. Not to mention that someone who is paid to defend the publishing of offensive material should be the last to complain about the publishing of offensive material.

As for the "dragged" to their death remark, it is not uncommon to blame people for the predictable outcomes of their risky -- yet legal -- behavior. In general, I am not a fan of that "blame the victim" mentality. But, it happens all the time from warnings not to walk at night in dangerous parts of the city to cautions about how to dress and what to drink (or not drink) at frat parties. I cringe every time I hear someone say "he/she had it coming" and this example is no different. The fault lies solely with the perpetrator and not the victim.

He's not saying they shouldn't have the right to publish those comments. He's saying they should have chosen not to. There's no free speech implication there. People object to what magazines publish all the time. Unless there's an actual prevention of it or violence for it, this is just disagreement with that choice. That's what free speech is supposed to be.

[Muslima]

jsteele wrote:

Muslima wrote:Great points! Terrorism is always used to send a message, not to solve an issue.

As I've said before, terrorism is often used -- as the communists used to say -- to "heighten the contradictions", meaning to create a backlash that will widen divisions between groups. The terrorists' greatest nightmare is for Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and members of other religions to stand in unity against the terrorists' methods. Their goal is to have non-Muslims attacking Muslims in retaliation and pushing more Muslims into the extremists' camp.

With that in mind, going to court and winning a case would be the exact opposite of what the terrorists want because that would show that Muslims can work within the system. They prefer to have pissed off French people fire-bombing mosques.

This is true. The bigger the gap between West and East, the easier it is to recruit people to their cause. What ISIS and organizations like them are good at is selling a dream. If you are a young Muslim living in the West, and already feel ostracized, or misunderstood, going through a crisis of identity and questioning everything in life, at this point where you are vulnerable, here comes ISIS telling you we have the solution to all of your problems. Look at how the government is treating you in France, look at all of your brothers and sisters that they have killed. You have to join the cause and be part of the caliphate, that is the only way to move forward. Then they tell you stories about the golden times of Islam when Muslims ruled the world , had a caliphate and how everything was amazing. If you are vulnerable, it is very easy to fall for it, they make you want to be part of it , part of the "change" and they make you believe in the change, and in the establishment of the caliphate as the sole source of happiness for all Muslims in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is an application of France's LAWS and begs the question: why didn't the terrorists sue in the COURTS instead of taking matters into their own hands? Or at least do some form of LEGAL passive resistance, which is also perfectly LEGAL in France.

France has LAWS exactly for this purpose. I don't know why this difference is so hard to understand. Every country sets parameters around free expression, including obscenity, nudity and hate speech. These parameters are highly unlikely to address everybody's pet concerns, instead they're some sort of middle ground arrived at through the ballot. If you llive in France, you abide by its anti-semitism LAWS (Coulibali) and you address your own concerns through France's LEGAl SYSTEM instead of taking matters into your own hands and killing people. If you think there should be an anti-Islamophobia LAW, then lobby for it.

(Sorry for the caps, but I don't get why this distinction between LAWS vs. vigilante/mob justice is so hard to understand.)

The terrorists do not sue in the court of law, because they are not in the business of righting some political, legal, social, cultural wrong. Terrorism is a full-fledged business. Their economic (and political) agenda is to create disruption through terror and then to hide behind a cause as a lip service. This has made their leaders and puppet masters very rich. What purpose would it serve for the terrorists to actually solve ANY issues? Solving issues through legal or diplomatic means, means that they are out of business. They thrive on chaos.

If they wanted to actually help the cause of muslims they would have gone and rescued the muslim girls who are being raped and abducted by Boka Haram.

Exactly

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:'Oh, how terrible, a German Newspaper accidentially published an antisemitic cartoon instead of an antimuslim cartoon. The drawing is exactly the same, but in the first case they apologized. If we need any more proof of the double standards, here they are.'

http://www.haaretz.com/.premium-1.637128

You subscribe to an Israeli paper?

Nah, Bibi pays for it

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Jeff's point, freedom of speech includes the freedom to make yourself look like an idiot or hypocrite, without dying. And Jeff is free to point out thd hypocrisy. I don't really understand the point here, because it can't be that it's hopeless to have freedom of speech because some people are hypocrites.

The point is that hypocrisy backfires. When you invite a bunch of autocrats to parade in defense of freedom of expression, it sends the message that you don't really care about freedom of expression. When you are a lawyer who has made a career out of defending the publishing of offensive material, but object to the publishing of offensive material, it suggests that you really aren't committed to the freedom to publish offensive material. Instead of demonstrating a true commitment to freedom of expression, what is demonstrated is that the slogans are hollow.

What the Muslim world hears is that the principle being supported is not freedom of expression, but freedom to be offensive to Muslims. That perception is only reinforced by the arrest of Dieudonne.

You haven't shown him to be hypocritical though. You're confusing criticism of speech with infringement of that speech.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:'Oh, how terrible, a German Newspaper accidentially published an antisemitic cartoon instead of an antimuslim cartoon. The drawing is exactly the same, but in the first case they apologized. If we need any more proof of the double standards, here they are.'

http://www.haaretz.com/.premium-1.637128

You subscribe to an Israeli paper?

Nah, Bibi pays for it

Why are we talking about German newspapers? Not relevant. And really, once your government kills 6 million of a people, you might be a bit more sensitive about mocking them. It makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Muslima wrote:Great points! Terrorism is always used to send a message, not to solve an issue.

As I've said before, terrorism is often used -- as the communists used to say -- to "heighten the contradictions", meaning to create a backlash that will widen divisions between groups. The terrorists' greatest nightmare is for Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and members of other religions to stand in unity against the terrorists' methods. Their goal is to have non-Muslims attacking Muslims in retaliation and pushing more Muslims into the extremists' camp.

With that in mind, going to court and winning a case would be the exact opposite of what the terrorists want because that would show that Muslims can work within the system. They prefer to have pissed off French people fire-bombing mosques.

This is true. The bigger the gap between West and East, the easier it is to recruit people to their cause. What ISIS and organizations like them are good at is selling a dream. If you are a young Muslim living in the West, and already feel ostracized, or misunderstood, going through a crisis of identity and questioning everything in life, at this point where you are vulnerable, here comes ISIS telling you we have the solution to all of your problems. Look at how the government is treating you in France, look at all of your brothers and sisters that they have killed. You have to join the cause and be part of the caliphate, that is the only way to move forward. Then they tell you stories about the golden times of Islam when Muslims ruled the world , had a caliphate and how everything was amazing. If you are vulnerable, it is very easy to fall for it, they make you want to be part of it , part of the "change" and they make you believe in the change, and in the establishment of the caliphate as the sole source of happiness for all Muslims in the world.

Sure. But maybe in addition to trying to educate us about them, you should try to teach them that all they will get from acting like murderous thugs is that they will be treated like murderous thugs.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:'Oh, how terrible, a German Newspaper accidentially published an antisemitic cartoon instead of an antimuslim cartoon. The drawing is exactly the same, but in the first case they apologized. If we need any more proof of the double standards, here they are.'

http://www.haaretz.com/.premium-1.637128

You subscribe to an Israeli paper?

Nah, Bibi pays for it

Why are we talking about German newspapers? Not relevant. And really, once your government kills 6 million of a people, you might be a bit more sensitive about mocking them. It makes sense.

We are talking about the so called freedom of speech and the fact that Jews, Muslims and Christians are all constantly being mocked. Well. here's a paper that published a cartoon thinking it was directed at Muslims and when they realized it was actually directed at Jews apologized, and you don't see the double standard?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
He's not saying they shouldn't have the right to publish those comments. He's saying they should have chosen not to. There's no free speech implication there. People object to what magazines publish all the time. Unless there's an actual prevention of it or violence for it, this is just disagreement with that choice. That's what free speech is supposed to be.

You are tying yourself in knots. Again, he is not saying that he disagrees with what is said but defends the right to say it. He is saying that he disagrees with what was said and that it shouldn't have been said. Whether it shouldn't have been said due to law or choice doesn't really make a difference. Do you think that he would have accepted the suggestion that Charlie Hebdo should have chosen not to publish the anti-Muslim cartoons? Haven't we been told over and over again that a right that is not exercised is lost and that is why it was so important to publish offensive cartoons?

In simple terms, the lawyer defended publishing offensive material when Charlie Hebdo was publishing it, but criticized the publishing of material that offended him. The fact that he has the freedom to express his criticism doesn't relieve him of being a hypocrite. Neither does the fact that he chose to use words rather than guns to present his criticism relieve him of being a hypocrite.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Why are we talking about German newspapers? Not relevant. And really, once your government kills 6 million of a people, you might be a bit more sensitive about mocking them. It makes sense.

Another demonstration of the selective applicability of freedom of expression. It's like a corrupted Animal Farm: All people can be equally offended but some people can be more equally offended.

[Anonymous]

I don't blame the victim exactly. But the moral, political, and ethical evaluation of speech is much different from legal evaluation. In my moral & ethical evaluation, Charlie Hebdo's inflammatory and yes, racist, work did little to bring justice to the world, and probably just added flames to the fire by provoking a response and a counter-response. The only end this free expression seemed to produce is towards greater tensions and possibly greater animus towards the Muslim world and Muslim minority in Europe.

Additionally, the editor, as the leader, DOES bear moral responsibility for the fate of his staff.

So yes, as Voltaire did not say, I despise what Charlie Hebdo did but would defend its right to say it ... in court, if not to my personal death!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:I don't think anyone stated that they deserved to be killed, but to make this an entire debate over freedom of speech is ridiculous when stated freedom of speech is not universal nor absolute

Let me refer you to a little passage young lady;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We in this country believe Freedom of Speech is universal and absolute. And when I say ‘We’ I’m quite certain that includes occupants of the

Oh, go crawl back under your rock. The grownups are having a discussion here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Great points! Terrorism is always used to send a message, not to solve an issue.

Okay, Muslima. What was the message with the kosher deli?

To create terror. Are you really that dense?