We have long discussed the serious rollback on free speech in the West as countries like France and England profess support for free speech and the free press while prosecuting or investigating people for anti-religious speech. That conflicted message was evident today after French magazine Charlie Hebdo ran cartoons featuring Mohammad in its coverage over the deadly protests following the release of an anti-Muslim film in the United States. Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the French Council of Muslim Faith, described the cartoons as a “new Islamophobic act” while French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius (left) warned “[t]here must be freedom of speech, but I am absolutely opposed to any provocation.”
The reference to “provocation” is a loaded term in France which routinely prosecutes people for insulting or criticizing religion. Newspapers and magazines in France have long used cartoons to satirize leaders and taboo subjects. In covering the protests this month, Mohammad is the natural figures for such commentary by cartoonists. Why should cartoonists avoid Mohammad as a character while satirizing every other religious leader. You cannot have free speech with the caveat that it is free so long as it is not provocative.
Notably, this same magazine’s office was burned after the publication of a cover that made fun of Islamic law. The cover showed a bearded and turbaned cartoon figure of the Prophet Mohammed saying, “100 lashes if you’re not dying of laughter.”
Fabius went out of his way to be free speech is not really free and unlimited in France: “This freedom is expressed within the confines of the law and under the control of the courts . . .”
He stressed “I am against all provocations, especially during a period as sensitive as this one. I do not see any usefulness in such provocation . . . There must be freedom of speech, but I am absolutely opposed to any provocation.” So that standard is you can speak unless what you say is going to provoke a group or individuals? We do not need free speech to protect popular or noncontroversial thoughts. The problem is not the speech but the response to the speech. How about saying “there must be freedom of speech, but I am absolutely opposed to any retaliation”? Or better yet, “there must be freedom of speech.” Period.
Source: CNN
James in LA,
Agree on Blazing Saddles. Where did films made for adults, non-porno branch, disappear to. Yeah for that.
But boo for:
“I happen to feel until a cable channel devoted to the film with directors notes comes to pass we will not have a civilized society.”
In my very limited experience, director’s cuts are terrible. My two examples: Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now show a gain in context but a loss of drama and most particularly tempo and focus.
Who was exercising their ego, guess it was the director, thereof the name. Should have been cut in the manuscript stage. Killing your darlings is necessary.
Your views are eagerly awaited.
Without provacation … sounds like pabulum …
Blouise,
“There goes all their lovely Libyan oil….”
BULLSEYE.
The insult you will have to supply yourself.
🙂
I’m working on a video game project..Mohammed v Jesus/The Armegeddon. Available in stores for Christmas.
minute bol and all others,
Here comes Munute, as usual, in his bringing of important information and lot’s of sense, IMHO.
Welcome back.
Perhaps you could sometimes address the subject of his
child “bride” Aisha.
I have given my version but that has no real anchoring except in the fact of the strict regulation that in pre-muslim times were a characteristic of tribal government. Relationships in terms of responsability for related orphans is one example. Such is the case of Aisha, I believe.
BTW, the OT exhibits, in its totalitarian approach to regulating one’s life and behavior to strict codes, the same tribalism. Reason for this expression of tribalism: Solution to inevitable conflicts by forced conformance with lethal consequences
In DC there is a stand-up comedy brainstorming group that meets once a week. The moderator stands up at the beginning and announces:
“What strikes one as funny may offend another. So if you hear something that offends you, F*CK YOU!”
@Bron
why do the french always and with abandon, capitulate to tyranny?
—
I guess the same reasons the Americans do.
TonyC,
My complaint had effect. The “original” blog had the “one hundred lashes with an anonymous muslim figure” as replicated by a copy. That has now been
taken away and replaced by a link. the REVISED text is now coherent with what is now displayed. No discrepancy. I am satisfied.
Since I did not take a copy of the page, and can not give you a link to the copy, then you are faced with believing me or not. Choice is yours.
I trust the rest was just you using me for a launchpad. I do this often myself and don’t object at all. As to that rest, that is another matter.
Sadly, I think we must acknowledge that this “Islamic Sensitivity” and the overreactions that it causes have gone too far. Yet as a commenter on a previous thread stated (I’m sorry I can’t remember who), we must look at these reactions in the context of the country’s in which these protesters live. These are overwhelmingly country’s where the concept of “free speech” is unthinkable, much less the questioning of religious dogma. This is also a religion, similar to many others, where the question of succession to the Caliphate 1,200 years ago has caused bloody mayhem and hate, between people with essentially the same beliefs.
From the perspective of anyone who cherishes freedom, the sensitivity of religious adherents cannot be allowed to trump freedom of speech. I say this as a Jew, who is only too aware of the venom spewed against those of my heritage. Nevertheless, the “long view” must be taken and the limits on disparaging and/or “hate speech” must be very liberal (old definition), or oppression will surely follow. don’t we have a large faction within our own country who claim there is a “War on Christianity” because at Christmas Time people are saying “Happy Holidays”?
I move all newspapers run Mohamed cartoons every day, but only in the cartoon section, as he does not rate much else. Even the most brain-dead mullah would end up with arthritis signing all the fatwahs. Eventually no one would care.
Same with the words used in film “Blazing Saddles,” a movie that could not be made today, nor seen in its entirety. I happen to feel until a cable channel devoted to the film with directors notes comes to pass we will not have a civilized society.
The mental state known as “being offended” is at all times a choice.
Spoken very enlightenly by, I presume, a non-muslim and non-black. It’s so interesting that those who always yell get over it, are the ones never subject to that which they blame others for reacting to. Mistreatment of chinese, irish, jewish? get over it. Women and blacks don’t have right to vote? Get over it, stop being offended.
I bet, james in LA, that there is something you will be offended by, and when that happens you will react in the same “being offended” and idiotic manner as the next guy. That’s called being human.
You have, obviously and as shown by your reply, chosen to be victim of that same mental state known as “being offended”, as you are here attacking a man, the prophet of islam, you know absolutely nothing about. What do Napoleon, Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw, Lamartine…have in common? They all ranked prophet Muhamad as, if not the greatest, one of the greatest people to ever live. Do a quick online search and you’ll see my point.
Additionally, we are railing here against the French government trying to curb publication of the cartoons but ok with the French courts stopping another french magazine from publishing topless photos of Kate Middleton!
At least let us be consistent.
Once again, some perspective people. This is the same country, France, where denying the holocaust or making fun of Judaism would lead one to be fined and possibly jailed. Ask Dieudionne!
This is also the country where people (as in Muslim women) cannot cover their faces, yet that claims to be a land of freedoms, including of speech. Isn’t doing something unwarranted, non-beneficial to anyone for the express purpose to rile up a group of people considered provocation?
Certainly, I do not agree with the protests and the violence, as most moderate muslims would tell you that they do to the prophet and his message more harm that good. His message was always that forgiveness is better than retaliation, and this while he and his early followers were being persecuted by his early enemies, the pagans Arabs.
France uses nukes for the majority of its power. Around 75%. They could build a few more and be totally nuke-electric. But no, the new guy wants to cut back.
This chart shows power producing by product. Fossil fuels, nukes and hydro-electric are the go to for the next 25 years. Wind and solar are only projected to be about 10% or less.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7411/fig_tab/nature11475_F5.html
There goes all their lovely Libyan oil which, as far as I’m concerned, is the only thing these tread softly governments are really worried about.
What’s next for these yellow journalists? Topless photos of Islamic saint, Hasan Al-Basri?
Vive la French!
May you have a 100 lashes of spelt….. Then boil them and eat with a wonderful sauce…….
Maybe they should have run a Picture of Mohammad’s 8 year old, first wife…. along with the Prophet…. If they disrespected my wife, like that, I’d be suitably upset, too ‘-)
@Idealist: I see the cover of the magazine with no problem; I am not sure what you are talking about.
I agree with Turley. The mistake I think is made is pretending that hurt feelings or anger or other emotions are actual harm to somebody, when they are not.
We cannot be certain if somebody is telling the truth about their feelings, or lying about their feelings in order to manipulate us. If provocation is outlawed, then it won’t take long before violence rules our speech: Act up out of faux outrage, and the criticism of you is stopped by law.
Muslims are trying to protect their religion from criticism and ridicule, and the French Foreign Minister is letting them do that out of simple fear, he is surrendering his own country to a threat of violence.
When people resort to physical violence and threats to suppress our rights, their violence should be returned with force by the government; they should be arrested, tried and imprisoned. Even a threat without action is considered assault.
why do the french always and with abandon, capitulate to tyranny?
Freedom of speech in all its variants. A la Bastille!
Seems like they don’t have an NDAA there. Only a minister who reminds them that speech in under the control of the law and the courts. Even more vague than NDAA, but from Charlie Hebdo actions to judge, much less feared.
Shall we laugh at the French? I think not.
Our recent victory over NDAA has an imminent appeal to be judged on its merits It has also to the same instance an appeal to removal the permanent injunction by the lower instance until this other appeal can be reviewed. Sorry I lack the language but you know what
i mean. ????
Can’t some American mag do a insulting cartoon on its cover, just to get the message across to the muslims.
Message: Live with it, join us in the 21st century.
On another cover: the cartoon of Christ on the cross, with GOP financiers (portrait like of the Koch bros) piling GOP money at his feet. Text: “Offerings to your followers”
On another cover: One journalist (or citizen) to another one. “How is the DoJ interpreting the NDAA and freedom of speech today?” Anchor it with some muslim riots in the background, etc.
Why do editorial mistakes in the blog (brain crash?) distract from the issue at hand?
“Notably, this same magazine’s office was burned after the publication of a cover that made fun of Islamic law. The cover showed a bearded and turbaned cartoon figure of the Prophet Mohammed saying, “100 lashes if you’re not dying of laughter.” The cover (right) did not even show Mohammad.”
There was no cover (right)—-only the “100 lashes”-cartoon with the Prophet.
Is this a subtle way of forcing a trek to to Charlie Hedbo. Would not a link to there be more helpful.
Small point. Much talk.