This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Wait, what? So you're happy to protect against racial discrimination, but not for one's fundamental beliefs? What makes one more worthwhile protecting than the other? Gender and sexuality isn't listed either - should we expect to have a fight there too?
That said, the boundary between religion and ethnic or cultural origin is quite blurred. Look at the definition of 'Jewish' people - do you refer to the religion or the culture? The notion that being Muslim is somehow separate from being part of the broader Middle Eastern ethnic community is a very hand-wavy argument.
I think the key part about the act for me is that you're free to criticise, but it has to be done with respect, just as you would (should!) criticise anything else. You wouldn't criticise a research paper by saying that the author was a manwhore and fat (which would cause offense, insult, humiliate), but by focusing on the specific issues in their research argument. That's what I meant initially about constructive criticism, and how satire as a genre is very rarely constructive.
Edit: Just read an interesting article in an
Australian newspaper
on exactly this topic. The stand out quote for me is this:
There are exemptions to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act for the publication of fair comment on a matter of public interest, published "reasonably and in good faith". But as Bolt discovered when Justice Mordecai Bromberg found him in breach of the act, whether an article is covered by that exemption depends not just on its accuracy, but on whether "… (in)sufficient care and diligence was taken to minimise the offence, insult, humiliation and intimidation suffered by the people likely to be affected …"
Bolt had not taken enough care, Justice Bromberg found, and not just because he had been inexcusably sloppy with his facts. "The derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides" in the articles complained of satisfied him that "Mr Bolt's conduct lacked objective good faith".
While I don't necessarily agree with the author's position on whether that line is appropriate, I stand by the judge's view that the spirit of the Act is about the intent to offend (or the corollary, the lack of care to prevent offensiveness). You can be free to criticise, as long as it's done in good faith and with respect to stakeholders. You can even be incorrect in your criticisms and be absolutely wrong, as was the Fox News 'expert' who said that Birmingham was basically a Muslim caliphate, but only as long as you do so in a way that is not clearly intended to offend, insult, and humiliate others.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
Wait, what? So you're happy to protect against racial discrimination, but not for one's fundamental beliefs?
Discrimination is covered in law. I'm not supporting discrimination, I'm supporting freedom of speech and freedom to criticise (in this case, specifically religions). Fundamental beliefs aren't deserving of extra protection simply because people feel deeply about them.
Religions are a set of ideas. Ideas should be (need to be!) open to criticism from within and without. I'm basically saying that religion should be no more protected from criticism or satire than politics - Churches no more than political parties and religious leaders no more than politicians. This is the status quo in both of our countries I think so I'm not expecting anything unreasonable. You're arguing against my ability to freely criticise ideas. Think about that, do you really want that?
Being Muslim is absolutely "separate from being a part of the broader Middle Eastern ethnic community". Tell a Zoroastrian Iranian that they are Iranian therefore they are Muslim and see how they feel about it. Israel, also in the middle-east, is also full of people who would take exception to your labelling them as Muslim. If I criticise Islam, nobody misunderstands that as an attack on the good people of Qatar. Meanwhile the word "Jewish" is more than capable of referring to two distinct groups of people without anyone getting confused. If I were to criticise some tenets of Judaism, a non-practising but ethnically-Jewish person would not think I was attacking them personally.
Why are you trying to make my requirement that all ideas be open for debate about me trying to attack people?
I also think you're muddling respect with civility. Someone could very well try to criticise a research paper by saying that the author were fat. I would defend their
right
to do so while happily condemning the act of doing so as disrespectful, sure, but mostly uncivil and stupid. The same person could, instead, write a perfectly civil response that demonstrates zero respect for the author, their work or their practices but you would, presumably, be okay with that because it falls within some arbitrary bounds of civility.
I don't want the law to get involved with either respect or civility. I do not respect all views and I don't expect to be forced to do so by the police. That's really a very silly thing to call for. (I just disrespected your idea here, I'm sure you quite understand that I'm not suggesting all Australians are idiots ;P)
Lastly, satire doesn't seek to be constructive or respectful. It seeks to bite at the heels of the powerful. It seeks to shout "The emperor isn't wearing any clothes!", to show people that those in power are as human as everyone else, fallible and weak. That is absolutely vital in a free society and, as I said, the first thing to go in a fascist state or dictatorship.
edit: Mordecai Bromberg is an awesome name. especially for a judge.
edit 2: It was getting awfully late last night as I typed this and I was getting a bit cheeky. I hope this will be read in the relatively silly way it was written.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
Being Muslim is absolutely "separate from being a part of the broader Middle Eastern ethnic community". Tell a Zoroastrian Iranian that they are Iranian therefore they are Muslim and see how they feel about it.
The main problem is that "Muslim" is used as dogwhistle racism by a lot of people (which is why Stormfront has been having a field day with the attack in France). They'll talk about how they don't want Muslims in their country, and they really mean "brown people." Criticism of the religion is absolutely valid, as long as it's not being used as an excuse to target people for something completely different.
Post by
Squishalot
Discrimination is covered in law. I'm not supporting discrimination, I'm supporting freedom of speech and freedom to criticise (in this case, specifically religions).
You still haven't explained why you see there's a difference between discrimination / criticism (and in the case of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, they would be described quite faily as both) of religion vs race. What makes calling the Asian folks down the street stinky and bad somehow worse than calling the Muslim folks down the street stinky and bad?
You're arguing against my ability to freely criticise ideas. Think about that, do you really want that?
No, I'm arguing against your ability to criticise ideas and showing a lack of civility and respect in the process, in such a way that would impinge on other people's freedoms to live in peace without harrassment. And yes, I do want that.
Being Muslim is absolutely "separate from being a part of the broader Middle Eastern ethnic community". Tell a Zoroastrian Iranian that they are Iranian therefore they are Muslim and see how they feel about it.
You know that's a strawman argument, so I'm not sure why you bothered trying to say that just for the sake of point scoring. Religion and ethnic culture are intrinsically tied, which is my main point, and nothing you've said refutes that notion.
Lastly, satire doesn't seek to be constructive or respectful.
I know that. That's my original point about why it's flawed.
Why are you trying to make my requirement that all ideas be open for debate about me trying to attack people?
Mostly because of your notion that satire 'punches upwards', that the very notion of the idea that you're trying to defend is an attack on concepts and ideas. The issue I have with that is that there are real people behind those concepts and ideas, most of whom have done nothing to warrant having their worldview being spat on.
Which brings me back to one of your earlier points:
Fundamental beliefs aren't deserving of extra protection simply because people feel deeply about them.
No they're not. However, the people who believe those fundamental beliefs are entitled to the same protection that everyone else has, simply because they are people, and they deserve not to be mocked, bullied and humiliated. It's for the same reason why I don't want certain banned ex-forum regulars to #$%^ all over the people on the forum - not necessarily for the commercial detriment of driving away users (because god only knows how much less forum traffic we get) but because people don't deserve to be mocked, bullied and humiliated, in that way or in any way.
(And let's face it, people feel very deeply about FOTM cookie cutter facerolling.)(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
What makes calling the Asian folks down the street stinky and bad somehow worse than calling the Muslim folks down the street stinky and bad?
/sigh This illustrates our point of misunderstanding. I feel like I'm repeating this a lot but I'll try again. I don't want to criticise "Muslim folks" (and I honestly do resent the repeated accusation that I do), I want to be able to criticise religion without it being protected based on tradition and parochial notions of blasphemy or wider ideas of taboo. Ideas, notions, ideologies, beliefs, none of these things equal "people" or "persons". Everything I can freely say of a political ideology and party I should be able to say about a religion and its administration. Any limitation of that is incredibly bad for society.
My entire point in this thread lately has not been to demand alterations to laws (I don't need them, the freedom I want is already (mostly) law in my country) but to grieve the self-afflicted relinquishment of freedom that has been directly brought about by acts of terror. Governments may never negotiate with terrorists (sure they do but that's the line right?) but everybody else does and that's tremendously sad and has terrifying connotations.
Regarding Hebdo, as I said many times so far I have never looked into his work so if you have something that you think crosses the line from satire into harassment then, again, feel free to point me to it and I'm sure I'll take a look. My understanding, such as it is with little information, is that, like the Danish cartoons, it's tasteless and directly makes fun out of things that some people hold dear but doesn't directly attack any individuals. Perhaps you think that just depicting Muhammed constitutes harassment and that's the single point around which we're dancing here. If so then this is a point that we can simply disagree on but I'd have the law, at least in my own country, on my side (and I'd think you were bonkers ^_^).
In truth I don't really care much about Hebdo's work - the thing that makes it important is that groups are trying to suppress it using terror (including, long before the recent events, receiving repeated death threats) and violence instead of law and democracy. I will go as far as to say that moderates of any origin that see this reaction as remotely understandable are a major part of the problem.
edit: In the news right now...
Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits
"To illustrate his point, he told journalists that his assistant could expect a punch if he cursed his mother."
Disgusting! Basically The Pope thinks that violence is okay if you are particularly offended. Seriously sickening to hear that from someone that so many people take seriously and who claims to be a moral leader.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
I'd say that the terrorists want to shut people up and are willing to threaten (and carry out) violence to achieve that.
I agree with your last paragraph but believe that either case deserves the same level of condemnation.
Post by
Squishalot
asakawa, I think the reason we're misunderstanding is because you have a view of what you want to do (to freely criticise), and you're defending the actions of a magazine you've not looked into (which freely mocked).
I've never said that you can't criticise, and I completely agree that it would be horrible to suggest that anyone was free from criticism. But I hope that you can see that to say that 'Muslims are stinky and bad' is in no way a criticism, but simply slander and bullying. This is, in effect, the message that many of the Charlie Hebdo comics were pitching. Their argument might very well be that they're aiming at the terrorists, not the everyday Muslim, but that's like defending the use of a ballistic missile to take out an individual, ignoring the collateral damage to innocent people around them.
An example is
this one
. This was aimed at the Muslim outrage about a Youtube film "The Innocence of Muslims" back in 2012. It's hard to suggest that this is anything other than the outright mocking of a global community here. Where is the criticism?
I don't think that the issue is about whether you're attacking an individual or not. In fact, I don't believe that an individual needs to be attacked to warrant providing any protection to a community. A slur on a community as a whole is just as bad as a slur on an individual.
The difference between the laws in our respective countries is that in Australia, you can freely criticise in public, where that criticism is actual, real criticism (rightly or wrongly, as evidenced by the court ruling above), but only if it is conducted in a way that doesn't seek to mock, bully or humiliate. So for example:
1. You can walk around with a placard that saying that Islam is bad because of how they treat women.
2. You can't walk around with a placard that calls others worthless for believing in Islam.
I think that's a reasonable line to draw. And looking at the Charlie Hebdo comic above, I would warrant that it would fall under the 2nd category rather than the first, which is precisely why even this latest run of 5m+ editions isn't being sold in Australia.
Re: the Pope, his comments seem a little misguided, considering the context. I think I get what he's saying in relation to the punch comment though - most countries have assault legal defences that relate to provocation in order to reduce culpability. He was obviously joking about the punch if you watch the video - maybe we can call it satire =P
Post by
asakawa
So, if Pastafarianism were to deem it most utterly and devastatingly insulting for people to, say, break/tear lasagne sheets - I'm obviously being very silly here but go with me. How many people must believe this to the core of their being before you would ban it?
My point is that you can't account for the offence that anybody might ever take and you can't respect the internally forbidden actions of any group because it's literally impossible to do so for every group or individual. The cartoon you linked is transgressive only if you're a member of the group but means nothing for those outside of the group. It's not bullying, threatening or harassing. Those who do not like that material are free to choose not to view it. It's knowingly transgressing another group's taboo but that is certainly something that should be protected by free speech in any country that at least maintains a semblance of separation of church and state.
Apparently Masonic orders bestow special rings on their members, signifying some kind of special status within the organisation. I once heard of someone that found one at a flea market, or similar, and wore it 'cause it was cool. When someone who knew what it was saw them wearing it they shouted at them for wearing something that it was forbidden for them to wear. The thing is, they were not forbidden to wear it because they weren't a Mason and it was only a rule that meant anything to its members. You don't expect the police to force you to take the ring off.
Nobody is harmed by the cartoon. Nobody is threatened. Nobody is bullied, humiliated or even mocked (at least directly). Millions of Muslims live their lives and practice their faith without caring a jot about some French cartoons.
Put it this way, should the Life of Brian have been banned? If you think not then I don't see why you would see Hebdo's work as out of bounds.
Regarding the Pope, do you think that all 1.2 billion Catholics will see that as very silly irony? Misguided doesn't begin to cover how stupid that was. That particular comment aside though, this is the same as after the Danish cartoon controversy. The pope at the time (Benedict) called for more respect for religions and their symbols instead of outright damning the instigators of the violence. Pathetic! How about "There is no mandate for violence and terror based on blasphemy or anything else, and the perpetrators are vile cowards"? I would have thought that was a no-brainer.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
oneforthemoney
Thing is, some people find such things as sacred. That may not mean much to me or you, but to them it is very important. You could burn the Bible or the Koran, and say you were just burning some paper and you'd be technically right. Who cares? Well, they would, because you're belittling something deeply personal to these people, and doing so because you know it does. You didn't burn that book because you needed some cheap kindling.
It's a lack of sensitivity, and though no, killing someone for a lack of tact is not right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is right either to lambaste or mock what someone holds very close to their heart simply because you can. The point is not can you, but should you, and that is a matter of taste.
Post by
Rankkor
Thing is, some people find such things as sacred. That may not mean much to me or you, but to them it is very important. You could burn the Bible or the Koran, and say you were just burning some paper and you'd be technically right. Who cares? Well, they would, because you're belittling something deeply personal to these people, and doing so because you know it does. You didn't burn that book because you needed some cheap kindling.
Another analogy would be the more common practice of flag burning. Most people who love their country wouldn't really bat an eye if someone burns some foreign flag about a country you don't care about. But if you consider yourself a patriot, and someone burns the flag of your beloved country, right in front of you..... that can cause friction.
Post by
asakawa
Right, and I'm all for anyone condemning Hebdo's work, the Danish cartoons, Rushdie's book to name a few. Aside from the book, they're not to my taste either, certainly tactless and rude or tasteless.
But do we really want the state to jail people for that? Do we want police to use (potentially physical) force to stop people from being free to be rude? Is that really the type of country you guys want to live in?
Lets stop victim blaming and agree that in civilised society being rude may ostracise you but it is never an understandable cause for violence and terror. Surely that isn't too much to ask.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
civgw
I have deleted my post, but I have left this so that Asakawa's next post refers to this and not anybody elses post.
Edit Asakawa, I deleted the post because I wasn't happy with what I posted. I would have deleted it whether you had commented on it or not.
Post by
asakawa
/sigh
Tribalism successfully prolonged. "Us and Them" thinking just finds new labels to put on people so that everyone has a "them" to blame, despise and wish ill towards. Gotta tell you mate, your post is part of the problem and nowhere near to the solution.
edit: Oh! well, you can tell me that I'm wrong and why. I didn't think you would remove the post and I hope that the green text didn't make you feel like you ought just because I disagree with the way you're presenting this one issue.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
oneforthemoney
Right, and I'm all for anyone condemning Hebdo's work, the Danish cartoons, Rushdie's book to name a few. Aside from the book, they're not to my taste either, certainly tactless and rude or tasteless.
But do we really want the state to jail people for that? Do we want police to use (potentially physical) force to stop people from being free to be rude? Is that really the type of country you guys want to live in?
I wouldn't say that. All I am saying is that they erred badly in doing this because they had the world's sympathy with them, but worse than squandered it, actively used it to deepen divides. I think this is a good example of something wrong with how free speech is used. It's not that I'm against them saying it, but rather, that I'm against this image being used as some sort of rallying cry by people against extremism because it is pointlessly polarizing, and results in things like riots and churches being burned down in the Middle East.
I'm saying it's not wrong for Muslims to be angry at this image, and that it was wrong, though not illegal, for Hebdo to use that picture.
Post by
asakawa
and results in things like riots
The result of an image is riots and violence?! No. It is not remotely understandable that an image, any image, is the cause of violence. People, very bad people, cause violence and we should stop victim blaming. People have the right to be angered or offended. People have the right to protest, make speeches, or form political whole movements around anything that they think is important. Nobody has the right to commit acts of violence no matter what the offence, perceived insult, or belief that might be used as excuse.
Have you seen how short her skirt was? She was asking for it... right?
When otherwise moderate and balanced-thinking people say that the reaction we've seen to some stupid cartoons is remotely fathomable then there is a major problem. Is there any image that could ever be made that would make you threaten or hurt another individual? Lets move past this silly notion that people moved to violence by dumb cartoons have a fair point because that is incredibly facile and dangerous nonsense that only deepens the problem.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Have you seen how short her skirt was? She was asking for it... right?
If only Jews weren't so Jewish no one would have a problem with them. It's such a shame they can't just get over their culture and be like the rest of us.
It's a cultural issue. Hebdo, when they had the most exposure possible, went ahead and rather than make an effort at trying to unify people, intentionally divided them. They forced Muslims to choose between holding a core tenant of their faith sacred, or supporting this printing. I'm Canadian, so let us say that all of a sudden, they decided to tear up the tomb of the unknown soldier for a shopping mall. You're damn right I'm going to be mad. That's a cultural marker for me. It doesn't take much to turn a gathering into a riot, even if there isn't necessarily a just cause.
Post by
asakawa
It's a cultural issue.
No it's not. The offence may be cultural or religiously based, sure (and they have my full support to be angry or aggrieved and protest peacefully), but violence is not, that's just sickening terrorism. It's also terrifically offensive to the immense (overwhelming!) majority of normal, peaceful Muslims around the world that you would say that a violent reaction like this is a cultural thing. Terrifically offensive.
Not for nothing but the prohibition of depictions of Muhammed is not a core tenet of the Muslim faith. No mention of it is made in the Quran itself with only a couple of mentions in the wider Hadith, essentially aiming to prevent idolatry. Of those Muslims that do hold the prohibition important, the vast majority don't care about its enforcement outside of the Church. Meanwhile examples do exist of Islamic art that itself depicts Muhammed. So lets be clear, while normal, peaceful people may feel insulted by cartoons like Hebdo's, only zealots and psychotics, motivated more by politics than religion, would ever be inspired to violence.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
oneforthemoney
Oh for...I am not saying that a violent reaction is a cultural thing. You keep twisting my words around and I am getting sick of it, so let this be my last rebuttal on this topic.
Hebdo was wrong to depict that picture because it was purposefully inflammatory at a time when they not only had the world's attention, but sympathy, and used it in this way. They had every right to do it, but rights do not make it right. I am saying that when they printed this magazine cover (this one, the one after the attack, as you seem so confused) it is hardly surprising that when they did, there was a reaction from Muslims, and it was not sympathetic, because they were provoking this specific people. It is a cultural issue because they are doing something that provokes a specific culture, and it cannot be excused by 'satire' or 'comedy'. It is
not
right that said people become violent. It is
also
not right that Hebdo provoked said reaction at this specific time, because they are forcing people to choose a side they do not necessarily want. It is called tact, Asakawa, that is my point; that there was a shocking lack of it here, and that is why so many people are angry.
Post by
asakawa
Personally I see principle as far more valuable than tactfulness and I imagine that is the reason for continuing to publish things that some may find offensive. Free speech is tremendously important. Terrorism was used to try and restrict the freedom of the people and the press. It is desperately sad that it has worked on many news outlets around the world. Continuing to do what they think is right and important after being the subject of terrorism and violence is brave and is making an important point. You may strongly dislike the tactlessness with which they deliver that point but it was the only way to make it - to do anything else would be giving in to terror. As I said I don't really care for cartoons like that myself but I do see the freedom they're exercising as vital and see their determination to do so under fire as noble.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Oh I'm not saying it's not courageous, or that freedom of speech is not essential, despite how some might use it. I only lament for the lost opportunity in using the cartoon rather than a more rallying message such as Je Suis Charlie had been turning out to be.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.