'France attack: Three killed in 'Islamist terrorist' stabbings'

[Nearly Sane]

Very scary no matter what your opinion

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957


Especially when you read stuff like this


https://www.dawn.com/news/1587638

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm minded of Sam Harris sentiment after reading the Dawn article.

[jeremyp]

Especially when you read stuff like this

https://www.dawn.com/news/1587638

But while I believe in the freedom of expression, I do not think it includes insulting other people. You cannot go up to a man and curse him simply because you believe in freedom of speech.

I've got news for Mahathir Mohamad: that's exactly what freedom of speech means.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I was more concerned about his take on Muslims' right to kill millions of French because the French massacred Muslims in the past. Not sure where he got this "eye for an eye" law as applying to the way societies operate today.

Mahathir, 95, a respected leader in the Muslim world, further said that Muslims have a right to be angry and want retribution for past crimes.

"The French in the course of their history has killed millions of people. Many were Muslims.

“Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past. But by and large, the Muslims have not applied the 'eye for an eye' law. Muslims don't. The French shouldn't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But while I believe in the freedom of expression, I do not think it includes insulting other people. You cannot go up to a man and curse him simply because you believe in freedom of speech.

I've got news for Mahathir Mohamad: that's exactly what freedom of speech means.

There are limits to this right - we have laws against hate speech.

[jeremyp]

I've got news for Mahathir Mohamad: that's exactly what freedom of speech means.

There are limits to this right - we have laws against hate speech.

The hate speech laws are in conflict with free speech. If free speech was protected by our constitution in the same way as it is in the USA, our hate speech laws would be unconstitutional.

If it's illegal to mock a long dead semi mythical figure who decided to spread his religious ideas by means of violence, then the hate speech law goes too far.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The hate speech laws are in conflict with free speech. If free speech was protected by our constitution in the same way as it is in the USA, our hate speech laws would be unconstitutional.

If it's illegal to mock a long dead semi mythical figure who decided to spread his religious ideas by means of violence, then the hate speech law goes too far.

I think that's a very simplistic assertion about the spread of Islam. As with most history you can't usually sum it up in simplistic terms...unless you're Trump or Vote Leave.

The French people and those of many other countries are divided on the idea of free speech - it generates a lot of public debate. Back in 2008, a left-wing cartoonist, Sine, was fired from Charlie Hebdo because he was accused of anti-Semitism and refused to apologise. He was then charged with inciting racial hatred, found not guilty and then the courts ordered Charlie Hebdo to pay Sine EUR 90,000 for wrongful dismissal.

France has a law making it illegal to denigrate the French flag - so that's a limit on freedom of expression - some symbols off limits while others are fair game. The debate is not simple.

[Udayana]

The hate speech laws are in conflict with free speech. If free speech was protected by our constitution in the same way as it is in the USA, our hate speech laws would be unconstitutional.

Free speech and rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are just as much silly , indefinable and self-contradictory idealisations as "God", "free will", "life after death" - interminably pulled apart in other threads.

We only need to look at state of America for plenty of evidence that the USA constitution is a pile of shite.
 

If it's illegal to mock a long dead semi mythical figure who decided to spread his religious ideas by means of violence, then the hate speech law goes too far.

But it's not their prophet who is actually being mocked, is it?
 

[jeremyp]

I think that's a very simplistic assertion about the spread of Islam.

Did Mohammed use violence to spread Islam or not?

As with most history you can't usually sum it up in simplistic terms...unless you're Trump or Vote Leave.

That's beneath you.

The French people and those of many other countries are divided on the idea of free speech - it generates a lot of public debate. Back in 2008, a left-wing cartoonist, Sine, was fired from Charlie Hebdo because he was accused of anti-Semitism and refused to apologise. He was then charged with inciting racial hatred, found not guilty and then the courts ordered Charlie Hebdo to pay Sine EUR 90,000 for wrongful dismissal.

France has a law making it illegal to denigrate the French flag - so that's a limit on freedom of expression - some symbols off limits while others are fair game. The debate is not simple.

What's your point? That the fact that France has inconsistent laws makes it OK to behead people for talking about cartoons that mock Mohammed? Is that your point?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Free speech and rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are just as much silly , indefinable and self-contradictory idealisations as "God", "free will", "life after death" - interminably pulled apart in other threads.

We only need to look at state of America for plenty of evidence that the USA constitution is a pile of shite.
 
But it's not their prophet who is actually being mocked, is it?

What is being mocked? I find their cartoons crude and amateurish but perhaps that's because I am used to seeing more sophisticated  iGCSE history related political cartoons from the past in textbooks. If Charlie Hebdo are trying to mock certain cultural/ religious beliefs of Muslims or ideas, the cartoonists seem to have taken the focus from that.

[jeremyp]

Free speech and rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are just as much silly , indefinable and self-contradictory idealisations as "God", "free will", "life after death" - interminably pulled apart in other threads.

No they are not. Free speech is fundamental to a functional democracy.

We only need to look at state of America for plenty of evidence that the USA constitution is a pile of shite.

It isn't all shite.
 

But it's not their prophet who is actually being mocked, is it?

I don't care who is being mocked. Mocking people - living or dead - is no reason to be put in prison. I's also no reason to have your head cut off.

[Nearly Sane]

No they are not. Free speech is fundamental to a functional democracy.

which country has absolute freedom of speech?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Did Mohammed use violence to spread Islam or not?

Not a one line answer.

That's beneath you.

To point out that people looking for simplistic answers often end up with the shambles that is Trump and Brexit? No I don't think so.

What's your point? That the fact that France has inconsistent laws makes it OK to behead people for talking about cartoons that mock Mohammed? Is that your point?

You have fun with your simplistic one liners. There will be someone along at some point who wants to play.   

[Udayana]

...
I don't care who is being mocked. Mocking people - living or dead - is no reason to be put in prison. I's also no reason to have your head cut off.

Indeed, I agree entirely. However if you feel you must mock people who are going to express their hurt feelings by decapitating you -  irrespective of any laws, there is not much I can do about it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Indeed, I agree entirely. However if you feel you must mock people who are going to express their hurt feelings by decapitating you -  irrespective of any laws, there is not much I can do about it.

There are some dangerous individuals in the world. For example, if Jeremy tried this free speech business with the wrong football fan he may not live to regret it.

I agree with you that we need to be realistic about the fact that we live in a world where a small minority of humans become enraged and deranged enough about football or BLM protests or religion to go beyond protests or chants and actually murder others over words or symbols they are offended by.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Some analysis of the 2018 ECHR decision on whether Austrian courts were in breach of Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of speech, by convicting someone for breaching Article 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code for alleging that Prophet Mohammed was a paedophile.

https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/26/q-have-european-judges-just-banned-defamation-of-the-prophet-muhammad-a-no

[jeremyp]

which country has absolute freedom of speech?

None.

[jeremyp]

Not a one line answer.

Actually, you only need one word to answer my question and that word is "yes".

To point out that people looking for simplistic answers often end up with the shambles that is Trump and Brexit? No I don't think so.

That is a very simplistic statement.

You have fun with your simplistic one liners. There will be someone along at some point who wants to play.

You could have just denied that you believe it's OK to behead people if France has inconsistent laws. Instead you choice to avoid answering the question. How do you think that looks?

[jeremyp]

Some analysis of the 2018 ECHR decision on whether Austrian courts were in breach of Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of speech, by convicting someone for breaching Article 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code for alleging that Prophet Mohammed was a paedophile.

https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/26/q-have-european-judges-just-banned-defamation-of-the-prophet-muhammad-a-no

The idea that claiming Mohammed was a paedophile should be a crime is a matter for deep concern. For a start, he is long dead and so can't be defamed.

Secondly, judged by modern standards he raped a minor. Now I accept he didn't live in modern times and I would prefer not to judge him by standards of which he had no knowledge but there's a whole can of worms associated with the whole "re-evaluation by modern standards" thing and discussion of the point should not be chilled by the threat of a conviction for hate speech.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Actually, you only need one word to answer my question and that word is "yes".

Only a simpleton thinks you can answer questions about long dead, historical/ religious/ political figures in one word. Especially when the person was the head of a state, which then expanded into an empire after his death, and especially if the person's history has become bound up in religious stories passed down through oral tradition, and the stories have been expanded upon and developed over centuries by various schools of thought. The answer will change depending on who you speak to. I'll leave you to do the one word answers.

That is a very simplistic statement.

Yes, simplistic statements aren't much use in solving complex issues involving competing ethics. morals, values and beliefs. 

You could have just denied that you believe it's OK to behead people if France has inconsistent laws. Instead you choice to avoid answering the question. How do you think that looks?

To someone with certain biases and prejudices it probably looks bad. And? Your prejudices aren't my problem.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The idea that claiming Mohammed was a paedophile should be a crime is a matter for deep concern. For a start, he is long dead and so can't be defamed.

If you read the analysis you would see the reason why the courts disagreed with your opinion. Austria apparently still has a blasphemy law and the ECHR seemed to think in this case that to some extent it was a matter for Austria, its legislature, and its people to decide how best to preserve peaceful community relations based on what works for their country.

Secondly, judged by modern standards he raped a minor. Now I accept he didn't live in modern times and I would prefer not to judge him by standards of which he had no knowledge but there's a whole can of worms associated with the whole "re-evaluation by modern standards" thing and discussion of the point should not be chilled by the threat of a conviction for hate speech.

From the article I linked to -

The Austrian courts found that people can make offensive attacks on religion, but should avoid making statements that undermine the rights of others or cause major offence to a religious group without contributing to a serious debate of public interest. Her statements were not found to contribute to a serious debate, since they were not ‘facts’ but ‘derogatory value judgments’ without a sufficient evidence base. (The courts involved themselves in a rather bizarre attempt to assess whether there was enough evidence to determine the historicity of the claims).

[Nearly Sane]

Just no, Justin



https://thecanadian.news/2020/10/30/muhammad-cartoons-freedom-of-expression-has-its-limits-according-to-justin-trudeau/

[jeremyp]

Only a simpleton thinks you can answer questions about long dead, historical/ religious/ political figures in one word.

Rubbish. You're just trying to avoid the question because you know the answer is yes.

Especially when the person was the head of a state

How did he acquire that state? Was violence involved.

which then expanded into an empire after his death

How was that empire acquired? Was violence involved?

To someone with certain biases and prejudices it probably looks bad. And? Your prejudices aren't my problem.

Beheading somebody for mocking your religion looks bad to me. I'm sorry you don't like that I am prejudiced against murder, but I am and so should any reasonable person be.

[jeremyp]

Austria apparently still has a blasphemy law

Which is stupid.

The Austrian courts found that people can make offensive attacks on religion, but should avoid making statements that undermine the rights of others or cause major offence to a religious group without contributing to a serious debate of public interest. Her statements were not found to contribute to a serious debate, since they were not ‘facts’ but ‘derogatory value judgments’ without a sufficient evidence base. (The courts involved themselves in a rather bizarre attempt to assess whether there was enough evidence to determine the historicity of the claims).

Define "major offence to a religious group". I would suggest that displaying cartoons intended to mock Mohammed or his religion in order to discuss the free speech issues that arise from them is contributing to a serious debate of public interest.

The fact that it hurts your feelings is regrettable but people should not go to prison for hurting your feelings.

Nor should they have their heads cut off.

[jeremyp]

Just no, Justin



https://thecanadian.news/2020/10/30/muhammad-cartoons-freedom-of-expression-has-its-limits-according-to-justin-trudeau/

We don’t have the right, for example, to cry “fire” in a crowded cinema

It's not clear to me if the above quotation was from Trudeau because the quote marks in the article were a bit messed up, but people need to be aware of the origins of it. It was first used by a US Supreme Court judge in a ruling that protesting about the draft in WW1 was not protected by the First Amendment, that somebody could be prosecuted for merely criticising the US government's decision to conscript men for the war effort.