Below are my opening remarks at a 29 January panel discussion organised by UCL Atheist Society entitled “Living in outrageous times: Charlie Hebdo and the culture of offence”.
The two other panellists debating the issue reminded me of Caroline Fourest’s saying: “Racism must not excuse fundamentalism and fundamentalism must not excuse racism”. Peter Bradley, director of Speakers’ Corner Trust and Charlie Klendjian of the Lawyers’ Secular Society did just that. Bradley was of the opinion that if one was going to offend, they should be held accountable(!?) whilst Klendjian trivialised racism and prejudice and conflated Islam, Islamism and Muslims. (As an aside, I wish the debate had been filmed as it would have been the end of the Lawyers’ Secular Society or at least Charlie Klendjian. Having worked with the LSS in the past (but no longer doing so), I do hope someone will save the organisation from Klendjian who – along with his cohorts at Sharia Watch and UKIP – are taking the LSS down the path of xenophobia and bigotry.)
Anyway, here are my initial remarks:
If I was to make only one point on the Charlie Hebdo massacre it would be that the main issue is not “the culture of offence” because in reality we are all offended all the time whatever our beliefs – Muslim or atheist, Christian, Jewish… I’m offended right now – the fact that I must have this debate in the 21 century offends me.
Offence is subjective and what offends one is funny or completely insignificant to another – even when it comes to that which is deemed sacred and taboo by the gatekeepers of power.
Take the image of Mohammad, Islam’s prophet. There is a rich historical and artistic tradition of depicting Mohammad over many centuries but it’s not allowed today. Why?
“The culture of offence” is just the packaging which blames the victims and provides legitimacy to the Islamists and their unbridled violence and terrorism. You will often hear – especially in the British press – that the Charlie massacre is to be condemned BUT the cartoonists did offend “Muslims” thereby implying that they deserved what they got.
What the “culture of offence” packaging conveniently ignores is that not all “Muslims” are offended by the cartoons. Muslims are no more a homogeneous group than Christians, Jews or the French or British. Also, many are not practising Muslims; there are atheists and agnostics amongst them. And many are believers who are also secularists and feminists and anti-Islamists and gay and unveiled who eat bacon and don’t feel offended by the cartoon Peppa pig.
This is obvious. Even in the Charlie Hebdo massacre, a Muslim policeman, Ahmed Merabet was killed whilst an Algerian copy editor Mustapha Ourad was gunned down in Charlie’s hallway. Many Muslims (or those of “Muslim heritage”) joined rallies and held up “Je Suis Charlie” banners. You have heard of the East London French Muslim cafe owner who was threatened for putting up a “Je Suis Charlie” sign in his cafe. There’s Lassana Bathily, the Malian-born Muslim employee who hid customers at the Paris kosher supermarket and saved lives. And it’s not just people in Europe who supported Charlie. In Iran – a theocracy where blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, enmity against god… and another 130 offences are punishable by death – a rally of journalists in support of Charlie Hebdo was attacked and broken up by security agents wielding clubs and chains. A newspaper was shut down for publishing a photo showing solidarity with the publication. Over 180 journalists who condemned the attack are facing threats from the regime. In Turkey, two columnists from a daily are under investigation for ‘religious defamation’ for featuring the Charlie cover…
So there is no homogeneous “culture of offence”. Some are offended, some are not and most of those who are offended will not go on to kill for it.
The “culture of offence” is a smokescreen. It doesn’t exist. What is packaged as the “culture of offence” is really Islamism’s imposition of blasphemy rules and theocracy under the guise of “Muslim” culture. This is validated by multiculturalism as a social policy and cultural relativism, which sees “communities” and societies as homogeneous and one and the same with the Islamic states and far-Right political movements imposing their rules via force and intimidation.
In Europe, Islamists hide behind a “culture of offence” and also terms like Islamophobia to impose their rules and silence and terrorise dissenters. In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Syria, they have no time for such niceties. There, the “offenders” are called apostates and blasphemers and legally murdered in broad daylight in the same way Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists were “executed”. If you don’t see this, you miss the bigger picture. You need to see Islamism for the international fascist movement that it is and you also need to see the many Charlie Hebdos in Iran, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia – across the globe (including many “Muslims”), who speak and mock that which is deemed sacred by the religious-Right at great risks to their lives.
Whilst many hold the cartoonists responsible for provoking the violence, in reality the cartoons are an excuse. What did Saudi freethinker Raif Badawi do to provoke a sentence of 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes? Or Soheil Arabi sentenced to death in Iran? Or the schoolchildren in Peshawar? Or the girls abducted by Boko Haram in Nigeria? What about the gay men thrown off a building by ISIS? What did they do to “provoke” the threats and abductions and massacres?
Like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, I am often told not to challenge Sharia or apostasy and blasphemy laws by publicly saying I am an ex-Muslim or not to challenge the Islamists’ hatred of women’s bodies via nude protest. I am told day in and day out to “stop provoking them”. But Islamists need no provocation. All those living 21 century lives are “provocations”. Being a woman, a freethinker, being gay, being unveiled, going to school, driving a car, having sex, falling in love… “provokes” them.
More importantly, though, it is Islamism and the religious-Right, which are the real offence. They are the real provocation and it is they who should be held to account not the many who refuse and resist.
Target the Islamists via mass and political mobilisation and unequivocally without any justification or excuses.
Not Muslims. Not immigrants.
Both the far-Right and “respectable racism” of UKIP on the one hand and the pro-Islamist Left of the likes of SWP and George Galloway on the other see Muslims as a homogeneous group and equate them with Islamists. Both have got it wrong. The far-Right blames all “Muslims” for Islamism’s crimes – even though they are its first victims and on the frontlines of resistance – and the pro-Islamist Left defends Islamism as a “defence” of Muslims. But clearly not every Muslim is an Islamist/fascist any more than every Christian is a member of the Christian-Right or every Englishman an EDL-er.
There is no such thing as a “culture of offence”. Calling for civility, censorship, silence or “respect” for the “offended” is accepting the Islamist narrative at our expense. Charlie Hebdo would not be silenced. Nor will we.
Just read this thread and comments and, wow! – Some strange arguments being made here. Adrian, in the same sentence where you claim not to resort to insults, you effectively call somebody a fascist. Odd.
But that aside, you also seem to be arguing that there is no place in society for the Bible and the Quran. These books are, after all, chock full of insults, ridicule and threats directed against anyone with a different set of beliefs. Non-Muslims are called a variety of nasty names in the Quran and Bible – so Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics etc. seem to be fair game to the authors, publishers and those churches, mosques and societies that distribute these books. Non-Christians and non-Muslims are also told, in these books, that they deserve to be tortured – and not just for a bit, but for eternity. Seems a bit extreme, if you ask me. They are also described as evil, as the worst of creatures, among other things, and there’s even a description of good Muslims looking down from heaven and mocking those disbelievers being tortured below in hell. So, mockery of others’ beliefs is very much OK as far as god is concerned, it seems.
As far as offensiveness goes, both the Bible and the Quran are pretty much off the scale. And to add insult to injury, millions of people throughout the planet are carrying these books around and treating them with reverence. But according to Adrian, it is not OK to express your disgust with these beliefs, or with the supposed prophets and saviours that propagated them. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are mild by comparison.
It is fundamental to the Christian and Islamic religions that it is OK to ridicule and disrespect other people’s belief systems – as long as nobody does the same to them. A massive double standard operating, but that’s what you get when people believe they have access to the one true god. In a society with freedom of religion, you cannot have it both ways.
Dear Adam
My reference to fascism was to point out the absurdity of someone who shouts, insults and tells me I’m completely wrong calling me a fascist. My reply wasn’t an insult, it was a counterpoint to someone who had accused me of something. An insult is something thrown out there to offend, not defend.
I am not sure where and how I made the case for the bible and Quran not to be allowed in society (apart from the irony of swearing on a bible in court)?
And then you argue yourself that those books are “off the scale” offensive. So I am not sure how all this fits in to a logical argument.
What I seem to get from your reply regarding religion is that most of the religious texts include divisiveness, lies or contradictions, contempt for non believers and punishments by God for misbehaving that are over the top.
I agree. I don’t feel the need or benefit to believe in any god or religion. I think religion has resulted in good (art, architecture, community and support in times of distress) and bad (wars, division, restrictions in free thought or scientific advances) things.
but like vegetarians, socialists, capitalists, artists, transvestites, boy scouts, hipsters or whatever other group people want to be a part of because they think it’s the right way to be, I don’t need to ridicule them because they are different from me. I am sure a rich guy might think I am a loser because I am not a millionaire and a socialist thinks I am selling out by earning too much money. That’s their viewpoint from their life choices. I don’t felt threatened by that and need to ridicule them for it.
Of course I think death as a punishment for apostosy is wrong but as I have pointed out via US official investigation figures, it is rarer than being struck by lightning – which is obviously god’s way of dealing with those people.
But causing death by purposefully ridiculing other people’s beliefs is as bad as killing someone for ridiculing your belief. Both are extreme types of offensive behavior.
What anyone considers to be extreme or offensive is where the line of bad taste, morals or legality lies. That line varies from person to person and country to country.
No doubt you have dressed according to convention when going to a church for a wedding or funeral even though you don’t believe in religion. You presumably wouldn’t mind it if someone in india asks a female companion of yours to wear a head scarf during a temple visit, or that you whispered while admiring the bible stories depicted on the roof of the Sistine Chapel, or that you didn’t ask why a kosher deli didn’t have bacon. These are all signs of respect, not oppression of your free speech and if you did the opposite of what is the expected behavior in the previous examples just for your own amusement, people would just think you were being either offensive, provocative or immature.
I just don’t feel the need to be that way, although I would and do object to elements of a religion or society that I thought were wrong -such as the middle east conflict or circumcision . But Muslims deciding not to depict Mohammed, Christians thinking wine is the blood of Christ, or Jews not eating bacon is not really affecting anyone’s life in a way that challenging or ridiculing it improves anyone’s life.
It’s just ridicule and promotes divisiveness.
As Charlie Hebdo proved.
@Adamz, My comments are always irrelevant and off the track,but useful for you and freethought-blogs.
There is no double standards “as you mentioned” in Quran and bible. ..Your negative interpretation has made it look like that.
According to your self analyzing of Qur’an and Bible, you are trying to prove these holy books are wrong..if so, how about the following? :
Oklahoma considering ‘efficient’ gas chambers for executions
—————————————————————————–
Oklahoma lawmakers are pushing for the state to become the first in the nation to allow the use of nitrogen gas for the execution of death row prisoners…………………………….
Read More : http://rt.com/usa/230775-oklahoma-gas-chambers-executions/
well bloody said Maryam.
Shelling kills 4 at Ukraine hospital
By Victoria Butenko, for CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/04/europe/ukraine-fighting/index.html
———————————————————-
Thank God, CNN didn’t mention the attack on HOSPITAL in Ukraine was not from ATHEIST terrorists – or – Christian terrorists.
No, your opinion on the subject of your ignorance simply differs from mine. That doesn’t make either me or you a liar.
I haven’t sworn at you.
I’m sorry that you think that an expectation someone should know things or be able to connect ideas logically and rationally is a form of fanaticism. That is impoverishing for you and people you come into contact with.
Limits to free speech are best set at the point at which that speech is being used to harm another person, not at a point that would prevent others from criticising someone’s ideas, opinions or beliefs, as for example, I did in my previous post where I very specifically addressed your points and their lack of substance and logic.
As has been pointed out (by me & many others), Charlie Hebdo is a satirical and anti-racist publication, whose chief target has been french politicians, followed by religious figures of all stripes. There is no justification for exempting one religious group’s idol from this treatment. To do so is condescending, hypocritical, cowardly and racist.
If you find it monotonous to read about free speech in specific relation to islam, only weeks after islamists murdered champions of free speech in the heart of a secular, democratic state, on the blog of someone who is primarily famous as a critic of islam, then, no, you don’t ‘get it’, and – as un-insultingly and objectively as possible – you are an idiot. Read something else. Comment somewhere else. The internet’s a big place.
Maryam is indeed, thankfully alive, despite having received numerous death-threats, all, as far as I’m aware from members of one particular group, as a consequence of exercising her right to free speech.
I’m sorry that my point about a priori ‘respecting’ all other opinions without knowing what they are or their consequences went over your head, but it’s clearly not the only thing which did and there seems little hope of changing that.
Sir
You used the word “piss”. You called me an idiot, you called me ignorant, you put points in capitalised letters (shouting) and noW you reiterate most of those things and tell me to go somewhere else with my opinions.
Again, these are not the hallmarks of a civilized debate and are more akin to someone who is abusive if they disagree with your opinions.
If you read the report from Congress (who investigated apostosy thoroughly) you might see that death from denouncing Islam is extremely rare – they only found 2 cases.
If you read the history of Charlie Hebdo you will see that a cartoonist was sacked for lampooning a Jewish person and an ex emplotee recently criticized the magazine for using provocative images to increase magazine sales, not to make ironic points or to be funny.
Nobody thinks the cartoon of Mohammed was actually humorously done or made any thoughtful comment.
And then of course if antone dare make any joke (of bad taste also) of the attack, they are imprisoned in the land of free speech
http://m.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-30829005
Does that mean Chris Rock joking about the 911 attacks and who would ever want to work in 1 world trade center on Saturday night live can be arrested in France for doing the same routine?
What about the famous grim gallows humor of the victims of the Holocaust? That’s illegal in France. It’s ironic for a country that hosted the Nazis for a few years to now put you in prison if you try selling a bit of Nazi memorabilia left behind when the allies liberated Paris on ebay France.
So to recap, it’s not up to you to tell me where to post. It reflects on your fascism, not mine, to think that because I debate rationally and do not resort to insults, I need to learn how to deal with other people.
I am interacting with you now. I disproved tour presumption.
And of course I agree with you that Maryam talks negatively only about Muslim malpractice and terrorism.
That was my original criticism of her piece.
There are plenty of other religions and political beliefs that affect my daily life as much, and more, than Islam does.
And yet I don’t feel the need to ridicule (my view of the Mohammad cartoon) or enlighten with free speech (as some like to portray it) the christians, jews, greedy capitalists, traffic cops, stock market manipulators, political correctness obsessives or even my teenage kids that I learn patience, tolerance and when to keep my mouth shut from.
But there’s nothing worse than bigotry.
Have a read of this and think which steps we are on. To me, it is going down the list pretty rapidly – on both sides. And I would like to play a small part in breaking the cycle – which is by tolerance and forgiveness as in northern Ireland, not by using the’s steps as is happening in the middle east and by those who do exactly what terrorists want by spreading fear and hatred on their behalf.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html
Good post Maryam; shame about the stupidity of some of the comments.
Libel & slander have exactly nothing to do with ‘causing offence’ or ‘anarchy’: they’re to stop living people or their reputations being harmed by other people lying about them. They’re not similar in any way to satirising or lampooning historical or mythical figures.
‘I respect other people’s opinions and values’. My opinion is that anyone stupid enough to state that they, a priori, respect everyone else’s opinions and values, without knowing what they are, how restrictive or harmful they might be to other peoples’ lives, should be whacked around the head with a haddock every time they leave their house. Do you ‘respect that opinion’?
‘This article singling out one religion or culture is very narrow minded’ – no, it’s written SPECIFICALLY IN RESPONSE TO A MASSACRE COMMITTED BY MUSLIMS IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. Are you taking the piss?
Not only that, but Maryam is head of The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. That ‘one religion’ is her specific focus. Idiot.
99.999% of muslims don’t agree with the results of the ‘provocation’.
Firstly, satirising and mocking a politician – Charlie Hebdo’s chief target – is not a provocation; it’s satire, & so it is with religious icons or figures.
Secondly, a poll of muslim Americans in 2012 found that between 12.5 and 20% believed that anyone – muslim or not – who ‘blasphemed’ against islam should be put to death. That’s muslim Americans.
Salman Taseer, governor of Punjab province in Pakistan was notoriously murdered by his bodyguard in 2011 when he even suggested that death should not be the penalty for blasphemy, and his murderer became a national hero for doing so. Mosques have been named after him.
Reality is not shaped by your personal ignorance of it, and sadly a significant percentage of ordinary muslims worldwide do agree that anyone who ‘blasphemes’ against islam or mohammed should be murdered in the name of islam.
Dear g_log-in
You lied about me, as I am not an ignorant idiot, but you chose to remain one of those nameless people who think appropriate argument is to insult, abuse, swear and shout at anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
You sound like one of those fanatics who hides behind his mask of anonymity.
I am guessing you aren’t Sheik Al-g_log-in?
Slander and libel are indeed different from insults, as demonstrated so eloquently in your semi coherent post. I am glad you believe that there should be limits to free speech.
I agree with you that I think the death penalty for blasphemy is wrong. I also believe the death penalty for murder is wrong and I believe killing anyone is wrong. God (if he existed) in his many forms, was very clear on that too – Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”
Of course, people ignore that and use other parts of the Qur’an to justify killing people because they are psychopaths who are power and money hungry – see IS as a good example of this.
All religious books have crazy stuff in them – the bible is used to swear on in courts (funny the whole church/state thing there) yet advocates killing your kids if they “piss you off” (I am trying to use a phrase you might relate to there) – Leviticus 20:9 says, “If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death.
Anyway, I am meandering off the point. Of course Maryam is focusing on Islam. I get it. It’s like someone who has given up meat eating or smoking, we all have to listen to how they now completely hate something they previously did. But as with vegans etc (I eat meat but never smoked), it gets a bit monotonous to keep hearing the same old stuff about the same old subject.
And guess what. She is happily alive. As are plenty of other Muslims who don’t wear Burkas, or who have the occasional drink, or don’t follow the extreme Islamic faith and haven’t been killed.
Of course their are examples I don’t agree with of rules of different societies. The middle east is something that I am sick of hearing about – from Israelis dropping phosphorus bombs on civillians, to Palestinians, kidnapping and killing Israelis. However, I don’t lump all jews to be like the extremists that refuse to sit next to women on planes, or feel OK about denying a nation control of even it’s own water supply – or killing them with weapons paid for and given to them by American taxpayers.
And I don’t think all Irish Catholics are terrorists even though I lived in an area where I could have been blown up by them for 30 years (also funded by Americans btw), and certainly I don’t think all Christians are like the KKK or paedophile priests.
And you are right, I am tolerant. I will argue against the right of IS to behave as they do, or for Apartheid to stop in South Africa, or for Tibet to be freed, or for oppression to decrease, this is a large world and I can’t fight everyone’s battles – from the death penalty in Texas to the death penalty in Afghanistan.
There are so many varied laws in the world – legal, religious and even societal that to fixate on one small part of one religion, while never mentioning any other is as I said at the beginning – bias.
Arguments are about putting a wide range of points across. About comparing similar examples that strengthen or weaken the thesis being made.
As I see it – from my ignorant personal reality – the world is a messed up place but all that happened after Charlie Hebdo decided to ridicule something for it’s own gain was that the terrorists and the artists caused more suffering, anger, divisions and made the world an even more messed up place. Terrorists aren’t going to stop cartoonists somewhere in the world from being provocative and cartoonists are never going to make extremists of any sort stop what they are doing and go back to peaceful ways.
But terrorists will and do make the majority of their own religion’s worshippers ashamed and make it harder for them to express their religion openly.
As for the fish slap. I would think you are as ridiculous as the person who has to cover their face, or wear a giant fur hat, or an orange robe, or walk around with ash on their forehead – just to please God.
But I would still let you do it as it would indeed top off your abusive, angry and uncouth persona.
Oh, and here is a US Congress report published into apostasy from May last year
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/apostasy.pdf
and I quote…..
The countries surveyed that expressly make apostasy a capital offense are Afghanistan, Brunei,
Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. However, only
a small number of cases showing the application of these capital punishment laws were
identified. Only two cases were identified that resulted in conviction for religious conversion—
one in Iran in 1994 and another in Sudan in 2014. The country surveys also indicate that
apostasy laws are frequently used to charge persons for acts other than conversion. For example,
in Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen, individuals were charged with apostasy for
their writings or comments made on social media. Of the countries researched, it appears that
Iran is the only one that has executed a person convicted of apostasy to date.
HAHA. Do the math. How many children, how many without internet, how many suppressed without freedom of speach and many without heart or brain like you. Take the rest and help this cause rather than posting such a worthless comment. Shame on you for this comment and offense for a person with a great mission.
6 billion people in this world—–> 10 comments of three people for this worthless post…funny woman thinks she is smart…I regret wasting time to read comments over here.
@Maryam: keep it up! You have the perfect mix of intellect, emotions and writing skills. I enjoy reading you and I hope your words can influence some closed minds for good!
Hi there
I get your point and I agree with you to most of it. I just refuse to accept the slightest attempt to justify those killings or the process behind them. Not even to try explaining them letting alone those criminals blackmail anyone.
Get me right: I don’t say that you try justifiying it.
Actually these groups should simply get to the level where they can ignore such provocations. Once the provocation is no longer attracting audience it will loose its effect and disappear in thin air.
So instead of expecting the cartoonists to ‘behave’, it would be wiser expecting the provocated people to stand above it and simply ignoring those ‘simpletons’ who don’t know better than provocating with cartoons.
But there we have the bigger problem! It’s not about provocation here. These criminals abuse those provocations for their so called holy war. They are happy to have been provocated so they could act and justify their actions.
If someone could ask them if they would stop their actions and no longer perform terroristic attacks if the provocations stop, the answer would not be a clear ‘yes we will stop’ but rather ‘we will stop fighting when we have won over all disbelievers’
So if it’s not the cartoons there will be other reasons to keep them going.
In other words: cartoons or not, provcations or not, the only chance we have is integration and acceptance of Islam within the mimits of laws. Embracing rather then excluding.
I don’t feel the need to identify my religion but just for clarifying it: I used to be catholic, ran out of it, checked some other religions and today I am a true believer of the idea that whatever name we give this force/power, it’s in ourselves and at the very bottom it is one same thing.
I completely agree and this is why there must be two things in any civilised society – preached by most “prophets”:
Tolerance of other peoples’ differences
Dialogue instead of violence
The trouble is, there are some humans who prefer power and money for themselves over the wishes of the society at large.
You are right. Those who profit from the misery of others need to be re-educated or excluded from a position where they can damage the well being of a society.
And there really is also no place in society for those who pick on others and make them upset (from religions to sexual orientation or even their obesity) for their own entertainment or gain.
“Do to others as you would wish be done to you” pretty much covers everything in life
Why the obsession with Islamic offence? The hindu swastika can’t be used in Germany for fear of offending jews, the N word can’t be used except by rappers, ridiculing someone because they look gay is a hate crime. There are libel and slander laws to stop verbal anarchy, where anyone can be offensive towards anyone. I respect other people’s opinions and values and do not feel some need to ridicule or taunt them for my own amusement. I wouldn’t put bacon in my Jewish friend’s food because I think their religious rules are silly. That’s just being offensive. This article singling out one religion or culture is very narrow minded when there is so much more to worry about, from torture of prisoners against the geneva convention in guantanamo bay, to communist China or Russia’s treatment of political or religious opponents.
In America it is the law to obtain a permit before being allowed to protest. That isn’t free speech.
By all means criticise Islam – I am not religious. But only criticizing Islam regarding a few of their believers’ abhorrent reaction to what they consider offensive comes across as islamaphobic, not a balanced opinion regarding anyone’s right to be offensive to anyone they choose.
Adrian,
I am a Muslim and I see your point. But I’m afraid you have to fine tune your argument little bit. Crime committed for any other reason is completely different from crime committed to please god. It happens rampantly in my world-community. The Paris massacre and likes fall in a different line of crime than the cases you mentioned. yes, it is difficult if not impossible to draw a legal line on faith-sensitivity, and yes, mocking at a faith for no reason is just stupid, but killing is no answer. Moreover, all faiths and/or interpretations of scriptures are not non-violent; we must oppose when a faith violates Human Rights.
Violence in Muslim societies is a complex issue involving theological strings. We are addressing that from inside. About mocking faith, I lived in the Middle East for long and always saw mocking cartoons against Talmud in Arab media. Shame that no government, no mosque, no clergy ever protested it. Bottom line – Freedom of Speech must prevail – no matter what.
Dear Hasan,
I agree with your points, and I am sure the vast majority of Muslims do too.
The problem here is that at any point that someone points out the hypocrisy or absurdity or lack of actual free speech in the world, the argument is switched to the abhorrent violent reaction in Paris, not the instigation.
Try to not think about the result of the cartoons ( or the 200+ muslim deaths directly attributed to the previous depiction of Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper ) and wonder what is the “purpose” of ridiculing people for their beliefs, or race, or sexuality, or disability. Because free speech means free speech. It’s not free speech if it only applies to religion – it is bias. And if it applies to one religion more than others it becomes bigotry.
Of course nobody should die for expressing their views but even the UN Human Rights laws on freedom of expression adds that with that concept comes “responsibility” and I for one would not like to be the person who, for my own personal amusement, caused the death of either 200+ Muslims or the killing of my colleagues and innocent people by those idiots who think they acted to defend their religion, yet tarnished it and caused untold problems for their fellow believers.
look what is happening in Palestine, Tibet or many other places across the world and look what happened in Northern Ireland. Forgiveness, tolerance and respect resulted in peace, not ridicule and violence just to prove some point about “free speech”.
Hi Adrian
You write that you wouldn’t want to be responsible for the death of the 200+. That’s exactly what these criminals and terrorists are aiming at. They want you to shut up and avoid trouble so they are not offended. I am truly sorry and sad for each and every death frim such events but the statement ‘don’t provocate me or I will kill you and others like you’ simoly is the worst kind of (emotional) blachmailing there is and it should not have the slightest chance!
I have to admit that I think that the provocations should not happen but if they do, they are under no circumstances to be revenged with killings.
Apologies for the errors like ‘from’ and ‘simply’ and ‘blackmailing’! A new device is a new adventure.
Dear DonDe
Nobody agrees with the results of the provocation, not least 99.999% of Muslims.
That is not the point here.
There is a good reason for libel and slander laws. It should not be appropriate to ridicule somebody’s belief for your own personal entertainment – or in the Charlie Hebdo case for sensationalism and publicity.
What was the purpose? To make Muslims think “hmmm, maybe we should depict Mohammed after all?” Who cares if they depict him. Who cares if jews use a 6 pointed star not a 5 pointed one, or christians celebrate Jesus by showing him nailed to two pieces of wood? It’s their belief and it’s not up to me to tell them it’s wrong even if I don’t understand it or agree with it.
Terrorists and psychopaths (often the same thing) will hide behind religion or politics to justify and enable their love of violence. Thankfully not too many people are stupid enough to either behave in the way they do, or stupid enough to be persuaded by others to behave that way.
But the bottom line is that from a young age, we learn when it is inappropriate to make stupid remarks, and we rightly teach our children to do the same, otherwise nobody would have an ” insult filter”. Imagine a world where you could insult anyone? You need moral boundaries and laws. Where those laws and boundaries are drawn are a personal and society based matter but if you have ever though “if I say what I am thinking, I am being an ass and will look bad” and then kept quiet, you haven’t been oppressed, you have been wise.
Free speech is different from free provocation.
And I am an atheist btw
Excellent ! Keep it up, Mariam !!
(From Toronto)