Someone explain the French: offend Moslems, no problem. Offend Jews, get arrested?

So, since the OP apparently gave up, i'll take advantage and try translate a quote from a cartoonist that worked for Charlie Hebdo for almost 30 years .

French goes like :

Comme sur les paquets de clopes où figure maintenant, en gros, "FUMER TUE", ondevrait inscrire, en énorme, sur les couvertures de la bible, de la Thora et du Coran : "LA RELIGION REND CON". Ansi soit-il !"

English would be something like :

"As we now find on cigarette packs big labels saying, "SMOKING KILLS", we should write, with big letters, on the covers of the bible, the thora and the kuran : "RELIGION MAKES YOU STUPID". So be it !"

Cheers.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Well I would say do neither, dont arrest anyone for exercising their freedom of speech rights, even if its offensive.

But there would seem to be a double standard.

Well now, on this I would agree as an American Citizen 100% and totally. Here, it's an absolute right and it's inviolate. No exception outside of directly causing said violence by actual cause of speech. Talk about mission impossible to prove outside the most obvious and terrible cases though, right? As I figure it's supposed to be.

Of course, in France..no such absolute right exists in quite the same way, and it's hard to forget images in recent years of Paris burning accompanied by regular talk of essential "no-go" zones for civilian police in Muslim neighborhoods. At last, no-go without much-force.

If the French respected or chose to in this case, the absolute nature of freedom of speech...I'm all for that as the best outcome. I just see it as the most unlikely based on track records here. We'll see tho!

reply to post by charles1952

This was not about being "drunk" or "rowdy".

A Jewish person was offended by his comments.

He was arrested, charged and found guilty.

John Galliano found guilty of anti-Semitic Paris rants

British fashion designer John Galliano, who has admitted anti-Semitic insults at a Paris restaurant, has been given suspended fines totalling 6,000 euros (£5,250; $8,400).

Galliano had been charged with "public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity".

If this is the criteria and it clearly is, the cartoon publishers should be charged.

It absolutely is a double standard.

reply to post by Chrysalis

Again, this wasnt about drunkeness or disorderly conduct.

Galliano had been charged with "public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity".

It was about someone being offended.

Clearly there's a double standard and unlike the cartoon issue, this clear bias is worth protesting.

The government cannot be allowed to extend special treatment to certain groups. There has to be some level of equality.

reply to post by gladtobehere


When you show me equal riots, of burning, bombing, stoning, brutalizing and raping by the Jewish community for offensive anti Semitic blood libel cartoons, then I'll agree with your “double standards” assertion.

The french laws on the liberté d'expression are more complex than that.

For one, they allow for certain restrictions depending upon the case, which a court could judge as abuse of that right- they stipulate that responsibility goes with it.


But secondly, and more relevant to the examples cases you brought forth,

The laws allow more for criticism or opinion against ideologies, groups, religions, political parties, etc. but refer also to protection of individuals.

For example, Mr. Galliano printing an article stating his opinion about the Jews would have passed,

Insulting specific individuals on the street is different and transgresses the laws protecting individuals.

The editor of CharlieHepdo would be arrested if he went up to a Muslim person and made insults at them personally.

The french have a different sense than us americans about the necessity of flexibility in rules and laws- life is not all black and white and that is why we need courts, and to look at each case individually. That might fail at times, just like our systems in the US, where technicalities can let a guilty man walk the streets, or an innocent man hang.


Less clear, and more of my own opinion, I would suggest also that the french guilt about their past, and the Vichy regime, does color a little their judgement. Just bring up the Vel D'Hiv with a french a person and watch the way they react. They don't like talking about that.

They also are currently under so much abuse by the muslim population the press allows a pressure release- because the arabs in France do not recognize french laws, they insult them on the street everyday, and the police cannot do anything. (in most cases, they have orders not to- it might incite more car burning and violence as we often have here).
So you have the french population getting very resentful and fed up with this. The more diffused expression of the press can help calm some of that tension.

The jews in the population pretty much adhere to the laws and are respectful of other citizens, which might soften attitudes towards them.
IMO.

reply to post by gravitational

The double standard has nothing to do with people's "reactions". It has to do with treating people/groups differently over offensive material.

To your point, Jews dont react violently, so you would think that the State would be less worried about something which may be offensive to the Jews.

In-fact, its the opposite...

I chose the John Galliano example simply because its the one incident that came to mind. France should either prohibit all offensive rhetoric or universally allow it.

No one group should receive preferential treatment over another.

reply to post by gladtobehere


It has everything to do with reactions and ACTIONS.
These cartoons were not born out of thin air for no reason.
The present most violent political group of our times comes from Muslim extremists and Millions of other Muslims who do not condemn their actions, all in the name of Allah and their prophet.
I'm sorry if you can't see that, but I for one am done being politically correct.

Originally posted by gravitational
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

It has everything to do with reactions and ACTIONS.
These cartoons were not born out of thin air for no reason.
The present most violent political group of our times comes from Muslim extremists and Millions of other Muslims who do not condemn their actions, all in the name of Allah and their prophet.
I'm sorry if you can't see that, but I for one am done being politically correct.

wrong

zionists are the most violent and most dangerous and most problematic and most radical

extremist islam was created by the zionists/brits/americans who set up the Al Saud in Arabia and protected them over the years.

today the salafis are on the rise, and they are killing the true muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen

for some reason this al qaeda terrorists fsa rebels salafi jihadists never go after Saudi Arabia or Israel or Turkey or Qatar, they only seem to hit at US/Israel enemies. you know why? because they are the same person.

If there was no zionists, then there is no Israel, and if there is no Israel, there is no need to divide and conquer the muslims and keep them weak and under attack at all times under different agenda, and if that wasnt happening then the muslims would prosper and manage to spread their religion even faster, but the zionists exist, and their job is to destroy islam, they cant do it from outside, the destruction comes from within,

psy ops

Just an added note on the Galliano case-

Seeing the stipulations in these laws, you can then also understand why Mr. Galliano chose to admit to making anti-semitic comments from the get go-
He was betting on the argument of free speech against groups, trying to snake his way out of the attack and harrassment of an individual.

reply to post by gladtobehere


You would do yourself a service by studying history properly and not falling for every little propaganda piece there is out there.

Whenever a person makes a comment about how the holocaust might not have been the way it is said to have been, whenever a person compares offending Islam(for how ridiculous it is) to offending a Jewish person(considering history), I'm confident in classifying the person offending Islam as in his right - freedom of speech. I would however, classify the person offending a Jewish person because he or she is Jewish as discrimination. There are laws for that. Just as going off against a Muslim because he or she is Muslim is wrong. Islam does not equal to Muslims. One is a religion, an ideology, the other are humans.

Denying the holocaust just means that one is mentally challenged, period.

Hi all, I'm a Canadian, I live in Algeria, my husband is Algerian, we have alot of Muslim family in France, in fact a third of France's population is Muslim, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a rather large backlash from this cartoon. One thing my husband said, and he is liberal by all means, as normal as anyone else Muslim or non-Muslim, was that there was such an uproar over printing topless pics of the Dutchess Kate, which are deemed inappropriate, yet in the name of freedom of HATE speech its ok to publish nude pics of the Prophet Mohammed? There is something wrong here, and personally I am disgusted that France has allowed such, would rather close their embassies, and lose money, then condemn this which is in my eyes racist.

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
that there was such an uproar over printing topless pics of the Dutchess Kate, which are deemed inappropriate, yet in the name of freedom of HATE speech its ok to publish nude pics of the Prophet Mohammed?

The uproar over the breasts of a real person was suing and loud tutting over cups of tea in England.

The uproar over the cartoons of imaginary pretend people will be slightly more 'active' probably. And by active I mean destruction, burning flags and effegies, badly written signs, the usual shennanigans annoyed muslims get up to.

Not really an equivalent.

Another thing, don't you think a little bit of censorship, if it means keeping the peace with regards to Hate material is justified? I do, it doesn't take alot of brains to see that depicting the Prophet naked is going to offend people, same as saying the holocaust didnt happe, that does too, so why not cut it all out!!!!!!!

reply to post by khimbar


well its about publishing material depicting someone inappropriately isn't it.

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
reply to post by khimbar

 

well its about publishing material depicting someone inappropriately isn't it.

No.

One is real pictures.

One is a cartoon of someone made up.

reply to post by khimbar


Either way its depicting someone inappropriately, whether its real or a revered figure-head of a religion is irrelevant, the problem with this world is there are no limits or boundaries anymore about what is morally or politically the right thing to do with regard to discerning awareness of other people's feelings or beliefs.

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
reply to post by khimbar

 

Either way its depicting someone inappropriately, whether its real or a revered figure-head of a religion is irrelevant, the problem with this world is there are no limits or boundaries anymore about what is morally or politically the right thing to do with regard to discerning awareness of other people's feelings or beliefs.

No, the question is not about depicting someone inappropriately.
It goes back to defending the individual versus the collectives.

If the Prophet were alive today (a flesh and blood person) then he could sue those who publish insulting or innapropriate photos of slander of him. Perhaps even if he was dead, but his closest relatives were still alive, they might have a case.

The insults here mock a general group, they are a commentary (whether you agree with it or not) without a specific individual target.

Can you see the difference?

We could play with words, like lawyers, and come up with a line of reasoning which could invalidate this distinction (I'm pretty good with that, I'm already coming up with a few in my head, that I could use to argue with myself).

But consider this- if you eliminate that distinction in laws, then anyone can harrass and attack another person, and all they have to do is use smears upon that persons anscestry, religious affiliation, place of origin, the organism they work for, their group of friends.....and there is nothing that could be said about it.

A kid harrassed this way by others cannot be protected- they change "you are a poopyhead" to "your family is a bunch of evil idiots" and suddenly it is free speech and not to be restricted!


(but anyway, I haven't seen anyone in France give a rats arse about Kate bewbs, we're all topless over here. -except the ones in veils, I mean! )

This is all done on purpose to incite hatred, the stupid film was made with the sole intent of setting the Muslims off on a mindless rampage and so are these pictures which coincidentally is about a week after the film even though over 50 people have been killed so far.

The west WANT to fill your news feeds with the madness of Muslims so you and i have deep rooted dislike for Muslims, and vice versa.

To create a world war you need to bring about a world wide hatred, which is being done with great effect.

It's just another move on the global chess game being played out.

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
Hi all, I'm a Canadian, I live in Algeria, my husband is Algerian, we have alot of Muslim family in France, in fact a third of France's population is Muslim, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a rather large backlash from this cartoon. One thing my husband said, and he is liberal by all means, as normal as anyone else Muslim or non-Muslim, was that there was such an uproar over printing topless pics of the Dutchess Kate, which are deemed inappropriate, yet in the name of freedom of HATE speech its ok to publish nude pics of the Prophet Mohammed? There is something wrong here, and personally I am disgusted that France has allowed such, would rather close their embassies, and lose money, then condemn this which is in my eyes racist.

Your husband should do an IQ test as he doesn't seem very intelligent. And neither do you for turning freedom of speech into "freedom of hate speech". You think France loses money by closing embassies to a degree that it would worry them? If you knew anything about France you would know that their cultural goods mean more to them than most things. It is of WAY more value to France to be the defender of freedom of speech than to miss their money from Algeria(lol). Also, what are the Muslims in France going to do? They still pay taxes in their halal shops, so good luck to those idiots.

And are you honestly going to say that Muslims are not racist people? Muslims are MORE racist than any Western person I've come across and I'm middle-eastern myself!