Je Suis Charlie - ??

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

For some reason, I can't comprehend the double standards in two issues that arose recently, namely the Dentistry Students and Je Suis Charlie!

 

In the dentistry students example, the guys were sharing nasty thoughts privately, and so far there is no evidence of criminality. Yet, the majority wants to lynch them. Some might say this is purely an administrative decision and forget that some administrative decisions are actually more penal in nature compared some true criminal offences.

 

Now, when it gets to Je Suis Charlie, the majority turns to be defenders of freedom of speech for a newspaper which is publicizing its content. Well, some might view them as mere drawings only, but apparently the affected group viewed them to be insulting in a similar way to the feminists groups viewing the dentistry students comments. The only difference is the tool, one group pushed for a true capital punishment and the other is advocating for a covert one.

 

I think Rex article to some extent reveals the hippocracy of our today's society. In other words, one can't wake up in the morning and decides to be Charlie by joining a hash-tag.

[Ice4fun 78407]

For some reason, I can't comprehend the double standards in two issues that arose recently, namely the Dentistry Students and Je Suis Charlie!

 

In the dentistry students example, the guys were sharing nasty thoughts privately, and so far there is no evidence of criminality. Yet, the majority wants to lynch them. Some might say this is purely an administrative decision and forget that some administrative decisions are actually more penal in nature compared some true criminal offences.

 

Now, when it gets to Je Suis Charlie, the majority turns to be defenders of freedom of speech for a newspaper which is publicizing its content. Well, some might view them as mere drawings only, but apparently the affected group viewed them to be insulting in a similar way to the feminists groups viewing the dentistry students comments. The only difference is the tool, one group pushed for a true capital punishment and the other is advocating for a covert one.

 

I think Rex article to some extent reveals the hippocracy of our today's society. In other words, one can't wake up in the morning and decides to be Charlie by joining a hash-tag.

 

You really have to be kidding... you are comparing a group of men being held accountable by a University to a Code of Student Conduct (which they agreed to when they enrolled) and potentially being held accountable by the professional licensing bodies of their chosen profession with people standing in unison worldwide to say that free

speech issues should never be settled through terrorist attacks and murder.

 

Comparing murders with administrative punishment is just plain unbelievable in my opinion.

 

We certainly can all debate if the satirical cartoons were in good taste or appropriate... we can even pursue recourse though any administrative means that might exist but no its not alright with to fire bomb or shoot people we disagree with.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[MightyPen 67414]

For some reason, I can't comprehend the double standards in two issues that arose recently, namely the Dentistry Students and Je Suis Charlie!

I thought I had addressed that with my first post in this thread. The short version: the events in France are primarily about the rule of law and the repudiation of murder as a recourse when offended or trying to control the behaviour of others. That the trigger was the expression of an idea is important, and also worth discussing, but secondary. It's because I value the rule of law that I'm Charlie, not because I think all speech at all times is sacrosanct.

 

Re. Dalhousie: the hateful expressions by the male dental students were ugly and miserable but legal, otherwise we'd be talking about jail or fines for the offenders. Nobody is calling for jail or fines.

 

But the students were in violation of some additional standards to which they were were subject: the codes of conduct of the university itself, and the professional standards of various Colleges of Dental Surgeons. It's under those standards that the students are being assessed.

 

Violating the former has several possible penalties, including expulsion. Violating the latter has several possible penalties, including being denied the privilege of practicing in that College's province.

 

The students knew these risks when they engaged in their behaviour, although they seem foolishly to never have considered that they might be found out and judged for their actions. Now, I think, they know better.

[Phaedrus 209521]

Two things about freedom of speech...

 

First: freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences of your speech (although those consequences are also subject to the law). Legal consequences are not censorship.

 

Second: the right to freedom of speech does not imply any right to be listened to or published. Declining to publish or give a platform to someone else's speech, for whatever reason, is not censorship.

 

These things often get lost whenever free speech comes up. When a corporate bigwig says something objectionable and finds that his company is subject to a publicity disaster and that the result of this is that his resignation becomes necessary, people yell about censorship - but that's just consequences. When a student body (or part of it) objects strenuously to being addressed by a person whose views they disagree with, that might be both contemptible closed-mindedness on their part and a contemptible lack of balls on the part of the schools that kowtow to it... but it isn't censorship.

 

As for Charlie Hebdo... they may have been objectionable, and they may have frequently broken the unwritten golden rule of satire (punch up, not down), but the massacre at their office has simply illustrated the feeble-mindedness of a couple of thin-skinned murderers.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I think it's important to accept that freedom of speech or expression is not freedom to be published. I wasn't making that point and I didn't think anyone else was. It was more about merely having an unpopular view.

 

On top of what I said earlier I am speaking about someone holding a view, either openly or in what he thinks is a private setting, and being suppressed by whatever means because it is controversial. Why can't we hear a controversial viewpoint without punishing the person by whatever means the "mob" feels is appropriate? Why not choose debate over punishment. Forcing a person to lose their livelihood because they were insensitive to someone is not much different than lashing someone who said something the king of Saudi arabia didn't like. I guess if the law doesn't allow you to question the king, that's enough reason. Snap, snap, goes the lash.

 

Why so afraid of debate. Is it that your argument may be left wanting? Is book burning far behind?

[cinelli 22184]

Charlie lampooned everyone, politicians, the Pope, celebrities.

 

So why was it not a Catholic who shot them? Why was it not Angela Merkel? Tom Cruise?

 

Some of us accept our shortcomings and can laugh at ourselves. Others are so insecure and filled with self loathing their only reply is violence.

[Ice4fun 78407]

Joking about drugging and raping real people is hardly the same as political and social satire... being subject to a discipline hearing under the code of conduct of a university is not the same as being shot at your desk as you work or for that matter being flogged by the King... this is not about the veracity of the debate it is not about burning books it is about it is about terrorist and murder and being accountable for your own behavior.... we can have free speech but it comes with responsibly and accountability.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Phaedrus 209521]

Why so afraid of debate. Is it that your argument may be left wanting? Is book burning far behind?

 

I think that's the only reason for censorship: hatred and fear of what someone has to say, and the root cause of that is generally the censor's own insecurity and lack of counter-argument. And yeah... book burning does lie down that road.

 

Those who are confident in their own beliefs and arguments are usually very happy to be challenged and to take on any opponents that appear. They understand that this is the only way to make your own arguments stronger. And, ultimately, there is acceptance of a fundamental fact: if you seek to convince other people that you're right, you must also be prepared to be convinced that you're wrong, and to change your position accordingly. Unfortunately we all tie our own sense of self-worth up with our opinions to some extent, and so this can be very hard indeed...

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

If people in here want to convince themselves that we live today in a society where we are all Charlie, they may enjoy the dream. As symbolic as it may be, it is hypocritical to the core.

 

I am not Charlie, as I have done nothing to qualify for that niche!

[cinelli 22184]

I am not Charlie, as I have done nothing to qualify for that niche!

 

Meanwhile others have left the comforts of home behind, they have travelled to the other side of the world for months and months, sometimes years.

Going to dangerous places where evil people roam free and prey upon others. Trying to come between those evil ones and stop them from hurting others.

Getting shot at, driving over roads that have land mines.

Seeing friends injured, killed, knowing it could happen to them.

They come back. They look like everyone else. You wil never know them. But they have done and seen things you cannot imagine.

Do not make so many assumptions about everyone else.

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

I am not Charlie, as I have done nothing to qualify for that niche!

It's not about "being qualified for that niche".

 

It's all about showing support!

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

If people in here want to convince themselves that we live today in a society where we are all Charlie, they may enjoy the dream. As symbolic as it may be, it is hypocritical to the core.

 

I am not Charlie, as I have done nothing to qualify for that niche!

 

If one of the female students targeted by the Dalhousie "gentlemen" had pulled out a gun and shot those men in response to their writings would that be ok?

 

It's a matter of perspective. Some people obviously think mocking a religious leader is as abhorrent an act as killing a cartoonist.

 

I think we should fight pen and paper with like weapons. Not with gun and bullets.

 

Therefore the Dalhousie students are getting off easy (the hearing won't be completed til after grad) and the cartoonists got completely fucked over.

 

My personal opinion.

[roamingguy 300292]

No one, well I believe no one, is talking about censoring someone (like those thirteen students) for their "ideas" as repugnant as they are.

What is being said is that they, as everyone, have to be held to account, within the confines of law and policy, for what they say

 

RG

[mrrnice2 157005]

If people in here want to convince themselves that we live today in a society where we are all Charlie, they may enjoy the dream. As symbolic as it may be, it is hypocritical to the core.

 

I am not Charlie, as I have done nothing to qualify for that niche!

 

But you ARE Charlie. This issue is not strictly about defending the newspaper, or the Dalhousie students or hate literature or things of that nature. It is far more basic than that. It's about people realizing that their thoughts and words, within reason, should neither be censored nor met with violence. Now what is reason is where the debate might go. It's about being able to express an opinion and to have the courage to do so, be it popular or not. That is exactly what you are doing. So thank you!

[waterrat 1261]

I am Charlie. I believe in free speech. I do not believe that we should have special sensitivities for any faith. There are limits on what one says, in France and in Canada. Inciting hatred is an offence. So is blasphemous libel.

 

Charlie Hebdo was prosecuted, and the case failed. We must accept the verdict. That is the rule of law. Equally, Charlie Hebdo, like other publications needed readers. Readers were fewer and fewer. The publication was in serious financial difficulty. That has now changed. Many of the staff are dead, but others will take their place. Charlie Hebdo's financial future is now secure with donations from the likes of Google (500,000 euros).

 

I am Charlie, because I do not want anyone telling me what to read or believe. I read Salman Rushdie because the extremists said that we should not! As many have said, this is not a question of Islam. It is a matter of extremists. We must all take action against them and not be cowards like the English CBC (French Radio Canada has not taken the same restrictive view).

 

On the question of the Dalhousie students. What some wrote was puerile and distasteful. However the facts are not out. Unfortunately, there seems to be a rush to lynch all of them. The appointment of a feminist investigator is not showing balance. It is not the rule of law. We will not have an impartial report.

 

Bad facts make for bad law, we will have more bad results and more hatred as a result of both incidents.

 

We need to reach out, seek restorative justice for the offended women at Dalhousie and for the marginalized largely male muslim population in France. If we do not the hatred will continue and we will all be the poorer as a result.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Joking about drugging and raping real people is hardly the same as political and social satire... being subject to a discipline hearing under the code of conduct of a university is not the same as being shot at your desk as you work or for that matter being flogged by the King... this is not about the veracity of the debate it is not about burning books it is about it is about terrorist and murder and being accountable for your own behavior.... we can have free speech but it comes with responsibly and accountability.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

 

Accountable to who? To anyone with an axe to grind? To the legal system? What was the "crime" and shouldn't reasonable people decide the punishment, not the mob? The days of stringing someone up from the nearest tree (figuratively speaking) is still a strong emotion in many people it seems. I'm trying to understand where the desire to severely punish thought and expression comes from. Is it the powerless getting a chance to influence an outcome?

 

And why not try social satire to attack foolish behaviour if you disagree with what someone says or draws?

 

Being murdered is quite an expression of personal accountability.

[Ice4fun 78407]

Accountable to who? To anyone with an axe to grind? To the legal system? What was the "crime" and shouldn't reasonable people decide the punishment, not the mob? The days of stringing someone up from the nearest tree (figuratively speaking) is still a strong emotion in many people it seems. I'm trying to understand where the desire to severely punish thought and expression comes from. Is it the powerless getting a chance to influence an outcome?

 

And why not try social satire to attack foolish behaviour if you disagree with what someone says or draws?

 

Being murdered is quite an expression of personal accountability.

 

Steve i kinda think you should go back and reread my posts... I have not talked about mobs or lynching... i said i was ok with a restorative justice approach.

 

Personal accountability is just that personal.... if you don't want to be held accountable to an organizations stated code of conduct don't join that organization... or don't seek to be part of the professional body.

 

If these gentlemen actually thought what they were saying was appropriate they would have said it publicly and not hid in a laughable private group on facebook... you see they knew what they were saying had consequences.... they were not free speech advocates they were the silly boys telling dirty jokes and snickering among themselves.

 

I like you... believe in free speech and personal rights I just think there are so many real examples of people being lynched over real free speech ideals so I am not willing to fight for silly men who want to joke about drugging and raping their fellow students.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

OK, fair enough. It's a heated topic for sure.

I respect your opinion.

Steve

[Ragnaglar 440]

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers

 

I guess don't look at the cover but look into the meaning of the image.

 

http://Www.understandingcharliehebdo.com

[Helena D'Orville 33237]

Thank you Phaedrus and Ragnaglar for giving elements to help us understand Charlie Hebdo.

 

No, this satirical magazine is not racist, quite the opposite - as Phaedrus explained. A caricature is a point of view/criticism expressed in image, instead of words. It is a way to invite us to think about something specific. Indeed, you have to live or have lived in France to understand this magazine. I did. When you stop at Charlie Hebdo's caricatures and analyse them, you realise that a lot is "said" by what is shown. It is not about a drawing made to offense or shock people. It is made to create a shock to make us think... by making us laugh at the same time! Only then can we understand that Charlie Hebdo is not against the idea/concept of god but, to the contrary, criticizes the people who hurt these important concepts of our society. I doubt that everybody who worked/works at Charlie Hebdo is agnostic or atheists...

 

I was in France that day, wondering why there were issues in the metro, trying to get to the airport. It is only when I arrived home the day after that I heard about the news. I then understood the chaos of Wednesday, January, 7th. 2015. It was a shock to me. Some of the people killed, like Cabu, had started their career drawing for children. We (French people) grew up with them. Freedom of speech is a complex concept, but nobody should be killed for what they say/draw because this is the beginning of intimidation, terror etc...

 

And France is a country with a love for words, free expression and debates. It is deeply engraved in our culture. This won't change and I am proud of it.

[VedaSloan 119179]

Charlie Hebdo is far less racist than most commentators seem to think. Two things to bear in mind, that most of the stuff I've read seems to forget.

 

First, their politics are... left-wing, even by French standards, and their favorite target is the far right of the political spectrum (especially the Front National and the Le Pen family). A lot of the cartoons that I've seen held up as being racist themselves are, in fact, mocking racists on the far right of French political life.

 

Second, CH is published weekly, and its cartoons are often almost incomprehensible if you aren't up to speed on what was happening in French and world politics at the time.

 

Neither of these things demonstrates that CH isn't racist... but they do demonstrate that a lot of people pontificating on the matter don't know what they're talking about.

 

 

 

Being racist and mocking racism are not mutually exclusive. A great example is the Hebdo cartoon that supposedly mocks the guy who compared the black woman to a monkey, who Hebdo then drew as a monkey. I'm sorry but that is racism straight up, whether it's mocking someone else's racism or not.

 

Anyway, my point was more to the latter of what I posted, which is that in condemning the massacre let's be aware of the backlash against Muslims and their communities that will ensue. For example, in the six days following the Hebdo attack there have been more than 60 attacks on mosques in France.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/europe-s-muslims-feel-heat-of-backlash-after-paris-attacks-authorities-urge-calm-1.2186655

[Helena D'Orville 33237]

Piano8950, your post is very moving and powerful, thank you for sharing this.

 

Berlin, you are right, muslims are the first victims of terrorism here. There are many other massacres, just like the one you mention, that are nearly overlooked by the media. Unfortunately this happens often. But denouncing one thing does not mean that we agree with another shocking thing like this massacre, and that we cannot talk about it. We can.

 

I think that when we have reached the point that we see a drawing as the cause of a terrorist act, there is a serious issue.

 

What shall we do of all this? Very very complex. France has a history of colionalism wit north-africa (I know, I am the product of it, mixed race). At the end of the eighties, those terrorist attacks started in small villages in Algeria, killing entire families.

 

So so so complex. All this is not only about Charlie Hebdo.

[Phaedrus 209521]

...apparently.