In countries that have laws against hate speech (such as France), religion and religious beliefs is typically one of the things that is protected by these laws. One does not trump another.
I’m not inventing anything, this is what you said:
I never said anyone deserved to get killed for any cartoon. You are the one inventing positions I don’t take. What I said is that their actions led to their demise. I don’t support people being attacked by vicious dogs, but if you piss one off enough it will attack you and might kill you. Whether or not you deserve to die is a subjective opinion, but what is certain is that you would have brought it upon yourself.
OK, so go to an all black inner city neighborhood and exercise your right to free speech by expressing views offensive to black people. Then if you are beaten, stabbed, shot, or killed you will be a martyr for free speech in the tradition of Charlie Hebdo, a true innocent victim who did nothing to deserve such treatment.
Of course those positions could have been taken against MLK. Damn man go back and read how we got there I don’t want to spell it out over and over again. The reason you quoted what I said (and why I wrote it) is you said something about CH that could easily have been applied to many other people throughout history. MLK included.
And yes I invented that position because might as well have two people inventing stuff.
Also people aren’t dogs. A difference exists between using free speech and being killed for it and walking into the tigers cage at the zoo with bacon strapped to you.
Last I heard, Islamic terrorists don’t recognize any laws pertaining to free speech.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, the difference was negligible. I can see what you are saying with MLK, but he wasn’t just being provocative for the sake of being provocative. Dying for a cause is one thing, dying because you didn’t know when to shut up is another.
I was referring to your position that equates what Hebdo with hate speech against an entire people. Also, the laws pertaining to hate speech are not as simple as you think. They have to call for discrimination, for example. There have been many instances of Christian beliefs being mocked in France and the courts have protected the rights of the press. So it isn’t just Islam. Finally, Hebdo was not found guilty of hate speech because their attacks were on fundamentalists and not Muslims as a whole.
Why do you assume blacks will kill people over words?
And what does your quoted text have to do with the myth of no go zones in France?
Really? Speaking out against fundamentalism is wrong because the fundamentalists will only prove you were right about them by killing you? You seem to be under the impression that Charlie Hebdo was not using humor to make a bigger point about terrorism and fundamental Islam.
By your logic, discrimination against Jews should be perfectly fine since they are not a race (there are Jews of all different colors, including black Jews and Indian Jews, and they face discrimination in Israel) and being religiously observant is not required for one to be recognized as a Jew. On what basis are Jews a “people” and Muslims are not?
Go and read about Dieudonne’s legal troubles and tell me that the laws are applied fairly.
Killing was just one of multiple options.
I don’t assume that all black people will resort to violence over words, but among the poor, uneducated people you find in inner city communities you are much more likely to find such people. There are plenty of videos of innocent white bystanders being attacked by BLM protestors with no provocation, do you think that if they had been making racist remarks then the BLM protestors would have acted differently in recognition of their right to free speech?
You could prove me wrong and go try it out yourself.
Nothing, but how do you know it’s a myth? Have you been there yourself to verify this? There is plenty of stuff online claiming the opposite.
It’s just a bad idea and not worth losing your life over. If you are prepared to die, or heavily armed and ready for battle, then you are making an informed decision. However, the staff at Charlie Hebdo were sitting ducks.
Are you implying that only some Muslims are offended by the cartoons of Muhammad and others are fine with it?
First of all, nobody said anything about “barbarism”.
Are rich, well-educated black people, as well as actors and athletes, the ones more prone to violence than poor people in inner city neighborhoods? How is it that the highest crime neighborhoods are always full of poor people?
This isn’t exclusive to black people, I’m sure if you went to an all-white trailer park and said the right things you could get yourself hurt, free speech or not. My point was that intentionally provoking violence against yourself when you are well aware of the consequences and then hiding behind free speech (which is what Charlie Hebdo did) is fucking stupid.
Are there any articles on no-go zones on pro-Muslim sites that welcome undocumented migrants?
Do you agree that women should be banned from certain cafes?
No. I’m stating the fact that not all Muslims were offended by it.
I wouldn’t know and neither would you or anyone else.
What does this have to do with black people getting violent over words?
I’m sure the same thing could happen in a wealthy neighborhood.
But that isn’t what Charlie Hebdo did. They were speaking out against terrorism and fundamentalism. And they didn’t hide behind free speech, that’s a shitty way to look at it, they exercised their right to free speech.
I wouldn’t know. I would rather read something in French (as in from France).
Agree with whom? You? I don’t think the article said they were banned. Regardless, it still isn’t a no go zone.
You are starting to sound like a broken record. You got all worked up over me saying that you would probably get hurt going down to an inner city neighborhood and talking some racist nonsense, you seemed to have a problem with the idea that some black people would respond to words with violence. I gave you an example of a popular musician saying on record that he would shoot someone for dissing black people.
Does anyone speak for all black people? What generalizations and stereotypes do you buy into?
Which Muslims do you know of that are OK with the cartoons?
You would have to be stupid to not know because the answer is obvious.
Go and find out for yourself.
More likely they would call the cops.
They weren’t speaking out against anything, they were ridiculing and insulting Muslims and their religion. A lot of people in Europe, including France, don’t like Muslims. This was not some creative way of teaching them a lesson about terrorism and fundamentalism.
And their rights were not recognized by the terrorists.
What’s stopping you?
How can you prove that there are NOT in fact no-go zones in France and other parts of Europe? I have never heard that this was a myth until you typed that in this thread. I can confirm one way or another because I haven’t been to any no-go zones in Europe and I haven’t even been in Europe in close to 10 years, but your statement here lacks any credibility at this point and you haven’t provided any links or anything to back it up.
I find it interesting how me and you are like polar opposites on just about every topic. I don’t dislike black people or Muslims, I grew up around a lot of black people, mostly Jamaicans. And I don’t condone Islamic terrorism or senseless violence, I’m just calling things as I see them. I make no attempt to be politically correct.
Did you actually ask these Muslims that you know? Are they religiously observant? There are lots of people who just happen to be born into a Muslim family but don’t follow the religion. I grew up going to Catholic church, but I have nothing to do with it nowadays and my actions and opinions do not in any way reflect the majority of Catholics. Just like a girl singing and dancing in a bra doesn’t reflect the majority of Muslims.
Islam is not just a religion, it’s a political system as well. You can be a lapsed Catholic, being a lapsed Muslim is different because you’re technically an apostate and you can be executed for apostasy.
And that’s not an idle threat - in Saudi Arabia atheism is considered “terrorism” and most of the “terrorists” executed monthly are either Shiites or apostates.
Which in turn means that Muslim identity is remarkably consistent regardless of actual non-observance. Very few (brave) individuals will officially renounce the religion, as there’s a non-zero chance they’ll be targeted as apostates.
Your original assertion was that “Muslims” are a homogeneous block. I’ve used Dua Lipa as an extreme example that there are Muslims who don’t live according to the Quran and do not give as shit about religious teachings.
Again, these aren’t “former Muslims” as the official conversion away from Islam is often penalized.
