France Shoot-Out

[Hax]

Will respond to ACIN shortly, but in the meantime, here is an excellent piece by a moderate Muslim who wants to defend traditional Western values of free speech:

Fixed that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Fixed that.

Its helpful to differentiate moderate Muslims from what we would consider more extreme ones. The media does the same thing with Christians (eg, 'Christians fundamentalists', etc).

[Fragony]

Its helpful to differentiate moderate Muslims from what we would consider more extreme ones.

Very important at least for them, because extremists put them on the hitlist first.

[Viking]

Line of people in Oslo (scroll down; second video) wanting to buy one of the 170 exemplars of the post-terror edition of Charlie Hebdo on sale there.

[GenosseGeneral]

Seems like the police here starts to crack down on Islamists allegedly supporting terrorist groups or even plotting themselves. There have been several searches and arrests in Germany during the last days, although there were no spectacular findings.
In contrast to Belgium:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30848946

[Rhyfelwyr]

This article does a good job of summing up how the extremist and genocidal origins of France's corrupted idea of secularism has created such a discriminatory and totalitarian ideology. I had to do a double take on this bit to believe it:

At the start of this year, the school in the little French town of Sargé-lès-le-Mans instituted a “pork or nothing” policy. Muslim and Jewish kids have either to eat pork or go hungry. Apparently this move is necessary to “save secularism”, according to National Front leader Marine le Pen. “We will accept no religious requirements in the school lunch menus,” she said. “There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere.”

[Brenus]

“moderate Muslim who wants to defend traditional Western values of free speech:” You moderate Muslim is a liar. “is that an endorsement of Charlie Hebdo's depiction of the French justice minister, Christiane Taubira, who is black, drawn as a monkey?” This is a lie. It was a cartoon of the Extreme right newspaper, but don’t let truth bother you too much… CH took the side of the Minister who thanks them for this. As said in a precedent threat you probably didn't read...

“he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists.” Ah, your moderate Muslim compares a murderer with a cartoon, again, Good tactic in supporting murderers, not really moderate, but then…

“Let's be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists” but “I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.” So a corresponding answer to cartoon would be a cartoon, no? Not to be killed. Doesn’t matter for your moderate Muslim, of course.

“Of crude caricatures of bulbous-nosed Arabs that must make Edward Said turn in his grave?” Should see how the French are depicted… Doesn’t matter, Muslims are the victims of the murdered atheists…

“Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark?” So? Is that bad? To sack someone racist? Your moderate Muslim doesn’t know what he wants? Note the so-called…
So, a big liar, badly informed. well, good propagandist indeed.

And the article is laughable. Taking all from anti-republican cliché they could find, can’t stop laughing. You should really read more history. About Robespierre...

And, yes, a extreme-right nazi mayor did this. Shame, nothing to say about this, this what happened when people vote for extreme-right. Probably a good catholic mind you, as Marine Le Pen who had her children baptised in a extreme branch of the Catholic Church.

Yes, the fight for enlightenment is a long one, and religious obscurantists, helping each others, reinforcing each others, will oppose it.
Marine Le Pen as champion of Laicité is as laughable than your moderate Muslim being moderate.

So, bodies of the dead atheists are just cold, but the campaign of denigration and dirt starts very well...

[Hax]

Its helpful to differentiate moderate Muslims from what we would consider more extreme ones. The media does the same thing with Christians (eg, 'Christians fundamentalists', etc).

Christians in America that don't firebomb abortion clinics are "moderate Christians?". The nomer moderate muslim is a fallacy; as if they have to "moderate" their beliefs in order to be functioning members of society. Idiotic.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So if the Queen was not popular and respected, then it would be ok to disrespect her? Uhhhhhh Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are codified in our foundational documents, we still respect the position while openly mocking the humans occupying those positions.

The laws should consider A) the position of the person/institution and B) the public attitude towards them, as well as any sensitivities around customs, tradition etc.

Words are not violence. You may as well lock people up 5 years for throwing a loud house party. The de-nazification of Germany is a terrible example. They did not stop being nazi's because the Swastika was banned. The Nuremberg Trial and subsequent Israeli commandos systematically killed all upper echelons of the Nazi Party. Then the allied forces forcefully showed the German public the atrocities of the Holocaust by taking them to the camps and having them dig graves for the dead. Then what probably helped the most in de-nazification was the successful rebuilding of Germany post WW2 due to the Marshal Plan, since the conditions of the genesis of the Nazi Party were rampant poverty and a crippled economy.

We'll probably get bogged down if we start debating particular examples. I just think it is wishful thinking to say that free speech is totally positive and that censorship can never have positive effects. Advocating for total free speech because you believe it is right in principle, and advocating for it because you believe that it is the best way to counter extreme/anti-social beliefs are two different positions, yet they often get blurred. I think many people who believe at heart in the former can sometimes lazily go along with the perceived wisdom of the latter, perhaps because of the human tendency towards idealism. I believe in free speech in principle, but I also think that censorship can be pretty effective in practise.

No one's feelings are representative of everybody else's, thats my point. So why are we pretending that the ones who wish for restrictions are the true representatives that should have their viewed codified?

Historically speaking at least, a desire for some forms of restriction have been held by the overwhelming majority. I think this still holds true today - finding a balance between majority wishes and individual rights is what liberal democracy is all about.

You are asking humans to not be human. Again, maybe if you had a very homogeneous culture it could happen. But look at what's happening in Scandinavia, as Kad will certainly open his mouth about it.

I would hardly say that censoring extreme or offensive material has anything to do with asking people not to by human. They can think and feel what they like, while occasionally behind restricted in their outward actions - that is part and parcel of living in human society!

So the right thing to do would have been to deny the burghers the right to have representation, the right to vote?

That depends on whether or not it would have an overall positive effect. I don't view the right to vote as some sort of natural right, I just see it as a generally nice thing to have and something that allows for good governance. If there were circumstances when it would be detrimental to society, then away with it!

I don't agree with that at all. Taking an example from US history, the election of 1800 between Adams and Jefferson was very vitriolic. Jefferson was a negro-lover and Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." For the most part, early American politicians were content with allowing this since they considered it under the sphere of freedom of the press, they did not have the narrow view of free speech you are suggesting.

Let society come to an consensus about what is acceptable. If they cannot, they must reach an agreement as best they can, and obey the law that upholds it. I know that a lot of things that pass for acceptable today would never have been tolerated by many of your founding fathers. They were a diverse bunch and upheld arrangements that you would think are incredibly oppressive - eg a number of state-level established churches, and the censorship and discrimination that went along with that. Yet it was deemed constitutional at the time.

[Fragony]

This article does a good job of summing up how the extremist and genocidal origins of France's corrupted idea of secularism has created such a discriminatory and totalitarian ideology. I had to do a double take on this bit to believe it:

That's just wrong.

[Brenus]

Marien Le pen as defender of Laicité: http://www.english.rfi.fr/culture/20...asphemous-play

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/intern...ie-le-pen-says

[Gilrandir]

“Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark?” So? Is that bad? To sack someone racist?

Sacking people for expressing political and ideological convictions is the restriction on the freedom of speech you oppose so much. If you are doing your job well, what's the difference what you believe in.

[Montmorency]

Sacking people for expressing political and ideological convictions is the restriction on the freedom of speech you oppose so much.

Freedom of speech is a political notion, extended from the state to the citizen. Not by the employer to its employee.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If Brenus has a genuine concern to censor anything that glorifies terrorism, I wonder if he also campaigns furiously to get all the statues of genocidal, secularist extremists like Robespierre removed, since they are currently dotted all over France.

[Gilrandir]

Freedom of speech is a political notion, extended from the state to the citizen. Not by the employer to its employee.

That is why ideological convictions (expressed by a person thanks to freedom of speech) are not a valid reason for sacking.

[Montmorency]

You'll have to explain how that can be the case, when it's clearly an entirely-separate issue from freedom-of-speech.

[Gilrandir]

You'll have to explain how that can be the case, when it's clearly an entirely-separate issue from freedom-of-speech.

The employer in relation to the employee shouldn't take upon himself the role of the state towards the citizen.
Brenus said that it is a good thing to fire a racist. The racist is a person who is identified by the his/her ideological convictions. If one fires him/her because of them it is infringement on being free to express his/her convictions: he/she suffers the loss of job just because he/she was free enough to express his/her worldview. It is the same as one in France suffered the loss of freedom just because he admired some person who is suspected/convicted of killing four jews in a shop.

[Brenus]

“the statues of genocidal, secularist extremists like Robespierre removed,” Well, first you will have to prove that Robespierre was a genocidal (wich genocide are you talking about? Well, I know as your reference comes from Royalist anti-republican publication: For your info, never existed. If the counter-revolution –who was the first one to kill Priests favourable to the revolution, by the way, small detail, lost it is because the town and ports didn’t allowed the British fleet to debark troops and munitions to the insurgeants). They were part of the "genocided" population, the vast majority of it. Not saying that the repression against the Vendean and Normandy insurrection wasn't harsh. It was. Troops were not nice in the XVII Century.
Of course, you will have to prove that Robespierre was a secularist and an extremist (better historians tried and failed). The man was for the right for woman to vote, against slavery, had a speech against the war launched by Louis the XVI who did sent the French Army plans to his Brother in Law).
History for you: “As a member of the Estates-General, the Constituent Assembly and the Jacobin Club, he opposed the death penalty and advocated the abolition of slavery, while supporting equality of rights, universal male suffrage and the establishment of a republic. He opposed dechristianisation of France, war with Austria and the possibility of a coup by the Marquis de Lafayette. As a member of the Committee of Public Safety, he was an important figure during the period of the Revolution commonly known as the Reign of Terror, which ended a few months after his arrest and execution in July 1794 following the Thermidorian reaction. The Thermidorians accused him of being the "soul" of the Terror, although his guilt in the brutal excesses of the Terror has not been proven.” Wikipedia
He was in fact executed by the ones, recalled by him to Paris to explain themselves about their acts, who committed the atrocities.
Funny how things are…

“Sacking people for expressing political and ideological convictions is the restriction on the freedom of speech you oppose so much.” To be a racist is not an opinion, it is an offense. You can't be openly a Nazi. You have to hind it. Political and ideological against the law are illegal, so they are offenses. Again, to call to murder others is not an opinion, it is an offence. How many times will I have to say it?

“suffered the loss of freedom just because he admired some person who is suspected/convicted of killing four jews in a shop.” I like the JUST. Well, to agree with murder is an offense. To promote murder is an offense. JUST killed 4 Jews: that is not THAT much (many), worth admiring no?
Even you “suspected” is funny: Cold blood obscurantist Muslim extremist killed 4 Jews in a Casher Supermarket (oops, Rhyfelwyr didn’t notice probably, there is access to food in SUPERMARKETS for non-secularists) and a Police officer according to himself on a video on Youtube.

By the way, still nobody explained me the joke from Dieudonné. That not nice guy, I really want a laugh, especially when hurt-in-their-feelings Muslim mobs are torching Churches.
They have not a clue what atheist means apparently, the idiots.

[Husar]

To be a racist is not an opinion, it is an offense. You can't be openly a Nazi. You have to hind it. Political and ideological against the law are illegal, so they are offenses. Again, to call to murder others is not an opinion, it is an offence. How many times will I have to say it?

Of course it is an opinion, you are of the opinion that this or that person should be killed by someone. I watched the killing of the police officer on liveleak and there were a ton of comments about how the US should bomb Mekka to retaliate and how this would rightfully lead to violence against muslims and mosques in Europe etc. I doubt that any of these commenters were arrested, but according to you they should all be in jail, right?

[Brenus]

Did someone actually killed someone following this comments? If yes, yes. I doubt that most of the Nazi leaders killed the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others themselves. Most of them in fact didn't, they just were of the opinion all theses others had to be either enslaved or killed. So were Hitler, Himmler, and others actually guilty of murder? If I follow you and others no. In French Laws, yes, as they are the instigators (in UK laws as well, as defined in the Case 1 in the Crown Court).
A French author was find guilty after the Liberation for precisely this. You can't call day-in day-out for the Jews to be killed and be surprised when someone actually do it. It was HIS opinion that Jews should be killed, so some just did it, but, yeah, it was JUST an opinion...

And to anser to you remark, no racism is not an opinion, as stated in French Constitution: "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion".
So pretending that one race is superior to an other is against the Law.

I might of an opinion to kill you. But until I do it, or someone do it for me, it is an opinion. Now, if I kill you. it stop to be an opinion, as if someone do it following my call.
When someone was killed unlawfully following calls to kill, and you carrying on in inciting more violence, or justifying the murder, yes, you are guilty. When you glorify a racist obscurantist killer for what he did, when you incite in racial and religious violences. That is in the law. It is up to a Court to decide if it was a bad joke, or a real threat. And yes, to incite others to burn Mosques or attack Muslims is a offense. And numbers are not an excuse for not prosecuting. Mob law, lynch law are illegal. You might thing it is a opinion to burn or discriminate minorities, well, not in France and in my experience not in UK.

[Montmorency]

The employer in relation to the employee shouldn't take upon himself the role of the state towards the citizen.

Which, uh, is precisely what is not happening.

[Husar]

Did someone actually killed someone following this comments? If yes, yes. I doubt that most of the Nazi leaders killed the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others themselves. Most of them in fact didn't, they just were of the opinion all theses others had to be either enslaved or killed. So were Hitler, Himmler, and others actually guilty of murder? If I follow you and others no. In French Laws, yes, as they are the instigators (in UK laws as well, as defined in the Case 1 in the Crown Court).

Did someone actually kill someone following the statements of that unfunny comedian who got arrested? If no, no?
And then you begin to confuse hierarchies of command and actual orders or even statements of intent with expressing an opinion.
You cannot seriously think that the tweet of that comedian was comparable to an order by Hitler...

[Montmorency]

You cannot seriously think that the tweet of that comedian was comparable to an order by Hitler...

Babble about free speech all you like, but blasphemy is the limit.

HITLER'S WORD IS THE IMMUTABLE LAW YOU INFIDELS

DO NOT DEMEAN ITS GLORY

[Rhyfelwyr]

And to anser to you remark, no racism is not an opinion, as stated in French Constitution: "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion".

So is it not discrimination if state schools tell Muslim and Jewish children to eat pork or go hungry?

I believe defending that would require the same line of thinking George Bush used to defend his opposition to gay marriage - strictly speaking, it isn't discrimination, as a gay man can marry a woman the same way a straight man can.

[Gilrandir]

“suffered the loss of freedom just because he admired some person who is suspected/convicted of killing four jews in a shop.” I like the JUST. Well, to agree with murder is an offense. To promote murder is an offense. JUST killed 4 Jews: that is not THAT much (many), worth admiring no?

Brenus at his best - he can't even read what is written a line above his indignation. Did I say "just killed?" I said "just admired", underscoring that the only crime committed by the comedian was admiration of some unworthy person. Why, Putin admired Goebbels to the face of a bunch of jews and it didn't move you to any righteous anger.

Even you “suspected” is funny: Cold blood obscurantist Muslim extremist killed 4 Jews in a Casher Supermarket (oops, Rhyfelwyr didn’t notice probably, there is access to food in SUPERMARKETS for non-secularists) and a Police officer according to himself on a video on Youtube.

Until a court officially declares someone guilty one can't call him that. Has the court passed any verdict? No? Then he is still a suspect. Learn the rules of democracy.

And to anser to you remark, no racism is not an opinion, as stated in French Constitution: "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion".
So pretending that one race is superior to an other is against the Law.

I might of an opinion to kill you. But until I do it, or someone do it for me, it is an opinion. Now, if I kill you. it stop to be an opinion, as if someone do it following my call.

If I just express a racist opinion and get fired - is it lawful? I mean I didn't call anyone to hurt anyone.

When you glorify a racist obscurantist killer for what he did, when you incite in racial and religious violences.

In effect we see that Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims incites violence against christians and the French all over the muslim world.
And here comes an interesting question of limits on the freedom of speech:
a publication (by its indiscreet policy and flagrant abuse of the freedom of speech) causes damage to the image and/or economy of the country it represents. Should the government of this country limit the publication's activity? For example, if after the growing exasperation and demands from angry mobs the government of, say, Pakistan decides to call off (or not to sign) some contracts with France which will result in loss of jobs in France, should the finacial loss be recovered from the sky-rocketing revenues of the said publication?

[Brenus]

“Did someone actually kill someone following the statements of that unfunny comedian who got arrested? If no, no?” No, some killed 4 Jews before to be glorify by a comedian familiar (and convicted) with and of anti-Semitism. So, once again, supporting racist (or not racist) killing is an offense.

“You cannot seriously think that the tweet of that comedian was comparable to an order by Hitler...” Me? Certainly not, but if it is question of number, what is your line in the sand? I am not the one saying racism is just an opinion...

“So is it not discrimination if state schools tell Muslim and Jewish children to eat pork or go hungry?” Oh yes, it is, but fanatic religious Catholics used a gap in the law. You see, catering for food supply is, thanks to Sarkozy (Chanoine of Latran) private. So the mayor requests some food, and no one can tell him what to order. And yes, it is not in the power of the law to oblige pupils to eat some food, nor is it in the power of the law to oblige a mayor to order different kind of food. That is where the obscurantist religious fanatic and Nazi are good: twisting the words and the laws. I am as horrified as you by this discrimination. But obscurantist catholic religious fanatic mayor can always say that pupils are not forced to eat, and can bring food from home, as it a service provided and paid for by the local tax-payers.

“Why, Putin admired Goebbels to the face of a bunch of Jews and it didn't move you to any righteous anger.” What Putin admired in Goebbels was the fact he knew how to create propaganda, if memory serves. Typical of you to try to mix-up things. Ooops, I just realise it is perhaps not intended…
You can say you admire Hitler for his political flair, his ability to use modern technology (first to use intensively airplanes to go from rally to rally,) but you can’t admire him for his racism and deny the Holocaust.

“Has the court passed any verdict? No? Then he is still a suspect. Learn the rules of democracy.” , Learn rule of law: A dead person can’t be put on trial. Defending him/herself would be a problem… Perhaps turning tables…

“If I just express a racist opinion and get fired - is it lawful? I mean I didn't call anyone to hurt anyone.” Well, yes, happened in UK at least. I don’t understand what you don’t understand. Illegal is illegal. Yes, if you take money that is not yours, you can be fired, even if you didn’t mean harm, same as racist remark. The main problem is to determine is a remark was meant to be racist, and I grant you it is not always fair and nice.

“In effect we see that Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims incites violence against christians and the French all over the muslim world.” So your solution is not to blame the ones who burn and kill, but the one who are killed… Nice. Obscurantists Religious Muslims will get it, at one moment. They are not above the laws.
Can I remind you, that, without the killing, no drawings would been published at that scale... Just saying.

So, let’s say that Catholic France decided that it is enough for the Muslims to pretend to have a so-called prophet, and UK to blaspheme of the Holly Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, and ban all Eastern Churches to worship Icons as it is blaspheme to worship images and start to burn and kill, and put bombs everywhere, will you finally understand you can’t mock the Holly Catholic Religion, and finally stop to blaspheme as it hurt really the Catholic France in her feeling?

The most funny is nobody seems to realise how racists the obscurantist religious fanatics (Muslim in this case) are: they burned Churches because atheists’ publication. These idiots are so racist and stupid in their dark mind that they are unable to make a difference between Christians (even an Evangelical church burned in Mali): the same one defending the right for Churches to be exempted of criticism and satire.

“France which will result in loss of jobs in France, should the financial loss be recovered from the sky-rocketing revenues of the said publication?” Will Ukraine pay for the loss of jobs if Russia decides to call-off the deal for the war-ships that Holland decided to postpone the delivery of?

[Montmorency]

Gilrandir, let me make it simple. If I get fired for glorifying racism, it's no different in the eyes of the law than if I were fired for attacking racism - as long as the employer-in-question is not the government itself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Gilrandir, let me make it simple. If I get fired for glorifying racism, it's no different in the eyes of the law than if I were fired for attacking racism - as long as the employer-in-question is not the government itself.

The principles of free speech do not just concern state censorship - employers do not have the right to take away all the human rights of their employees upon signing a contract, and sacking somebody for using their right to free speech would almost certainly be unfair grounds for dismissal and indeed illegal. Free speech doesn't just give the government a negative role in not censoring things, it gives it a positive role in ensuring that other bodies do not take away peoples freedoms.

[classical_hero]

“How about "be nice to everyone nonwithstanding his/her faith/absence of it"?” Great for me. It is what atheism is.

I am just wondering how the victims of Stalin and Mao would feel about this statement. Considering the millions they killed.

As usual in the Muslim world is that they lash out at either the Jews or Christians. It is hardly surprising the only woman killed at CH was a woman of Jewish descent. And the attack on the Kosher market was part of the plan and many people wondered why female police officer was killed, but she was near a Jewish school, trying to protect it from attack and got killed as a result. But in countries where Islam is in control we are seeing attacks on Christians. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com.au/...l#.VLwZWaKTJpg
Where they tagged this on the side, which was curiously missing from the English version. The Arabic means "God Damn you, o worshippers of the Cross."

[Brenus]

"I am just wondering how the victims of Stalin and Mao would feel about this statement. Considering the millions they killed." In the name of atheism? Do you put on Christianity the Belgium Congo genocide, as the King of Belgium was a Christian? Stalin was a former student in Religion, and no one knows what Mao did believe. Hey, your forgot Pol Pot, but at least you didn't put Hitler. That is usually what the ones trying the mix-up atheism and dictatorship do... Try again.