it shouldn't make any difference whatsoever as to whether or not you can say what you like about them, but I think it is disingenuous to suggest that lampooning someone for believing the earth is flat or that an alien spaceship is coming to take them to heaven is the same as lampooning someone for the mere fact that they are black, white or polka-dotted. for one thing, suggesting that 2 people from opposite corners of the world are likely to be the same simply because they share the same skin color would be pretty stupid (though that doesn't mean you're not free to say it), whereas suggesting that those same 2 people are likely to be the same because they voluntarily choose to believe the Bible is the literal and unquestionable word of god isn't particularly far-fetched.

just because someone is free to say or write something does not mean another person is not free to call them an asshole or an idiot.

Er... hang on a minute. I've just spent the last four days being told that Free Speech is absolute.

Now you tell me that apparently it's not.

So what gives? Are we all Charlie, or are some of us less Charlie than others?

And some Muslims no longer circumcise their boys, and often do not circumcise their daughters!

Odd that when Jews are mentioned we quickly see the word "circumcise" pop up but not when Muslims are mentioned, for example, this long thread. Despite the fact that the number of circumcised Muslims in this world are many hundred times the number of circumcised Jews.

About "according to a rabbi friend , to convert to Judaism means you must shun and be seen to shun your former family and friends." I think he was pulling your leg; you should ask him where this is defined by the Amora'im who produced the Talmud.

My mention of circumcision was in direct refererence to Muslim friends and relatives, actually.

More from Will Self about rights and responsibilities:

http://bcove.me/eqoeo8tq

Well believe it or not cartoons insulting the prophet offend regular Muslims as well as the extremists.

Extremists deserve no respect, but in the process of offending them, regular Muslims get caught in the cross fire and regular Muslims develop an animosity against people exercising their right to freedom of speech.

Not for some but certainly for you. You can say and write what you want.*

*I don't suppose the minimal government impositions on free speech with regard to inciting hate etc concern you too much but basically anything else goes.

So do you think it would be better to curtail free speech by law to avoid upsetting people or do you think the right to freedom of speech is more important?

No, no, Tom. Quit this bullshit.

Free Speech is not absolute, and never was. Not for anybody.

Surely that's pretty plain to understand?

I don't think there should be any laws to curtail freedom of speech.

Nothing's absolute. Okay? (I don't think I wrote that anyway).

Maybe "No free speech" means something different to you than me.

Maybe it meant something different to the people controlled by the Stasi in the old East Germany.
I wondered if they looked to the West and thought "Oh, they don't have free speech either".

the drawing of any direct nexus between rights and responsibilities is philosophically dangerous and just simply not accurate, at least as the notion of "rights" is recognized in most of the western world. the exercise of a right may come with consequences, that is unquestionable, but those consequences do not derive from a breach of responsibility and in fact more often than not bear no nexus to a breach of responsibility at all.

put another way, I have no obligation whatsoever to exercise my right to freedom of expression "responsibly", and to suggest otherwise is dangerous and, candidly, a recipe for totalitarianism. I certainly have a responsibility to accept the reasonable and rational consequences of my exercise of my right to freedom of expression, e.g. being called an asshole or having people refuse to purchase my newspaper, but that is a different matter altogether.

Yeah, but we're not talking about the Stasi, we're talking about a bunch of smug cartoonists who got an innocent maintenance man and a couple of innocent coppers shot.

Maybe, in a world where Free Speech isn't absolute, they could have toned it down a bit and not pissed off lots of people who aren't Islamist dickwads for the sake of some farty notion of "Free Speech".

Should they have done it for every topics? Or just on Islam?

Free speech is absolute where it does not infringe on other absolute rights. Like the right to physical liberty. That's absolute until you start to murder and steal and then your physical liberty must be constrained. It's quite farcical to draw the conclusion that physical liberty doesn't exist or doesn't much exist though. From a practical point of view you can walk where you want during your morning stroll.

Although it's mainly true. You can convert to Judaism but it so hard and so rarely done, and the fact that Judaism does not recognise apostasy (if you convert to Islam, Judaism will still always recognise you as Jewish so you're in trouble with god if you then go and eat prawns) means that in a practical and historical sense it's much more an ethnicity than a religion which is why there are so few Jews (it's like being Catalan, you can become so but not really in practise)

Please don't equate "random shit I googled from the Qoran" with "Islam".


Personally, I think that holocaust denial should be completely legal everywhere. And watching Jews and faux liberals trip over themselves to explain away why showing Mahammed being raped is OK but Nazi-esque big-nose caricatures of Jews isn't is just embarrassing.

Nobody offends regular Muslims. Regular Muslims get offended. Meditate on the difference and you'll understand western liberal values.

I think Dougal's Breakfast just means Islam.

After all, if the cartoons had been against the Jains, for example, the cartoonist may have got a disapproving look but nothing more.

Did you watch the video and read Will Self's article, honestly they are very enlightening. Yes, I agree the right to free speech is essential in a democracy, but that with any right comes responsibilities too.

But, again, if one can lampoon Islamists (and Charlie Hebdo has often gone much further and insulted Islam and all Muslims - not only Islamists/ISIS, etc) then surely so can one do so with zionists (and Jews and Judaism). As said, either you do, or you don't.


farmadoc, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was sacked (one of the founder members) for mocking the 'quick pseudo' conversion to Judaism by Sarkozy in order to marry the heiress of a multi-million empire (Darty supermarkets/electricals), way before he became President btw. I've known many people to have had 'quick' and in the case of my mil, definitely pseudo, conversions to Islam to be able to marry and be part of the family and community.

this is a ridiculous conversation now between religions. as if one is a choice and one is not. as if they are so different. radicals of most religions have done damage and still do. not one of the three can claim to be more peace-loving than the other and in the end- they all do have at least one thing in common

Attached Thumbnails

 

Regular muslims are also perfectly within their rights to voice their opinions on the people who offend their beloved, make-believe prophet, just as Christians are within their rights to voice their critical opinions on the people who offend their beloved, make-believe prophet.

People can and will take offence to anything they deem offensive, this can range from dietary choices, lifestyle choices, sexual preferences, the list goes on.

If regular muslims have a problem with people exercising their freedom of speech in a country they have decided to integrate themselves into, then that really is no problem but their own. They may not like it, but they have the right to voice it or demonstrate peacefully any time they please.

I agree completely.

They're also quite free to move to another country which follows their view of the world better if they can't learn to abide by the rules of the country they've adopted.