Spirit of Slade is against all forms of disguise,
French magazine publishes controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammad - many killed in revenge attack
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Incidentally here's a racist wearing a disguise:
Notice the intimidating face covering.
Notice the intimidating face covering.
Can we see a picture of their passport? And those of previous incarnations here?
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
It'd be far more interesting to talk about how "we" can defend (and gain) the power of free expression and discussion, where the obstacles and threats to it come from, and what we can do with it when we have it.
It's a bit pointless having empty hypothetical discussions about the abstract rights of others or situations that we are merely spectators of.
It's a bit pointless having empty hypothetical discussions about the abstract rights of others or situations that we are merely spectators of.
I presume in Giggleworld this would be acceptable on the basis that it's on private propertyIncidentally here's a racist wearing a disguise:
Notice the intimidating face covering.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Why post this? Are you intimidated by women who cover their faces in public?
It's anti Le Pen, but it's still utilising racist imagery to make Taubira look absurd.
They are equivalent if we are talking about freedom of expression. I'm not going to declare solidarity with people whose freedom of expression is under attack even if I may support their freedom of expression. As I say, freedom of expression is a red herring.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Where is the equivalence between peddling lies and peddling jokes? These are two very different kinds of things.
As long as we make sure we tell the kids Santa isn't real and let people have advance warning before we play a joke on them, and as long as we dress so as not to upset people who don't like us, we should get on well for a while
If the face is covered, how do I even know that I'm dealing with a woman?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Of course there's a link. There is self-censorship (and the related pressure by civil society to censor) and there is "Hate Speech" legislation.
"There has also developed over the past two decades a moral commitment to censorship, a belief that because we live in a plural society, so we must police public discourse about different cultures and beliefs, and constrain speech so as not to give offence. In the words of the British sociologist Tariq Modood, ‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’"
The various pieces of legislation which add up to the "Hate speech" laws have allowed, for example, Harry Taylor to be fined and given community service because an airport chaplain was "insulted, deeply offended and . . . alarmed" by cartoons he left in an airport prayer room. And Stuart Rodger to be arrested and convicted for shouting "No ifs, not buts, no public sector cuts" at David Cameron.
This is what I referred to as the secularisation of blasphemy laws further up thread. (Not my phrase - I heard it somewhere and liked it). This is a symptom of both neoliberalism and the "liberal" approach to a plural society. And it has the effect of removing power from progressive forces in society and concentrating power in the "correct" channels.
That is the connection, and it's a valid and correct analysis, in my view.
No, he doesn't. He is talking about minority cultures here because of the context of the debate. He's responding to people who have said that Charlie Hebdo (and, in the past, others - Salman Rushdie, for example, who he discusses in his very good book Fatwa to Jihad) "brought it upon themselves". To that charge he says:
"What is really racist is the idea only nice white liberals want to challenge religion or demolish its pretensions or can handle satire and ridicule".
No, that would be a really bad way of showing solidarity.
Demand her ID, surely as a copper you can.
No. It's not appropriate attire for a football match, but then again, neither is a burka.
I'm not a copper. Edit to add : Incidentally, I don't agree that coppers should be allowed to demand ID, or more accurately I don't believe people should be forced to carry ID by law, as some cops would abuse that and DO abuse it....EXACTLY what has been happening in France..
Well worse than I imagined then.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Exactly!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I take your point, and I've tried not to refer to "rights". But I've talked about free speech, not as something that we currently have, but as something many people claim exists, when actually they don't really support it.
I've been wearing a scarf when out earlier today which covered my face up to my eyes, then I had my hood up too as it was so cold.
I don't think I should be stopped from this entirely.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Ranbay
The same rules apply
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Is that piece implying that there are no people who would believe the former?
Should police arrest or protect any veiled caricatures of the Prophet they find wandering the streets of Paris?
maomao
普費斯
Hello Silent Whisper/Gone Girl
You can oppose hate speech laws and promote a moral commitment to self-censorship. I know I do. For me what is important with respect to freedom of speech is opposition to the state deciding what can and can't be said. I take an anti-state position not a libertarian position. I promote self-censorship. Urban75 promotes self-censorship eg. racists don't last long here and mostly because they cause offense. But why disappear distinctions between criticism of religion and racism with bland statements in favour of freedom of speech? And that can only be the effect of raising freedom of expression in this case.
Who's saying Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves? Kenan Malik sites a Catholic advocacy group complaining bitterly about CH's anti-religious views and stating that Muslims have a right to be angry, but that isn't the same as saying they brought it on themselves. Indeed that article makes no call for censorship. They are allowed to dislike certain views. So am I. So are you. And we are allowed to criticise them for disliking certain views as well. Etc.
I disagree. Opposing such bans is a way of avoiding causing offense to Muslims and avoiding supporting progressive Muslim/ex-Muslim voices in a similar way self-censorship can be. There are some goofy arguments about how it is all voluntary but that ignores how individuals are products of the cultures they grow up in and there are some even goofier arguments about how it will alienate Muslims, which I won't dignify.
Of course there are other reasons to oppose bans just as there are other reasons to self-censor. But the point is there is no particular reason to think that authoritarian strategies are less effective than libertarian strategies.
In discussion of freedom of speech, that distinction only matters if you want to restrict freedom of speech. Something Kenan Malik is opposed to.
Similar threads
