Feeble Democratic Secularism | 274 comments (274 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

If you define : "No longer firebomb us" as submission, you have moved the goalposts

"Us"? There is no "us", I am not a racist. I don't want to be included in that "us". There is absolutely nothing I have in common with the issuers of that stuff.

And no, that's not the definition anyone here uses.

eurogreen:

Nothing from French Islamists so far, nor from any "official" French Muslim source

There. "Nothing". That's total submission.

IM:

And even a minority religion can be the target of satire or do you want to make all jewish comedians unemployed?

These cartoons aren't made by Muslim comedians. They are made by non-Muslims who are issuing a message to Muslims. The equivalent of antisemitic jokes.

IM:

And no, I reserve the right to critisize the political ideology of islamism.

Islamism would be a completely different topic. These aren't Mursi cartoons, they are Mohammed cartoons. The message is "Look what a crazy asshole they revere" and "they" clearly is Muslims, not Islamists. Misguided denialism yourself.

by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:08:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 0)

Do you want to imply that I am a racist? Nuts.

But nice that you defend the right of islamists to firebomb others. But that is okay: After all you just quite forcefully othered publishers of satirical magazines and other undesirables.

I think the publishers and writers of this magazine, even if you have for some idiotic and clueless reason decided to declare them heretics, have a right to be not firebombed. That is quite reasonable demand.

If you can't even see that, you have a problem.

And then you are indeed no longer any part of "us", that is of a left dedicated to Enlightenment values.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:24:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 0)

IM:

But nice that you defend the right of islamists to firebomb others.

Do I? Can you point to the post where I did? Are you so desperately out of arguments that you take to misrepresentations?

IM:

But that is okay: After all you just quite forcefully othered publishers of satirical magazines and other undesirables.

The publishers of satirical magazines must be held accountable for the dissemination of hate speech like anyone else.

IM:

you have for some idiotic and clueless reason decided to declare them heretics

Again: I challenge you to point to the post where I did. You can't. You have invented this claim.

by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 0)

You have just called them racists. Earlier you have called them xenophobes. Accusations, I may add, that you have invented out of thin air.

"The publishers of satirical magazines must be held accountable for the dissemination of hate speech like anyone else."

A picture of Mohammed isn't hate speech. And vigilante justice like firebombing isn't the right way to hold someone accountable.

If you really think for some unscrutable reason that they are engaging in hate speech, sue them. That is the proper way to deal with it. Perhaps you could transmit this way of procedure to your new allies on the islamic right?

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 1)

IM:

You have just called them racists. Earlier you have called them xenophobes.

Accusations that I have argued. And where did I call them heretics? Where? If I was arguing heresy or the like, the debate would be completely different. So why the fuck are you claiming that?

IM:

A picture of Mohammed isn't hate speech

That depends on the message the picture transports. If pictures can't be hate speech, a cartoon of a banker with hooked nose and vile smirk wouldn't be either. Are you arguing that?

IM:

And vigilante justice like firebombing isn't the right way to hold someone accountable.

My own prehistoric activities in front of the Axel-Springer-House don't belong to the wisest things I ever did, but they were a way to hold that media concern accountable. Anyway, all firebombing in reaction to the publication we are discussing here has been invented by you and Jake. When will you get that there was no firebombing?

IM:

If you really think for some unscrutable reason that they are engaging in hate speech, sue them. That is the proper way to deal with it.

With what right are you telling me to shut up? Where is your defence of free speech? If I decide it is the proper way to argue against this hate speech, how come you have the last word on it?

IM:

Perhaps you could transmit this way of procedure to your new allies on the islamic right?

And now you have not only run out of arguments, you have come completely unglued.

by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 09:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 1)

"Accusations that I have argued. And where did I call them heretics? Where? If I was arguing heresy or the like, the debate would be completely different. So why the fuck are you claiming that?"

that is called a metaphor. Racists and xenophobes are surely heretics to the left.

"That depends on the message the picture transports. If pictures can't be hate speech, a cartoon of a banker with hooked nose and vile smirk wouldn't be either. Are you arguing that?"

No. Do you argue that every depiction of a banker is hate speech?

Furthermore:

>Controversy arose over the publication's February 9, 2006 edition. Under the title "Mahomet débordé par les intégristes" ("Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists"), the front page showed a cartoon of a weeping Prophet Muhammad saying "C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons" ("it's hard being loved by jerks").<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#1992.E2.80.932010

That is not hate speech but rather defending Mohammed against his islamist fans.

"My own prehistoric activities in front of the Axel-Springer-House don't belong to the wisest things I ever did, but they were a way to hold that media concern accountable. Anyway, all firebombing in reaction to the publication we are discussing here has been invented by you and Jake. When will you get that there was no firebombing?"

In the early hours of November 2, 2011, the newspaper's office in the 20th arrondissement[8] was fire-bombed and its website hacked.

And regrading Springer - do you really compare the most powerful german media comglomerate and a small satiric paper? bY the way, how did your protest work out?

"With what right are you telling me to shut up? Where is your defence of free speech? If I decide it is the proper way to argue against this hate speech, how come you have the last word on it?"

I have not told you to shut up. I just think you are wrong. That is called having an argument.

"And now you have not only run out of arguments, you have come completely unglued."

You have just argued that a fire-bomb is sometimes a valid way of protest, so I am not so sure who is unglued here.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 09:40:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 0)

To clarify:

"These cartoons aren't made by Muslim comedians."

So this paper has just to find a muslim cartoonist? A little affirmative action and everything is fine?

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:27:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 1)

Are you forgetting so quickly what you have just written? I was rejecting your "And even a minority religion can be the target of satire or do you want to make all jewish comedians unemployed?"

You compare the anti-Muslim campaign to the work of Jewish comedians instead of comparing them to antisemitic jokes, which would be the appropriate parallel.

by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:51:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 0)

"what anti-muslim campaign? "

I just see a satiric magazine standing up for freedom of speech. Attacked by islamists, who you defend for some reason.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:58:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 1)

And yes it is totally legitimate to satirise minority religion.

South park e. g. made fun of mormons and scientologists. That was funny legitimate and not oppressive or persecution. And South Park is probably a lot more influential then Charlie Hebdo.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 09:00:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 0)

"Islamism would be a completely different topic."

Not at all. Charlie Hebdo are defending themselves against attacks from islamists - some violent.

And that being also a defense of free speech should be supported.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 0)

IM:

Not at all. Charlie Hebdo are defending themselves against attacks from islamists - some violent.

They aren't defending themselves at all. They aren't attacked. They are disseminating standard mainstream anti-Muslim racism, and Muslims have no voice.

IM:

And that being also a defense of free speech should be supported

There is no freedom for hate speech. And even though this is not hate speech in the legal sense, it functions as hate speech, which is why I criticise Charlie Hebdo's despicable publication. I note that you categorise my speech as an attack on free speech: apparently only anti-Muslim speech is free.

by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 09:00:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How dangerous (none / 0)

Of course they were attacked. In words of course too but there was also the fire-bomb. If that isn't a attack, what do you need?

"Muslims have no voice" - I am sure that the muslim media in France has a lot higher circulation numbers then the circulation of Charlie Hebdo. Not the count all the muslim ministers, parliamentarians, mayors civil servants journalist etc. in France. And the official representation of muslim organizations.

"There is no freedom for hate speech."

Define hate speech. Freedom of speech has to include undesirable speech or it isn't much of a freedom.

"And even though this is not hate speech in the legal sense, "

well, in this case where is the problem?

"it functions as hate speech,"

That assertion you should perhaps prove at some time

"which is why I criticise Charlie Hebdo's despicable publication."

You see an despicable publication, I see a rather mild satire and an attempt to assert their right of free speech.

That is at worst ill-advised. Not despicable.

"I note that you categorise my speech as an attack on free speech: apparently only anti-Muslim speech is free."

What anti-muslim speech? And categorizing an satirical publication as hate speech is an attack on free speech. I on the other hand haven't tried to suppress your speech or demanded suppression or whatever.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 09:21:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

@ IM and Katrin (none / 0)

[ET Moderation Technology™]

We've had enough of this repetitive bickering in this thread.

You don't seem to have noticed this comment below.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 09:41:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Feeble Democratic Secularism | 274 comments (274 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

What's Next, After the Slam?

Struggle NWO Unipolar or Multilateralism

City Agriculture - March 17, 2023

Shock Election Loss Rutte IV In Senate Race

Honduras Establishes Close Ties with China

A Return to Normalcy?

A Grand Slam for Ireland?

Recent Diaries

The Insurrection President Indicted

KS: Barrister, Judge, Prison Warden, Assassin

History Hillsdale College, Alumni and Domestic Terror

Struggle NWO Unipolar or Multilateralism

Neo-Nazi Marches Across Europe

Fascism Unites America, Israel and EU Neo-Nazis

What's Next, After the Slam?

Settler Extremism Blessed by Jerusalem Leaders

US Interference In Lebanon-Syria-Ira
q

City Agriculture - March 17, 2023

Shock Election Loss Rutte IV In Senate Race

Stalemate Endures, Pessimism Grows, Deaths Mount

Honduras Establishes Close Ties with China

A Grand Slam for Ireland?

Living In Spain and Social-Democracy

USA Censorship Act to Kill Disinformation

Flying Fortresses and Nuclear Threat

Universal Criticism Asylum Threshold EU Fortress

China Trade and Relations

SBU As a Terror Network

Occasional Series