5 ms·

In 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 mode

by cm2187 7y ago

In 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 ago
If publishing a cartoon causes your death I think the mockery may well have been legitimate.
- devoply 7y ago
  Well 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 ago
  Was 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 ago
    I 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 ago
We 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 ago
  As 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 ago
    Why 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 ago
    He 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 ago
To 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 ago
  And 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 ago
Years 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.

by cm2187 7y ago

In 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 ago

If publishing a cartoon causes your death I think the mockery may well have been legitimate.

devoply 7y ago
Well 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 ago
Was 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 ago
  I 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 ago

We 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 ago
As 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
  He 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 ago

To 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 ago
And 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 ago

Years 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.