8 ms·
> Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East Was this an univer
by praneshp 7y ago
> Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East
Was this an universal viewpoint in the West? As a non-Muslim teen in India I saw it as mocking Islam (I get that others' mileage varies).
- cm2187 7y agoIn the case of Charlie Hebdo the intention was clearly to mock Islam indeed. But I am mystified that we are questioning in 2019 the right to blasphemy in a modern, western, free, secular society.
- Bakary 7y agoIf publishing a cartoon causes your death I think the mockery may well have been legitimate.
- devoply 7y agoWell the point is to protect founding myths because at the time of the invention of said myths they were very weak. And yeah if your myths can't survive criticism, maybe your myths are not worth believing in.
- rchaud 7y agoWas there some Vatican-equivalent Islamic body that commissioned a hit on the CH offices? No, it was a terrorist cell that wanted to attain both easy publicity and make life worse for European Muslims. "Legitimate" mockery would have exposed the absurdity of terrorist groups recruiting petty criminals and elevating them to a noble "jihadi" status because, well, nobody else had as little to lose. But that wouldn't get any media coverage, nor would it get props for "upholding free speech", in a country that outlaws Holocaust denial.
- Bakary 7y agoI can personally attest that making fun of terrorists specifically in the manner you describe is a common topic in the French cartoon world, and especially common in CH. So it indeed wouldn't get any sort of media coverage because it's not a novel event in any way. I don't deny that there was a lot of hypocrisy and fair weather friends surrounding CH after they were targeted, but the point about the Holocaust laws misses the mark. It's not illegal in France to make crass jokes about the Holocaust, as CH makes them in droves. In fact, they make crass jokes about almost anything related to France in some way and their first love always was the opposition to the traditional gaullist catholic establishment. You can be as crass as you want and won't get in trouble for it as long as you don't incite violence directly. The problem highlighted by CH is that there currently is only one ideology that gives artists, filmmakers, cartoonists, etc. pause in the West when drawing up jokes or material, and that is Islam. There are few other topics in the West where there is a chance that criticism or commentary on your part will cause you great personal adversity or harm. In fact, I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'd be happy to hear some examples.
- vlozc 7y agoWe don't have that. October 2018: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... >On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld her 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold that Muhammad’s third wife, Aisha, was 6 at the time of their marriage and 9 at its consummation. Muhammad was in his early 50s. The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in the slammer. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights. Muhammad fucked a 9 year old according to the Quran, which makes him a child molester under any kind of reasonable understanding--pointing that out means you get fined. Now, granted, Europe does not have freedom of speech, but this shows the way the things are moving.
- satellitec4t 7y agoAs a counter example.. Ireland is in the process of removing their laws against blasphemy (there was a referendum late last year. the country is now going through the process of carrying out the removal).
- antientropic 7y ago> Europe does not have freedom of speech What an absurd statement.
- threezero 7y agoWhy is that an absurd statement? If you can’t say something bad about a religion or religious group, you don’t have free speech. And there are multiple countries in Europe that have laws against criticizing certain groups.
- okmokmz 7y agoHe provided evidence demonstrating his point. If you can be convicted for stating that Muhammad was a child molester/rapist, then you do not have freedom of speech.
- praneshp 7y agoTo clarify, I'm not questioning the right to blasphemy. I just wanted to see how it was perceived in the West. Although, having lived in the West for the better part of a decade, I don't see what progress we have made as society that you are so confident that right to blasphemy is no big deal. I am not saying we live in medieval England, but speech with zero consequence is not a thing yet.
- programmarchy 7y agoAnd who decides what is blasphemy? Furthermore, what progress have non-Western societies made to be confident in the right to determine what is blasphemous, and then to murder so-called blasphemers?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Gibbon1 7y agoYears ago I thought of a poke at anti-evolution types. If you religion falls apart because it turns out men evolved from monkeys then your religion is pretty flimsy. Probably can say the same about blasphemy.
- 781 7y agoMocking is still legal in the West. But not for long. Mocking anything but white men/Christianity creates huge uproar today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/09/10/an-australian-artists-racist-serena-williams-cartoon-receives-swift-and-international-blowback/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/09/1...
- trehalose 7y agoMocking white men/Christianity doesn't create huge uproar? Hasn't there been a huge uproar about a "War on Christmas" for years where people get mad when baristas say "happy holidays"? Hard to believe that something so innocuous could generate Christian outrage but mocking Christianity couldn't.
- humanrebar 7y ago"Happy Holidays!" maps to "But All Lives Matter!" Being generic and being inclusive aren't the same thing. And, besides, most of the anger was at public and private policymakers, not nice people wishing each other well.
- jmbi 7y agoSee the thousands of conversations on Twitter that end in "it's not possible to be racist against white people."
- dragonwriter 7y agoI've never seen a conversation where that was mentioned where it didn't involve a huge uproar specifically about that claim, so i think it does the opposite of proving your claim. Sure, that idea exists, but it (and the parallel positions on gender, religious, etc., lines) is (and are) controversial even among far left social justice advocates, rather than being some uniformly accepted position within society.
- Chris2048 7y agoYeah, they get mad. But how many lawsuits are there? How many incidents of violence?
- unethical_ban 7y agoIt does both. It is not acceptable in the West to call for someone's death over a cartoon. So more than mocking Islam per se, it is meant to say "We are allowed to do this here".
- sonnyblarney 7y ago" As a non-Muslim teen in India I saw it as mocking Islam (I get that others' mileage varies)" Yes, it kind of was. But should people be able to 'mock' a religion? Should they face death threats becauase they 'mocked' something? This is the whole point. I have a slight inclination towards a specific religion and I can assure you it's 'mocked all day' and I don't care, as long as it's not done in a vile way. And even when it is, I'm not calling for suppression.
- marcosdumay 7y agoIt was mocking that rule prohibiting images of their god. Mocking a stupid rule is not the same as mocking an entire religion.
- umvi 7y agoMohammed is not their God. The picture ban is supposed to prevent Muslims from the temptation of worshipping Mohammed (a man) instead of God.
- seventhtiger 7y agoThe rule is forbidding idolatry which is one of the defining differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
- derivagral 7y agoI'm not sure what you mean here; do you mean Catholicism and Protestantism don't also forbid idolatry?
- seventhtiger 7y agoProtestantism shares a lot of its theology with Islam. It makes sense, because it is a reformation movement to restore Christianity to its Abrahamic roots. It includes things like abolishing the concepts of popes, priests, saints, or any holy individual. It also includes forbidding idolatry. Images and sculptures and works of art should not be prayed to or venerated. So the rule that you cannot depict Mohammed, God, or any other prophets is not to prevent disrespect. It's to prevent worship of images.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y agoI saw it as right-wing, quasi-fascist xenophobes making a big show of standing up for freedom of speech by mocking a religious minority that they want to kick out of Europe. They have a right to publish those cartoons. I view them the same way as I'd view an anti-Semite who published cartoons with stereotypical, negative portrayals of Jews, while advocating for kicking Jews out of Europe. I'd hold my nose and believe in their right to free speech, but I wouldn't lionize them.
- belorn 7y agoMocking implies that the purpose was to make Muslim people feel bad, and I don't think that is the case. I see it in the context of works like The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan (1995), The Meaning of Life (1983) by Monthy Python, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (2006), and South park episode Trapped in the Closet (2006). The point is to illustrate and highlight the superstitious believes of religion in the context of existing culture that gives it enormous power and influence. Among those four, two use comedy as the medium. Three of them has been banned in various countries. The only exception is the south park episode and I suspect the only reason is because scientology is not the majority religion in any country or state.
- okmokmz 7y agoYes, I know many people who believed that it was some semblance of "a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East"