We Are Against Freedom Of Speech — Canadian Imam

[Peachdejour]

I am for freedom of speech and freedom in arts, but I'm very critic about artists who have nothing to say and just want to provocate people. Art should build up something, a reflexion, not just try to make fun of people for the simple point of disempowering what they hold dearest.

Make caricatures of religious people if you wish, but do at least try to say something pertinent...

Who is to say that a political cartoon is not saying something pertinent? These are art and freedom of speech all in one. Everyone may not agree with the message, but that does not mean it is not important. There are plenty of people who do agree with what is being said, which makes it an important message worthy of being seen as a worldview. No one should be killed for a viewpoint on a piece of paper.

 

[starshine]

Who is to say that a political cartoon is not saying something pertinent? These are art and freedom of speech all in one. Everyone may not agree with the message, but that does not mean it is not important. There are plenty of people who do agree with what is being said, which makes it an important message worthy of being seen as a worldview. No one should be killed for a viewpoint on a piece of paper.

Nobody here is talking about whether someone should be killed or not here.

I'm talking of keeping a critic viewpoint on arts. Which is a very important point of freedom of speech, by the way. The right to say that a piece of art is shitty, and has not much to say. Of course, it is important that people be allowed to talk shit. I don't see why we would have to encourage people to do it more for the sake of it. I could make a cartoon now to laugh at you, but why the heck would I? Would you encourage it, for the sake of freedom of speech and to make sure that no opinion and insult ever goes untold and widely diffused?

I don't really care that "people agree" -- people agree on a lot of stupid things that are not important. People agree that iPhones are cool and that terrorism is bad. Fun. That does not mean that making unrelenting cartoons is more important, or more relevant. People who share those cartoons have no idea about the state of freedom of speech in France and about how hypocritical they are about the whole ordeal. Double standards are a dime a dozen, and really, if freedom of speech is the issue considered most pressing here, people should really start to think about it in a wider dimension. Hopefully, after they are done being concerned about the death of twelve white sort of racist cartoonists, they can go on and care about other issues of life and death and unfairness.

I could go on, but I'm not sure what the point would be, it's like trying to explain to a fan that Twilight is crap, and they misunderstanding me and accusing me of wanting to ban it. I just think it's crap, and I'm not sure why anyone ever bothers/bothered with it.

 

[vegito12]

I think when expressing views on different things, need to be careful in how you say it as it could get offensive to others and some people may not like it and what is said. In some countries freedom of speech is not viewed well, and can get punished for saying things which are true but against the country or the people. I think when it comes to sharing the views, need to be careful where you are doing it and who you are saying it to.

 

[tournique]

There is a fine line between funny, satirical content and straight up insults. I do not agree with these actions that occurred in Paris, but the magazine was really out of place. Freedom of speech should still be freedom but until it provokes someone.

 

[Gelsemium]

Freedom of speech should exist, but common sense as well and we should not forget that our freedom ends when other's people freedom begins. Nothing justifies murder though.

 

[starshine]

Freedom of speech should exist, but common sense as well and we should not forget that our freedom ends when other's people freedom begins. Nothing justifies murder though.

Just wanted to say, murder is only seen as "justified" when it's done by the State -- death penalty and wars, for instance. Also, euthanasy might join the list eventually, whereas death penalty seems to be going out of many places.

As for the rest, right, nothing, and very few people try to, justifies unlawful murder. (I also think those wars are not justified, but that's just wishful thinking on my part)

 

[Peninha]

Most countries have freedom of speech and I feel that it's the right way to go. We should not abuse that freedom as we should be respectful, but at the same time without it doesn't make much sense does it.

 

[003]

I don't think so that the press should have selected people who they should focus their writings and outputs and that they should stay away from those religious figures. Besides there are already laws that prohibits libel. I think that alone would be enough. I mean if the religious figures would be given an exemption, why should the government official be not?

 

[zenfive]

The important thing to note from all this is that we have to be able to draw the line between having the right to freedom of speech, and having the right to disrespect or make fun of a religion or race. I'm all for being able to express yourself, everyone can and should have their own opinion about things like religion. But when it gets to the point when you know that what you're saying is going to be something that is highly offensive, and can be considered as being racist, to such a big group of people, then I think you are crossing that line. If you have reached that point then I think you are simply doing it to get attention, other than anything else.

Just look at the latest cover of Charlie Hebdo, in which they've depicted the Prophet Muhammad. They didn't NEED to do that, I get that they were trying to show that they aren't going to back down, but they didn't have to depict in that way. There's about a million different ways I could think of getting that message across without using any disrespectful images. Instead of showing that the whole world stands against extremists and such attacks, they have further twisted the knife in the wound and have caused further unnecessary problems.

And in response to what you said about no Christians backlash or attack for making fun of Jesus, I highly doubt that. Maybe we haven't seen it in the news, or heard about anything as big as this, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

 

[Peachdejour]

The important thing to note from all this is that we have to be able to draw the line between having the right to freedom of speech, and having the right to disrespect or make fun of a religion or race. I'm all for being able to express yourself, everyone can and should have their own opinion about things like religion. But when it gets to the point when you know that what you're saying is going to be something that is highly offensive, and can be considered as being racist, to such a big group of people, then I think you are crossing that line. If you have reached that point then I think you are simply doing it to get attention, other than anything else.

Just look at the latest cover of Charlie Hebdo, in which they've depicted the Prophet Muhammad. They didn't NEED to do that, I get that they were trying to show that they aren't going to back down, but they didn't have to depict in that way. There's about a million different ways I could think of getting that message across without using any disrespectful images. Instead of showing that the whole world stands against extremists and such attacks, they have further twisted the knife in the wound and have caused further unnecessary problems.

And in response to what you said about no Christians backlash or attack for making fun of Jesus, I highly doubt that. Maybe we haven't seen it in the news, or heard about anything as big as this, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

No, they didn't NEED to do that, but on the other hand the Muslims who murdered 12 staffers of the magazine did not NEED to do that either. There are other ways to protest something highly offensive besides murdering a bunch of people and terrorizing a nation. The media is saying we will not be frightened by violence. It's a very risky message to send, but I think it needs to be said. Otherwise, any person that gets offended by any piece of media that is slightly unbalanced might decide that sending a violent message will get their message across. And it doesn't just have to be about religion. We are walking a very delicate tightrope. The answer isn't necessarily clear.

 

[starshine]

And in response to what you said about no Christians backlash or attack for making fun of Jesus, I highly doubt that. Maybe we haven't seen it in the news, or heard about anything as big as this, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

Well, I don't know if it's Christian backlash/censorship or what, but I cannot find any relevant result for more than 30 pages on Google when I look for "Bible Porn". And rule 34 of the Internet usually never lies! Something fishy out here. I'm pretty sure someone out there must have tried it, at least!

Joke aside... As for censored materials, here is a list of cartoons that are not allowed to play on TV because they're judged too provocative -- abortion is not too religious, for example, but the show Popetown was forbidden to air in the UK, Germany, the US and you cannot even find it in DVD because the Roman Catholics did not want it. So there goes that.

You could probably use Google to find more.

 

[Peachdejour]

LMAO. Bible Porn. I haven't even heard of Popetown. I have no doubt that the Roman Catholic church has a far reach when it comes to censorship. The pope has even spoken out stating that free speech cannot insult a person's faith in response to this very subject. There is no doubt that the very religious do not want their religions tarnished by what people have to say. Censorship has been on the agenda for decades. It is the right arm of religion.

 

[zenfive]

No, they didn't NEED to do that, but on the other hand the Muslims who murdered 12 staffers of the magazine did not NEED to do that either. There are other ways to protest something highly offensive besides murdering a bunch of people and terrorizing a nation. The media is saying we will not be frightened by violence. It's a very risky message to send, but I think it needs to be said. Otherwise, any person that gets offended by any piece of media that is slightly unbalanced might decide that sending a violent message will get their message across. And it doesn't just have to be about religion. We are walking a very delicate tightrope. The answer isn't necessarily clear.

What I was trying to say is that I think there is a very fine line between freedom of speech and just being plain racist, no matter what the religion in focus is. I agree they had to put out some message to show that they are not scared, but why do that by doing what got them in this position in the first place. How are they any better if their show of strength can only be shown through further mocking of a religion. Also, those "Muslims" who attacked the offices, shouldn't even be considered as such, seeing as how there is no place in Islam for these kinds of attacks.

 

[Gelsemium]

Just wanted to say, murder is only seen as "justified" when it's done by the State -- death penalty and wars, for instance. Also, euthanasy might join the list eventually, whereas death penalty seems to be going out of many places.

As for the rest, right, nothing, and very few people try to, justifies unlawful murder. (I also think those wars are not justified, but that's just wishful thinking on my part)

Come on starshine, the state is nothing more than people that make those decisions. I would not be a judge or an prison guard if I had to kill someone, not even a legislator or a politician that supported that measure.

 

[starshine]

Come on starshine, the state is nothing more than people that make those decisions. I would not be a judge or an prison guard if I had to kill someone, not even a legislator or a politician that supported that measure.

It is individuals, sure. But if they killed on their own time, according to their own private agendas, it would not be seen as legitimate, not even a little bit. As it is, the people of the State can order, and the people under them can carry out the order, and neither one truly feels like they've done something "evil" -- the voice of the order has no blood direct on their hand; the actual "soldier" or "executer" only followed orders (like in Milgram's experiment - distance makes lines blur and all). So by making it a "State" thing, it's easy to "detach" from the morals of right/wrong, is what I mean. I'm not sure how clear I am. XD I'm not sure how clear you were, too, actually. But cheers anyway.