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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]^^ and check the two side-to-side cartoons posted in the other thread -- one for the Jews, one for the  Muslims.  The "Jewish" cartoon was titled "Shoa Hebdo"  -- Holocaust Hebdo -- displaying your typical Jew stereotype.  That can be rightly considered extremely offensive, as it was using the Hebrew word for "Holocaust" in a mocking way. The "Muslim" cartoon was called " Charia Hebdo"  -- Sharia Hebdo.

Both were offensive.  Both were deemed legal, as they didn't purposely incite hatred against a group.  [/quote]

I am actually the one who posted the "Shoa Hebdo" cartoon. When I posted it, I wasn't aware of French laws regarding the Holocaust. Once I learned, I was surprised that cartoon was not found in violation.

The example of the French journalist is interesting. Though one wonders if simply backtracking would have been enough to avoid arrest by a Muslim in similar circumstances.

As was mentioned in the CBS article to which I linked, hate speech laws are a minefield because so much is subjective and uneven application is seen as unfairness. There are plenty of folks eager to exploit any resentment caused by perceived unfairness. 
[/quote]

Yes, of course there is unevenness in hate laws. This is no surprise. There are many reasons for this. One reason is that peoples' limits vary, and one person's hate speech is another person's sophomoric cartoon, while meanwhile *everybody* can get on board with the idea that the Holocaust was a very bad thing. A second reason is historical: there has always been a somewhat substantial Jewish minority in France, and France recognized its role in persecuting Jews in WWII, so it passed these laws. While there have always been North Africans in France, especially in places like Marseilles, the Muslim population has grown very rapidly since I lived there in the early 1980s, and laws may not have caught up. So history is a factor.

You yourself have different standards, and you're in a position to do something, at least on DCUM. (You mentioned the "report" button once. I tried that a few times, but saw zero response. On another thread a troll was derailing a non-Islam religious discussion, and you did nothing and even removed jpegs mocking the poor troll. Yet you intervene on Islam discussions all the time.)

Anyway, who here has said they don't "understand" the terrorist's grievances?  That's a red herring. Even the occasional right wingnut who says they should go home if they don't like free speech laws isn't questioning the basic fact that they were offended. Everybody, absolutely everybody, feels victimized about  something. FWIW, in France, you're free to abuse Hindus, Christians and Buddhists just as much or more as you can abuse Muslims.  I can "understand" why gays want marriage rights even if it's not a personal issue for me. The "understanding" thing is a red herring, and a lazy red herring, that takes us away from the main issue about the whys and wherefores of vigilante justice vs. working within the system to change laws you don't like.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics