Je suis Charlie and the fallout in terms of freedom of expressions

[Kym]

Now the dust has settled somewhat regarding "Je suis Charlie" it is probably worth considering the impact on the rights of photographers to capture and publish images.

I am a very strong supporter of freedom and speech and expression.
No doubt coloured by my Dad who lived in Europe in the 1920's, 30's and 40's and saw first hand the effect of extreme censorship and restrictions of freedom.

Clearly there are limits to freedoms, while I can offend or criticise I can't incite violence.
There are good and proper limits regarding things like child porn which almost go without saying.
But in general people need to be able to allow things that they find offensive because that means they can express themselves without fear.

On the specific topic of Charlie Hebdo I personally find the publication cheap and crass without much journalistic merit, but it does have the right to free expression.
There are moderates who abhor the violence, but we also need to allow things we find personally offensive.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (Liberté, égalité, fraternité) is the motto of France and carries key values of a free democratic society.
To be part of a free democratic society then the following will need to be agreed and proclaimed by moderate islamic leadership and clerics.

1. Liberty - this means that people can be free to publish things that some will find offensive.
You may not like it but you will need to say that is ok for people to mock your prophet and religion.
Liberty also means people are free to choose their religion and change the choice in the life without fear of retribution or death.

2. Equality - this means we are all equal in society. One set of laws for all citizens (i.e. no sharia as that is not equal).
Equality also means women have full rights like anyone else in society, women are not someone property or worth less than a man.
All men and women are create equal.

3. Fraternity (brotherhood) - if you want to be supported and positively avowed in society then you must fully embrace Liberty and Equality.
You cannot participate in the benefits of a a free democratic society without fully embracing the core values of that society.

It is insufficient to just condemn the violence without also proclaiming the full values of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
This means you will be offended and that offence cannot every lead to violence or censorship for that matter.
Bluntly sometimes you just have to suck it up - and that ensures we can all have freedom of expression.

So take and publish your photographs while we are free to do so!


For the technically interested ....
http://notepad-plus-plus.org/news/notepad-6.7.4-je-suis-charlie-edition.html

This is a hot topic, debate the issue and keep it objective

[ricktas]

I certainly agree Kym. But also interestingly we see people, group or organisations pushing the boundaries under freedom ideals simply to offend someone else. They have no other motive than to offend, rile, disgust another group of people, and they seem to get cheap thrills from doing so.

I do not have an issue with anyone expressing their opinion under the concept of freedom of speech etc, but when people do it for one reason, and that reason is to get their jollies by offending someone else, and for no other reason, then I think we need to question their motives.

The Muslims I know are wonderful people, who are as disgusted as the rest of us with the happenings in Paris, and even more so that it is tenuously linked to their religion, but they also cannot see why people publish cartoons of their prophet, when it is widely known that it is offensive to Muslims to do so. Luckily my friends just shake their heads, we talk about it, and they choose to just ignore them. But they still question why these cartoons and depictions are done in the first place. freedom of speech, freedom of the press, also comes with responsibility. I think we need to ask ourselves, do we need to use depictions of the prophet to get our point across, or is there a better way?

[Kym]

I think we need to ask ourselves, do we need to use depictions of the prophet to get our point across, or is there a better way?

There are thousands of cartoons depicting Christ, The Pope, Buddha, various Hindu entities, etc. (consider The Simpsons episodes with Homer portraying Ganesha etc.); and then very offensive images such as 'Piss Christ' that any number of people find offensive.
Why should Mohammed be excluded?

Eg: http://www.grimmy.com/images/farewells/Mother_Theresa.gif (Mother Theresa) which I'm sure many would find offensive.

[Steve Axford]

Interesting points. I tend to take Ricks side here, but agree that cartoons like South Park didn't spare Christianity and I don't remember any of the staff getting murdered because of it. We do need to consider that many Muslims are among the poorest people on the planet and their motives may have more to do with the struggle for a fair deal rather than anything Islamic per se. The Irish didn't have to be Islamic to go around killing people. The Khmer Rouge didn't even have to be religious, nor did Hitler.

[ameerat42]

Do-gooders can be dastardly, whatever "good" they think they're doing.
Bad as certain episodes have been, who goes around saying
"Je suis de Gwozo"? (What! Never heard of him.)

I know I'm not Charlie (maybe a Charlie:rolleyes:) because I don't go around
doing Charlie things, whether with pen, camera or other implement. (At least I hope not:eek:)

[bobt]

There are thousands of cartoons depicting Christ, The Pope, Buddha, various Hindu entities, etc. (consider The Simpsons episodes with Homer portraying Ganesha etc.); and then very offensive images such as 'Piss Christ' that any number of people find offensive.
Why should Mohammed be excluded?


I agree completely, although I understand where Rick is coming from as well. I have always been a great believer in freedom of speech but with some limitations. For example, I find those Americans who target the funerals of slain servicemen, and gloat and exult over their deaths, to go beyond what is morally or ethically acceptable. Capitalising over the grief of others in such a way is abhorrent.

However, with regard to religion I have an entirely different view, probably reinforced by my devout atheism ! I do not believe that anyone can use their own belief in something to impose an obligation upon those who do not hold the same belief. If I were to decide that chickens were divine beings, would that give me the right to forbid others from eating them? A belief in any given religion is no more than that - a belief. The fact that one religious group declares something to be sacrosanct does not impose upon me any obligation to adhere to that view.

I have a personal belief that all religions, Gods and deities of any kind are simply the products of insecure humans. The fact that much of society's rituals are based on fantasy actually offends me, but I have learned to live with it. Those who still adhere to those archaic beliefs need to accept that their beliefs are not universal. The fact that they choose to believe does not impose any obligation upon me to do likewise or to accord those beliefs any more credence than the tooth fairy or Santa Clause - both of which are as valid as any other superstition.

[ameerat42]

See! More opinion. What's the difference when it's all opinion?

What does - and I'm not picking on you, Bob because we all do/say it - something like,
"I believe in freedom of speech" actually mean?

Discussion like this should be an opportunity to spell such things out. So far it's only a string of words which we think we know
the meaning of and others agree that they know the meaning of. But what's the meaning of it and of such like it?

More time explaining and less time just saying might help matters in general.

Just to counter your view a bit, Bob. I don't think that people who believe in religion are necessarily insecure. - That's assuming
we might both mean the same by "insecure".

The aforesaid is given with the aim of robust discussion, not to malign.

[arthurking83]

In a perfect world, the followers of the Islamic faith will need to chill out in a manner of speaking.

While they may or may not like the fact, as long as the world continues it's current trend criticism and satire/humour about the Islamic faith are a certainty in life .. just as it has been for all other religious beliefs over the course of history!

If you look at it from the perspective of a purely religious viewpoint, the Hebrew and derivative Christian faiths both specifically state that idolism (of anything Heaven above, and below the Earth) is forbidden, and that worship of such idols is forbidden. Yet the entire premise of these faiths centres around such idolism.
Every form of idol in these faiths, from the Pope, or the local Rabbi, to the smallest trinket is used as a form of worship to bow down too ... and yet the respective faiths supposedly forbids such practice!

The situation could be viewed as either self propagated satire at one end of the humour spectrum, or astounding hypocrisy at the other.

I don't agree with the sentiment that simply because one faith is offended by humour directed at their beliefs should be questioned .. but then again I also that a Neo Nazi has a right to freedom of speech too.

The offended faith(s) should have the ability to understand and accept that their beliefs are their own, and that others have the right to their views.

Like one Mayor said .. you don't like it, pack your bags and f*** off! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html)
(link to video of (Muslim) Rotterdam Mayor swearing in Dutch :D)

One thing(IMO) that's patently clear in the evolving madness of all these so called terrorist events unfolding in the world .. it's not about the faith itself so much as it is a faith based veil of greed .. of power and financial gain.

I think that it's a sad case that every leader's primary objective for their respective 'faith' ... whether this faith is religious political(or any other type) is a self serving one of pure greed .. either for themselves, and or their mates.
These so called Islamic fundamentalists leaders are there because there's money in it for them. They use this ridiculous notion of a pure Islamic state simply as an easy way of recruiting the weak minded into their cause.
Tell the masses it's for a religious cause, and the masses will flock to your feet .. tell them it's a means for them to increase their financial status, and really who's going to join?

As far as I'm aware, all religions have a basic tenet of forgiveness. If it doesn't, then this belief should be questioned.
(I'm pretty sure that Islam allows forgiveness in it's preachings).
Forgiveness is the ability to overlook the ramblings (of humour) from the ignorant(non believers)
If it does presch the concept of forgiveness, and this particular doctrine is ignored whilst practicing the faith, then the faith is open to satire due to the inconsistent nature of it's hypocrisy .. just as it is with the Jewish/Christian faith(s).

Well .. that's my belief .. make fun of the Jewish/Christian faith(s), as it doesn't seem to understand the idea of consistency in it's own ideals!
I have no understanding of the Islamic faith other than the basics we hear/read about in the general news(which I tend to overlook anyhow).

[Kym]

In a perfect world, the followers of the Islamic faith will need to chill out in a manner of speaking.

While they may or may not like the fact, as long as the world continues it's current trend criticism and satire/humour about the Islamic faith are a certainty in life .. just as it has been for all other religious beliefs over the course of history!<snip>

And that is the key to this whole situation.
While thousands of muslims in Pakistan (as an example) violently protest Charlie Hebdo http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/world/asia/4-shot-during-protest-against-charlie-hebdo-in-pakistan.html?_r=0 the whole radicalization thing will continue. It is only when people toughen up and allow the satire/humour even when they dislike it personally that we can expect peace.

[Steve Axford]

Arthur, you just have to look at the Spanish Inquisition to see how far Christianity has been known to go when it comes to a failure to appreciate the views of others.

A while back it was communists we feared and hated, before that fascists, before that - actually I can't remember what we hated in the 19th century, but before that it was the French! Well, at least if you were British, and befire that it was the Spanish - "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition". We eventually get over it and lets just hope we can get over this one without too much bloodshed. Inflaming the situation by deliberately putting out cartoons that are designed to offend the raving loony party, doesn't seem a move designed to minimise the bloodshed.

[MissionMan]

My issue with the current Muslim setup is the hypocrisy of it. Extreme muslims are happy to offend others, but seem to take the opinion that the offedning of them is a terrible thing.

Many of the muslim hate preachers have said atrocious things about the non-muslims, only to claim they were taken out of context. I also notice the the notorious hate preacher is happy to state things under the pretext of "freedom of speech" but not so happy with that right when it insults his prophet. You can't have it both ways.

I think that the majority of muslims are not to blame, they want to live in peace. The one thing I did notice which is interesting is that the vast majority of australian extremists who head over to ISIS or do these things seems to have some form of criminal or violent background.

The one thing I do think is disgusting is the patent troll in Australia who has tried to patent Je sis Charlie here. Talk about trying to profit off someone else's misery

[Kym]

The one thing I do think is disgusting is the patent troll in Australia who has tried to patent Je sis Charlie here. Talk about trying to profit off someone else's misery

It's an attempt at trade mark, quite likely to fail. I agree it is very grubby

[bobt]

See! More opinion. What's the difference when it's all opinion?

Well, fairynuff ... but then you need to decide the difference between opinion and fact, and on that basis we'd start to debate the nature of "facts", and open up a whole new can of worms! :eek:

So "opinion" needs to be perhaps qualified, and from my perspective an opinion is a view unsubstantiated by evidence but based on sound underlying premises (and we could debate what "sound" meant if it comes to that).

We really only have facts and opinions and even facts will be disputed, so at the end of the day maybe it's all opinions!



What does - and I'm not picking on you, Bob because we all do/say it - something like, "I believe in freedom of speech" actually mean?

Nope ... I'm always up for a good conversation, so I don't feel picked on. "Freedom of Speech" is probably hard to define and might even be something that gets decided on a case by case basis. One definition is that "Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment." As I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure I would go that far. The example of people taunting mothers of dead soldiers is, to me, beyond the boundary of legitimate free speech. Similarly, that woman who has just been jailed for harassing ethnics on a tram also falls outside the definition in my opinion. I'm not sure that I can provide a universally applicable definition simply because there are so many variables. It is, I think, a generalisation which can and must allow for flexibility according to circumstances.

It is not always possible (in fact it may be generally *impossible*) to phrase rules which are both succinct and yet totally comprehensive. All we can do is to voice generalisations which aim to establish a fundamental principle. I was just discussing one of those with my wife this morning as she is a Quaker and many times more moral and ethical than I am. I asked her if she agreed with the principle that capital punishment is wrong, and Australia is correct in not extraditing criminals to countries which will execute them. She of course said "yes", as would I normally. Then I told her of a case in the news where a guy wrapped a pregnant woman in explosives and blew mother and unborn baby to smithereens, after which he fled to Australia. We will not extradite him as he will be executed, but as he can stay in Australia, he will not be punished at all. Which of our definitive principles remains absolute in such cases?? Sometimes we cannot formulate all embracing statements or "rules".


More time explaining and less time just saying might help matters in general. There you go then .. a bit of clarification?


Just to counter your view a bit, Bob. I don't think that people who believe in religion are necessarily insecure. - That's assuming
we might both mean the same by "insecure".

This brings us back to your concerns about "opinions". I cannot claim that observation as "fact", but it remains an opinion based upon a lifetime of observation and reading. I agree that my view isn't "necessarily" correct as there may be various other reasons why people believe in Gods. Some of them are just plain loonies! (That's a technical term) :)

Nevertheless, my observations lead me to believe that there is an inherent "need" in the human species to feel that there is more to life than what we experience. There is a common view that life has to have a "meaning" and a "purpose", and that simply being here and then dying is somehow insufficient. I interpret this as both arrogance and insecurity. Arrogant to believe that we are so important that we must have a purpose, and insecure because they fear death and need some reassurance that there is a parental figure looking after us. Most societies have religious beliefs but none have any more demonstrable validity than the tooth fairy simply because there is no proof.

I see in humans the same insecurities in adults as in children, and in children who have not been brought up with a religious belief I see less of this "need" or insecurity, and thus less interest in a supernatural being. Experience shows me that religion is more a product of indoctrination than intellectually reasoned conclusions. We instil in children's minds all sorts of things which mirror our own perspectives, and few children "find God" of their own accord. However, once we instil in them that fundamental insecurity, then they simply learn by example and develop the same insecurities as their parents.



The aforesaid is given with the aim of robust discussion, not to malign. Yeah ... love that sort of thing. Some people get their knickers in a twist when challenged like this; others go around chopping off heads! I prefer to exercise my brain cells while i still have them. :rolleyes:

- - - Updated - - -


It is only when people toughen up and allow the satire/humour even when they dislike it personally that we can expect peace.

Sadly, I don't think we will ever see peace. I look at the papers each day and see so much killing in so many places - Boko Haram and IS come to mind, but there are many others. In world history we have seen very few periods in which mankind has not been killing each other, and the prevalence of mass killing around the globe is increasing. Violence is just under the surface almost everywhere. Even in our own society we have to take ever increasing measures to protect each other from ourselves. It's depressing.

[arthurking83]

Arthur, you just have to look at the Spanish Inquisition to see how far Christianity has been known to go when it comes to a failure to appreciate the views of others.

.....

Exactly .. a good point.
Before that it was Judaism .. where preaching a new religion saw you nailed to a cross, and before that it was Ancient Egyptian polytheism .. and so on ..

At least Christianity has matured(well, on the face of it) to a less archaic form of faith.
(ie. it's now no longer forced upon you if you wish it not to be).

Once again tho .. the Spanish/Roman Catholics fear of others views centred around the notion of loss of maintaining their power/wealth status .. not the views themselves.

[Steve Axford]

Once again tho .. the Spanish/Roman Catholics fear of others views centred around the notion of loss of maintaining their power/wealth status .. not the views themselves.

Which is what I think is the core issue here - a peoples fight for their place in the world. The religious aspect is just a distraction. It wouldn't matter if it was Islam or Communism or ..... The raving loony party on the other side would still want to kill people, because angry young men have always wanted to do that. The problem is - how do we work our way out of this? not - how do we force the other side to do what we want? That's what's getting them angry to start with.

[ameerat42]

Ta for the useful post, Bob(t).

[Kym]

Four dead over a cartoon http://news.sky.com/story/1409237/four-killed-in-anti-charlie-hebdo-protests


At least four people have died in Niger in violent protests over the Charlie Hebdo magazine's publication of a new cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed

http://news.yahoo.com/afp-photographer-shot-pakistan-anti-charlie-hebdo-protest-112500287.html;_ylt=AwrTWfwXD7pUmj4Ag0DQtDMD


AFP photographer Asif Hassan was recovering in hospital on Saturday after being shot while covering an anti-Charlie Hebdo protest outside the French consulate in Karachi.

[Bennymiata]

If your beliefs are strong and true, then you can laugh at them, but if you have something to hide, then you tend to get very touchy about it.

We should make an agreement with these angry Muslims around the world.
When they stop burning effigies of our religions and our leaders, as well as our flags, and they stop with their untruths that they continually propegate in their newspapers etc., and stop calling the West "pigs" then we'll stop publishing funny cartoons of Mohammad.

[ameerat42]

If your beliefs are strong and true, then you can laugh at them, but if you have something to hide, then you tend to get very touchy about it.

We should make an agreement with these angry Muslims around the world.
When they stop burning effigies of our religions and our leaders, as well as our flags, and they stop with their untruths that they continually propegate in their newspapers etc., and stop calling the West "pigs" then we'll stop publishing funny cartoons of Mohammad.

Hmm! A bit of "us-and-themmery" and "gereralis-IFICATION" here that I hasten from being associated with. Words to look out for are:
"these" (and "they"), "West" and "we'll". "West", for example, would encompass such notions as espoused by the (likes of the) KKK,
and that's not a stutter. Maybe introduce a few extra directions and dimensions.:cool: