Anonymous wrote:In the US, the theater owner would probably have invoked some clause, and no judge would have forced them to allow him to perform.

Yes, I think you are correct that in the US unless there were iron-clad contractual terms, a judge would not have forced a theater to allow him to perform.

About Dieudonne performing in Strasbourg tonight: it turns out that the management of the theater wanted to cancel his show after his recent declarations identifying himself with a terrorist, but a judge sided with Dieudonne and forced the theater to allow him to perform.

In the US, the theater owner would probably have invoked some clause, and no judge would have forced them to allow him to perform.

Anonymous wrote:Why are you referencing the past? Slavery? Indians? It's 2015. And comparatively speaking, America is a shining beacon of freedom...today (except for gay rights, but we will fix that issue soon).

Here's the real deal: Muslim extremists want to drag the world back to the Middle Ages, complete with beheadings. They are evil, violent and crazy right this very minute. By comparison, America is an enlightened Utopia.

So here and now (as the great Luther Vandross sang) in 2015 we have a world where civilized countries are having to deal with completely uncivilized countries that don't accept reasonable, commonsense societal norms. And that's beyond frustrating.

Your perspective is very one-sided. From the viewpoint of of others, America is a country that supports dictators, supports coups against elected governments, detains and tortures people without charge, eavesdrops on communications, sends flying robots across the globe to kill civilians with impunity, enforces harsh trade conditions, launches invasion after invasion, and generally makes life miserable for others. One of the leaders of the back to the Middle ages complete with beheadings gang is our close and dear ally Saudi Arabia. The reality is that if IS were not anti-Western, but confined its activities to attacking Shia Muslims and communists, the US would probably supply them with arms (which it does now, if unintentionally). How much difference is there really between IS and Saudi Arabia? If you are up to it, watch this video of a woman being publicly beheaded on a street in Mecca by Saudi Authorities:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b89_1421360015

(warning, extremely graphic)

That's a government with which we have close political and economic ties and to whom we supply weapons.

America is only an enlightened utopia when the reality -- much like you would have the past -- is massively airbrushed.

Why are you referencing the past? Slavery? Indians? It's 2015. And comparatively speaking, America is a shining beacon of freedom...today (except for gay rights, but we will fix that issue soon).

Here's the real deal: Muslim extremists want to drag the world back to the Middle Ages, complete with beheadings. They are evil, violent and crazy right this very minute. By comparison, America is an enlightened Utopia.

So here and now (as the great Luther Vandross sang) in 2015 we have a world where civilized countries are having to deal with completely uncivilized countries that don't accept reasonable, commonsense societal norms. And that's beyond frustrating.

Conservative Christians defeated slavery. That's a hoot.

Look, you may be able to get way with this kind of bullshit among your group of illiterate hillbilly friends, but not here. Yes, I am insulting you and you deserve it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 Left and the Right. If you disagree perhaps the USA is not the place for you??

+1

You two xenophobes, when these words were written, we had slaves, only people with property could vote, and women couldn't vote and only single women could hold property. And let's not forget the Indians. We essentially annihilated them. So were not exactly a shining beacon of "freedom."

Oh Lordy, lady grow up... slavery was a fact of life world wide in 1776, you realize the slaves were bought from Black african slaveowners and Muslim slave traders? You do know this don't you?? Fortunately conservative Christians fought for 75 years to end the practice and finally won. Hundreds of thousands of constitution loving Americans died to make it so.

I'm sorry about the Indians too, if you are so bitter though why don't you give your house and land over to the nearest tribe?? As for Women, where were they voting circa 1776?? You think they were better treated in other lands?? The constitution you so hate by the way...seems to enshrine a women's right to vote.
n

( one clarification: saying "Muslims bring shit to France", or "Jews bring shit to France" doesn't get one arrested, but fined.)

The cartoon wasn't found in violation because, while of very poor taste and likely to offend, it didn't incite hatred or advocated violence against any particular group -- and it didn't negate the Holocaust. (Again, one can argue about Holocaust denial laws, but that's not the point -- and the French either are planning to implement or have already implemented a similar law regarding the denial of the Armenian genocide, so it is not just about "favoring the Jews").

On the other hand when you suggest that a Jewish journalist should be sent to a gas chamber, among many other examples, it is a different thing, according to French law (and common sense).

Anonymous wrote:^^ 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.

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.

^^finally, we can argue whether French laws against terrorism apology of hate speech are appropriate. What I question is the suggestion of a double standard. If CH had published a cartoon portraying a crusader saying "let's finish the job!" (Like saying, let's kill Muslims), it would have been immediately banned. There is absolutely no question about it. If the had been a massacre of Muslims and someone had said "I feel like I am [insert the name of the Muslim killer here]" he would have been also detained and fined.

^^ 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.

^^Jeff, a French journalist, Philippe Tesson, said yesterday that "Muslims are bringing shit to France." There was an immediate uproar, and he was going to face charges for hate speech. He quickly backtracked. That's a counter example to the double standard you are alluding to.

Keep in mind that CH was sued by both Jewish and Muslim organizations. Both Jewish and Muslim organization lost -- i.e. It was deemed legal for CH to mock both of them. Again, no double standard in that case.

Anonymous wrote:
... I don't think most decent Muslims will identify with that speech, and thus I question why his temporary detention will reinforce a perception of hostility against Muslims.

It's not a matter of identifying with that particular speech. Most Muslims will never know the specifics of what he said. It is simply an issue of what appears to be different standards. Offending Muslims is free speech. Offending other groups is illegal. This inconsistency is noticed by more than just Muslims. See this article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/french-arrests-draw-charges-of-free-speech-hypocrisy/

"What I would say is on occasion those laws are unevenly applied," said Karin Deutsch Karlekar, who specializes in freedom of the press at Freedom House, a nonprofit that promotes freedom, democracy and human rights. "And certain people are charged, or arrested or prosecuted under the laws and others are not."
...

"When you have these laws on the books that are difficult to get your hands around, these are the problems you're going to get," said Roy Gutterman, the director of the Newhouse School's Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University.

"Are you going to prosecute one, and then let somebody else go? Which racial or religious epithet is worthy of prosecution and which are worthy of letting slide? It's a real slippery slope, even if the stuff is hateful and offensive."
...

"It is quite cynical that the reaction of the French authorities is to undermine the very free speech values that Charlie Hebdo stands up for, that is satirical, irreverent and sometimes deeply offensive humor," said Thomas Hughes, the executive director of Article 19, a London-based free speech advocacy group, in an email to CBS News.

"Of course, incitement to terrorism should be criminalized but French law goes beyond that and effectively criminalizes opinions justifying terrorist acts without any likelihood or intent of such acts actually occurring. That violates international law."

" That perception is only reinforced by the arrest of Dieudonne."

I don't follow why, after a major terrorist attack, bringing someone to custody for a few hours, as permitted by law, after he says he identifies with the perpetrator of the recent massacre of four Jews, in clear violation of French laws regarding terrorism apology, reinforces a perception of hostility against Muslims. To be clear, I dont necessarily agree with such a temporary detention, even if it's within the current law. The point is that I don't see why that reinforces what you mentioned. He is NOT considered a "Muslim comedian."

FYI, Dieudonne has authorization to perform in Metz today and in Strasbourg tomorrow -- the government didn't ban those performances -- and as far as I know he did perform tonight and will be performing tomorrow. He will be free the spew his anti-Semitic vitriol unhindered. Those kids will be doing his inverted Nazi salute along with him.

That said, given that we are talking about someone who...

- suggested that a Jewish French journalist should be sent to the gas chambers.
- said that he is neutral regarding the "conflict" between Jews and Nazis, and he is unsure who provoked whom.
- said that Holocaust commemorations are "memorial pornography."
- said the Iranian revolution is an example for humanity, since freedom and thinking have been curtailed in the West by the Zionists.
- Did Nazi salutes, yelling, "Isra-Heil !"
- Suggested that the massacre of 77 kids in Norway was a "Jewish - Masonic" act
- Mocks the Holocaust having an assistant dance with a yellow Star of David on stage.
- Complains why the deaths of Gaddafi and Saddam are acceptable, but the decapitation of James Foley by ISIS is not, and blames the "double standard" on "the Rotchschild mafia". (Rotchschild is a well know family of Jewish bankers).
- Mocks the decapitation of Foley (calling him Feu Foley), calling his decapitation by ISIS "progress", and making fun of Foley's parents telling them to "relax!"
- And has recently aligned himself with right wing extremists, who are both ati-Semites *and* Islamophobes.

... I don't think most decent Muslims will identify with that speech, and thus I question why his temporary detention will reinforce a perception of hostility against Muslims.

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?

I thought the message was that Jews are the target because they are Jewish.