Sami Jp, a friend of this page, made this excellent and thought provoking comment elsewhere to another friend. I hope he will not mind if I share it... ...Firstly I must say that Im an atheist who has no personal issue with ridiculing any religious figure. Nevertheless, I dont think freedom of speech is unlimited. Even those who say it is dont really know what their words entail. Theyve been calling to see these cartoons reposted everywhere because its freedom of speech, but I ask what if someone decides to post anti-semitic cartoons similar to those that were common in Europe in late 1800s and early 1900s? What if it was a cartoon about black people with the repulsive contents that were commonplace in days gone by? Will they still be calling to have them reposted in every newspaper? People seem to ignore the basic human quality of empathy, Which is not doing anything that hurts another person in any way, otherwise we become bullies. Bullies dont talk politics or religion, but they call others ugly, fat, losers, make fun of disabilities, and in many cases force people to actually take their own lives in pain. Is that what we want to be doing? Knowing that a group of people revere that man, yet go and draw him naked with his butt in the air while an animal copulates with him? This is not free speech, its bullying. One funny fact that people dont know, is that this same French paper fired one of its editors because he said something that could be vaguely perceived as anti-Semitic. Look here is you dont believe me telegraph.co.uk/.../Sarkozys-son-weds-amid... Why wasnt that considered free speech? Sickening hypocrisy that no one can deny. Let me give more examples, you might not be familiar with these events in the UK, but in the US David Letterman made fun of Sarah Palins daughter a few years ago, and the right went up in arms and marched to NY demanding his firing. Then a few weeks ago a republican woman said that Obamas daughters need to show some class, and the left went up in arms and the woman was fired! We can now agree that freedom of speech is not unlimited, and that people who support that concept still raise hell when their own political figures, race, or families are insulted. Charlie Hebdo itself did it with that fired editor. This is not at all to condone any sort of violence or that barbaric murder. When a boy gets bullied in school I will not accept that he goes back and shoots the bully, BUT in meantime I will not applaud the bully or say hes practising his rights. If we, as a group of civilised people had treated these cartoons in the same way we would treat anti-semitic or racist cartoons, ie. shunning that newspaper and telling them that its unacceptable, that whole thing would have ended years ago and no one would have imitated them. Unfortunately though people embraced them as an expression of latent hate of Islam, choosing to selectively mask that hate behind the freedom of speech, which, for the 3rd time, would not have been the case had it been an anti-semitic or anti-black cartoon. I personally engage in debates with muslims all the time, and tell them that I reject the behaviour of Mohammed and that there is no way to justify marrying a 6-9 years old child or the expansion wars of early Islam. I tell them that Quran (which I read fully in my native Arabic) is full of scientific errors indicating that its a word of a contemporary man and not a deity, and in most cases a civilised debate takes place despite our disagreement. This is free speech that doesnt bully or humiliate anyone. I know many would disagree with me, but read it one more time and take in the analogies and hypothetical scenarios I mentioned and the gap between our views would shrink
Posted on: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:50:51 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015