Paris

[Heda SPURSCZ]

http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/01/08/muslims-dont-like-free-speech-can-****-off-rotterdam-mayor/

Rotterdam Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb appeared on television programme Nieuwsuur Wednesday night, and lashed out at Muslims living in this society despite their hatred of it. “It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,” he said. “But if you do not like freedom, in Heaven’s name pack your bag and leave.”

“There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself,” he continued. “Be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists,” Aboutaleb, a Muslim himself, said.

“And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can **** off.”

“This is stupid, this so incomprehensible,” he also said. “Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.”

Mayor Aboutaleb also expressed remorse at how Muslims will now be looked at in the Netherlands. “All those well-meaning Muslims here will now be stared at.”

 

[scaramanga]

Godtards do it all the time. Life of Brian? There was some piece of art with Jesus in a jar of **** that got them all bothered.

Christians & Catholics do tend to cop the most and possibly react the least but they still react.

They're all Godtards to me......

Films are somewhat different because we, as a democracy, have voted in successive governments that have created and continued a self-censoring film board. That board then decides what should and shouldn't be in the films released in this country.

For me, their levels of censorship are to stringent but I think they do a reasonable job of keeping most of the country happy.

If we had a similar system for the printed press I suspect they'd take a view on some of the cartoons and ask if there was a point to be made. I'm pretty sure that (just like with film) they wouldn't censor something entirely simply because a few people with some archaic beliefs find it insulting to their imaginary friend.

 

[Superted]

I'm no expert but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a similar process in place for printed press. One that for example makes sure the cartoonist doesn't draw a pic of Prince Andrew with a minor or a headline saying John Terry for Pope.

 

[scaramanga]

Actually aren't you defeating your own argument about free speech when you say "godtards don't have the right ..." Doesn't "free speech" give them that right?

By the way, you're a pretty intelligent and rational bloke. You don't actually believe free speech exists, right?

My bad - I phrased it poorly.

They have the right to say whatever the hell they like, they don't have the right to stop me.

I think that it does exist. I also think it's entirely possibly to have a nuanced version of free speech where you can have the right to say what you want, yet break other laws (such as incitement to racial hatred) in what you say. That doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have free speech, it just means that you've broken other laws.

If I stood in front of a TV camera and told the world your password (I have neither the time nor the inclination to run your salted hash through rainbow tables) or the code to your burglar alarm and what times you left the house and you were subsequently robbed, I'd probably face a charge or two. That doesn't mean that free speech doesn't exist, it just means that I've used that free speech to commit another crime.

 

[scaramanga]

I'm no expert but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a similar process in place for printed press. One that for example makes sure the cartoonist doesn't draw a pic of Prince Andrew with a minor or a headline saying John Terry for Pope.

I don't know - I think there's a lot of self-censorship in there as most newspapers are very consumer-aware and unlikely to want to upset their regulars.

 

[Superted]

That's a cop out Scara. We're talking about free speech as in speech that is free, not "Free Speech" however you want to define it.

We don't have the freedom to say what we want. Period.

The fact we've got this carve out means we have conceded some aspects of our freedom of speech to allow for things like racism, hate-enducement, personal safety, etc. I would suggest depicting Mohammed falls within this boundary. So what if we don't get it, much like I don't get why Indians wear turbans. It's not for me to get, but I should none the less respect it.

As a society we gain nothing from this "satire". What's the ****ing point? Why can't we all just let each other be?

 

[glorygloryeze]

Some interesting points Superted.

The line of free speech is interesting indeed.

Out of further interest, does anybody know if Charlie Hebdo draw more pictures depicting/insulting Mohammed/Islam compared to pictures drawn that are similarly insulting to Christianity and Judaism?

It would also be interesting if they drew a picture of a Catholic Bishop (or even the Pope himself) having his way with a toddler and see what the fallout would be (and whether they would continue toi draw such pictures...)

 

[diego_maradona]

Some interesting points Superted.

The line of free speech is interesting indeed.

Out of further interest, does anybody know if Charlie Hebdo draw more pictures depicting/insulting Mohammed/Islam compared to pictures drawn that are similarly insulting to Christianity and Judaism?

It would also be interesting if they drew a picture of a Catholic Bishop (or even the Pope himself) having his way with a toddler and see what the fallout would be (and whether they would continue toi draw such pictures...)

That would be very interesting.

 

[scaramanga]

That's a cop out Scara. We're talking about free speech as in speech that is free, not "Free Speech" however you want to define it.

We don't have the freedom to say what we want. Period.

The fact we've got this carve out means we have conceded some aspects of our freedom of speech to allow for things like racism, hate-enducement, personal safety, etc. I would suggest depicting Mohammed falls within this boundary. So what if we don't get it, much like I don't get why Indians wear turbans. It's not for me to get, but I should none the less respect it.

I think it's intentionally set up that way so that the right to free speech isn't ever altered but other laws are there to protect us. It's far more obvious that way when something does become banned - an entire new law is required to ban it, with all the existing brakes and restrictions on doing so.

You may believe that insulting religion needs its own law to make it illegal - I'd suggest that the majority of "westerners" disagree with you or else it would already be in place.

As a society we gain nothing from this "satire". What's the ****ing point?

It's a mild chuckle from time to time.

Mostly though, it's a way of keeping those with power in check. Not sure what it's like in your part of the world, but unfortunately in the UK (and more so, the US) the sandal-wearers have a very loud lobbying voice. In the same way as satirists keep the government of the day in check, they also keep those who hold sway over that government in check too. In many parts of the world, those religious voices are so strong that they run their own countries - those are the people that really need their own voice - hopefully an echo of ours can reach them and a few of the next generation can grow up understanding the absurdity of religion.

Why can't we all just let each other be?

I wouldn't feel right in allowing people to just shut their minds without creating the argument against religion. It's like facing the trolley problem and not pulling the lever - no matter how dimly I view most of the human race, I still feel the need to send that cart off in the other direction.

 

[scaramanga]

Some interesting points Superted.

The line of free speech is interesting indeed.

Out of further interest, does anybody know if Charlie Hebdo draw more pictures depicting/insulting Mohammed/Islam compared to pictures drawn that are similarly insulting to Christianity and Judaism?

It would also be interesting if they drew a picture of a Catholic Bishop (or even the Pope himself) having his way with a toddler and see what the fallout would be (and whether they would continue toi draw such pictures...)

I'm sure there are some very good reasons why they wouldn't depict anyone having sex with a minor. They have published a number of cartoons that the sandal crowd (especially the more fundamentalist ones) would get pretty upset about:

This one breaks Google's rules, so I'll link rather than post it:
http://media.meltybuzz.fr/article-1369251-ajust_930/ce-n-est-pas-la-premiere-fois-que-charlie.jpg

This one's just silly, but my fairly shoddy French tells me it's something about choirboys:

 

[Superted]

Those covers would be satire. It's drawing attention to an issue, that being the Catholic church's cover up of child abuse.

I'm still not sure what the point of the Mohammed pictures are except "you don't want us to depict him, but nyah nyah nah nah nah"

And also, that's Charlie. Everyone around the world is saying they are Charlie. They aren't. When have any English or Australia press depicted anything like this? We are Charlie? Like hell we are. The gunmen haven't infringed on our right to publish photos of Big Brother contestants in bikinis or tell us how aliens have impregnated Jennifer Aniston.

 

[scaramanga]

Those covers would be satire. It's drawing attention to an issue, that being the Catholic church's cover up of child abuse.

I'm still not sure what the point of the Mohammed pictures are except "you don't want us to depict him, but nyah nyah nah nah nah"

That's precisely the point of them. More accurately they're saying "You want to control what we can and can't depict. Fvck you, you can't do that"

And also, that's Charlie. Everyone around the world is saying they are Charlie. They aren't. When have any English or Australia press depicted anything like this? We are Charlie? Like hell we are. The gunmen haven't infringed on our right to publish photos of Big Brother contestants in bikinis or tell us how aliens have impregnated Jennifer Aniston.

You're right - most of our press are just jumping on the bandwagon despite not having the guts to publish the cartoons themselves.

It would be nice to think that it would draw some more in-depth discussion out of them, but it's unlikely. Even the Guardian after displaying initial outrage has now simpered back to its muesli to tell the world that maybe Charlie Hebdo can be a bit nasty at times.

 

[Superted]

That's precisely the point of them. More accurately they're saying "You want to control what we can and can't depict. Fvck you, you can't do that"



You're right - most of our press are just jumping on the bandwagon despite not having the guts to publish the cartoons themselves.

It would be nice to think that it would draw some more in-depth discussion out of them, but it's unlikely. Even the Guardian after displaying initial outrage has now simpered back to its muesli to tell the world that maybe Charlie Hebdo can be a bit nasty at times.

1. So I go back to my original point. There are also people who don't want them to put a picture of an erect **** or a flange on the cover. (or maybe they do, it is France after all?). Its not just about that, but its also about purposely provoking the religion. No different to ripping an Indian's turban off and pointing and laughing at his hair, all for ****s and giggles.

What. Is. The. Point?

2. Precisely. A bit like the cowardly soldier now lining up for his purple heart after his mate took a few bullets on the front line.

 

[NWND]

That's precisely the point of them. More accurately they're saying "You want to control what we can and can't depict. Fvck you, you can't do that"



You're right - most of our press are just jumping on the bandwagon despite not having the guts to publish the cartoons themselves.

It would be nice to think that it would draw some more in-depth discussion out of them, but it's unlikely. Even the Guardian after displaying initial outrage has now simpered back to its muesli to tell the world that maybe Charlie Hebdo can be a bit nasty at times.

There is an interesting debate to be had and its never really been 'had' properly in the mainstream press or media.

Where does the right to express an opnion stop and the right not to be insulted or abused start?

I think Charlie Hebdo and Private Eye and other such publications can get away with more as their readership isn't as wide. A national mainstream newspaper like the Guardian or Le Parisien is never going to publish anything similar.

We also have the issue where its socially acceptable for making fun of someone because they have ginger hair, but not because of someone's skin colour. Where do you draw the line and if its seen as acceptable to draw a line there, why? What's the difference between someone's skin colour and their hair colour? Why has society drawn those lines?

It can all be a bit hilarious if you actually think about it. Or depressing, depending on your viewpoint.

 

[NWND]

1. So I go back to my original point. There are also people who don't want them to put a picture of an erect **** or a flange on the cover. (or maybe they do, it is France after all?). Its not just about that, but its also about purposely provoking the religion. No different to ripping an Indian's turban off and pointing and laughing at his hair, all for ****s and giggles.

What. Is. The. Point?

2. Precisely. A bit like the cowardly soldier now lining up for his purple heart after his mate took a few bullets on the front line.

I think you can question religion and I think religion should be questioned. Religion is like a theory really. Religion was what science was before science. I.e. "well my theory is that the world was created in 7-days by a diety who created man in his own image then woman for man to have as a companion etc etc. My reason for this theory is that a guy i know said that this deity visited him and told him this and he wrote it all down in a book he's called Genesis." fast forward a couple of 1000 years and "well my theory was that the universe was created billions of years ago following an event called the big bang which threw a tonne of matter out which clumped together over time via gravity to form stars and planets...my reason for this theory is studying this evidence and that evidence blah blah blah".

Scientific theories are debated and tested all the time. Why shouldn't religion be any different. Afterall, it's really the same thing. It's a belief we are all here because of X, Y, Z.

It's quite hilarious that the person's who believe we were created and governed by a divine being based on no more than hearsay and blind faith are protected from debate and criticism, whilst those that believe we evolved out of natural processes based on scientific analysis and evidence are constantly tested and questioned and examined.

Pretty damn hilarious.

 

[Grays_1890]

I think Charlie Hebdo and Private Eye and other such publications can get away with more as their readership isn't as wide. A national mainstream newspaper like the Guardian or Le Parisien is never going to publish anything similar.

Also the readership wants to read that kind of material, its almost like a closed readership group of like minded folk. So they feel safety in their gang.

 

[Superted]

I think you can question religion and I think religion should be questioned. Religion is like a theory really. Religion was what science was before science. I.e. "well my theory is that the world was created in 7-days by a diety who created man in his own image then woman for man to have as a companion etc etc. My reason for this theory is that a guy i know said that this deity visited him and told him this and he wrote it all down in a book he's called Genesis." fast forward a couple of 1000 years and "well my theory was that the universe was created billions of years ago following an event called the big bang which threw a tonne of matter out which clumped together over time via gravity to form stars and planets...my reason for this theory is studying this evidence and that evidence blah blah blah".

Scientific theories are debated and tested all the time. Why shouldn't religion be any different. Afterall, it's really the same thing. It's a belief we are all here because of X, Y, Z.

It's quite hilarious that the person's who believe we were created and governed by a divine being based on no more than hearsay and blind faith are protected from debate and criticism, whilst those that believe we evolved out of natural processes based on scientific analysis and evidence are constantly tested and questioned and examined.

Pretty damn hilarious.

Not sure I agree. Science is about cold hard facts. Scientists require evidence and their opinion can change with changing evidence.

Religion, more specifically faith, is belief without evidence. It is also a lifestyle, and how people define themselves. An attack on a religion is an attack personally on someone who follows that religion.

 

[scaramanga]

Not sure I agree. Science is about cold hard facts. Scientists require evidence and their opinion can change with changing evidence.

Religion, more specifically faith, is belief without evidence. It is also a lifestyle, and how people define themselves. An attack on a religion is an attack personally on someone who follows that religion.

For me, that's perfectly good reason to ridicule it. Should a person choose not to apply logic and reasoning, resulting in their belief in that religion then they're fair game too.

 

[Superted]

For me, that's perfectly good reason to ridicule it. Should a person choose not to apply logic and reasoning, resulting in their belief in that religion then they're fair game too.

Why? What are you trying to achieve out of the ridicule?

 

[scaramanga]

Why? What are you trying to achieve out of the ridicule?

What has rapidly been happening over the last generation (essentially since the advent of the internet) - a dramatic reduction in sheep. Freedom of thought and expression - the ability for those who would have spent their lives waiting and preparing for the next to experience the true wonders that the universe has for us.