Conquer Club

So all the babies have been out in force crying about how the Charlie Hebdo attack was an 'attack on freedom of speech' and so on, defending the right of people to say whatever they want on the basis that freedom of speech means being able to say anything, regardless of how much it offends others.

But then, earlier this week in France, this:

http://www.capitalbay.com/news/670815-d ... -post.html

A controversial French comedian is facing up to seven years in prison for inciting terrorism with a Facebook joke about the two attacks in Paris last week.

In a post on his social media account, Dieudonne appeared to sympathise with terrorist Amedy Coulibaly, who took hostages and killed five people at a kosher supermarket in Paris on Friday.

Arrested: French humorist Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala wrote: 'I feel like Charlie Coulibaly', in reference to magazine Charlie Hebdo and kosher deli terrorist Amedy Coulibaly,

It was a play on words of 'Je suis Charlie' (I am Charlie), the phrase that has become a rallying cry for free speech supporters around the world following last week's massacre.

Dieudonne said: 'For a year, I have been treated like public enemy number one, while I seek to do nothing but make people laugh.

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, who visited Paris's Jewish quarter in the Marais last Monday, described Dieudonne's remarks as 'contemptible'.

He said Dieudonne faced court action for 'a lack of respect and a willingness to stir up hatred and division.'

When one and a half million Muslims get upset at their god being repeatedly and deliberately blasphemed they are told to suck it up because freedom of speech, but when someone writes 'Je suis Charlie Coulibaly' on social media he is arrested for hatemongering.

The message is clear: Muslims, France does not respect you or your culture.

When one and a half million Muslims get upset at their god being repeatedly and deliberately blasphemed they are told to suck it up because freedom of speech, but when someone writes 'Je suis Charlie Coulibaly' on social media he is arrested for hatemongering.

The message is clear: Muslims, France does not respect you or your culture.

you beat me

to it

typical hypocrisy

So all the babies have been out in force crying about how the Charlie Hebdo attack was an 'attack on freedom of speech' and so on, defending the right of people to say whatever they want on the basis that freedom of speech means being able to say anything, regardless of how much it offends others.

Nobody ever said so. - I mean - French people, french media, french politics have not been "defending the right of people to say whatever they want on the basis that freedom of speech means being able to say anything, regardless of how much it offends others." Maybe media from other countries have. Irrelevant.

As far as France is concerned, there is no right to say whatever you want.
There in France law that say that making apology of terrorism is not allowed.
Saying "I am Charlie Coulibaly" can be seen as approving the act of Coulibaly, which is in France forbidden. The guy will be judged and may be found guilty. Will see.

Nothing hypocrite here. You may consider France doesn't have freedom of speech since no, people can NOT say whatever they want. No prob with that. But what France people have been defending is their personal vision of freedom of speech,

oh my my, mrs wdk, you little youngling.
Your analysis of the situation is touching, but apparently you need a little lecture to make the difference between apples and pears.

The freedom of speach has its limits. Here is what the european convention on human rights states:

"Everyone has the right for freedom of speech. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. »
However, it states:
"The exercise of these freedoms carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder and crime prevention, protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of confidential information or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. »

Now humour is a particular thing. Dieudonné has been sued for repeatedly being antisemite, negation of the shoah, promoting hatred against the jews and all kind of things. He has been sued many times, and sometimes won. If what he does is a simple provocation, it's ok and charges aren't pressed against him. Same thing happens to charlie hebdo. By the way... charlie hebdo makes fun of jews, muslims and catholics equally while dieudonné is ONLY about the jews. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about since you don't know Dieudonné, and you don't know charlie hebdo. You just read a couple of things in the press and judge.

As you can see from what stipulates the european convention on human rights; you cannot just make fun taking a terrorist as a national hero. This goes against national security. Mostly, the crowd that follows Dieudonné is highly antisemite. It's formed by both skinheads/fascists and immoderate muslims. if you look at one of his shows, it just makes a normal person puke. The level of hatred in what he says, and the reactions of the crowd cannot be qualified as humour. He is not just trolling, he truly believes in what he says; so does his public.

So yes, there are different levels of freedom of speech within the law. Sorry if you're butthurt.

by the way: it's not our fault if most muslims can't take half of the jokes that are made against jews and catholics. Muslims are part of this country too. Just show me a drawing from charlie hebdo that you judge as a promotion of hatred against muslims!

This goes against national security.

well one of them definitely go against national security ...

Body count from Dieudonné speech - 0
Body count from Charlie Hebdo speech - 19

"It's an American missile that hit the Pentagon, they provoked it themselves, they killed fellow Americans.

"Usually one learns of these things 30 years afterwards. We know it now," he went on.

Mr Bigard, who has staged shows to a full house in Paris' football stadium, le Stade de France, added: "We are beginning to seriously consider that neither Ben Laden nor al Qaeda were responsible for September 11."

He cited the controversial 2002 bestseller L'Effroyable Imposture (The Big Lie) by Frenchman Thierry Meyssan, which claimed the Pentagon crash was a "fake", as well as the hit internet conspiracy film Loose Change.

His comments were condemned as "grotesque" by former French foreign minister Hubert Védrine. "There will always be people who believe that things are being hidden from them, that everything is being hidden from them," he said.

Europe 1 has issued an apology but Mr Bigard said he stood by his words. The crude and scatological comic, whose humour travels poorly, was one of several celebrity friends Mr Sarkozy took with him to meet the Pope late last year, as he is a devout Catholic.

Hmm...looking for prosecution of comic Bigard...still looking

Seems he wasn't prosecuted. So it would appear to matter which "terrorists" are being apologized for. Before I was thinking the attack was real, but misguided. Now starting to feel it was guided.

Bigard is saying 11 september was not a terrorist attack. He is not saying, the 11 september terrorist attack was a good thing.
Dieudonné is saying : Coulibaly killing jew is a good thing = this terrorist attack was a good thing.

What is not allowed : Any kind of support to terrorism. Bigard not doing one.

Donelladan wrote:Bigard is saying 11 september was not a terrorist attack. He is not saying, the 11 september terrorist attack was a good thing.
Dieudonné is saying : Coulibaly killing jew is a good thing = this terrorist attack was a good thing.

If you're not protecting offensive speech, you don't have free speech.

Inoffensive speech doesn't need protecting.

Perfect, Godgave just has to say it wasn't a terrorist attack and he's off the hook.

saxitoxin wrote:

Donelladan wrote:Bigard is saying 11 september was not a terrorist attack. He is not saying, the 11 september terrorist attack was a good thing.
Dieudonné is saying : Coulibaly killing jew is a good thing = this terrorist attack was a good thing.

If you're not protecting offensive speech, you don't have free speech.

Inoffensive speech doesn't need protecting.

you don't get it. we do not protect offesive speech. we protect dangerous speech that encourages hatred and violence.

sabotage: what bigard says is basically the same as what you do. that september 11th was an inside job. It's just your opinion.

saxitoxin wrote:

Donelladan wrote:Bigard is saying 11 september was not a terrorist attack. He is not saying, the 11 september terrorist attack was a good thing.
Dieudonné is saying : Coulibaly killing jew is a good thing = this terrorist attack was a good thing.

If you're not protecting offensive speech, you don't have free speech.

Inoffensive speech doesn't need protecting.

Well - I am fine with you saying France doesn't have free speech.
Indeed, it is not ok in France to say whatever you want. We have a restricted freddom of speech.

But, just to be sure, it's not about offensive or not offensive.
It is about encouraging hate or violence. That is forbidden in France. As well as few other things like negating human crimes, supporting terrorism.

Anything anyone believes about 9/11 is just an opinion.

According to the FBI up until the alleged death of Bin Laden, there was not enough evidence to list him as a suspect in 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission was just an opinion, not supported by the majority of the commission itself. They didn't even mention WTC 7 which wasn't hit by a plane and whose owner says he decided "to pull it".

The NIST report on why WTC 7 fell is in conflict with itself, with science and cannot be replicated and it's methodology has been kept secret.

There were 70+ cameras point at the site of the pentagon attack, 3 of which have been released, none showing a plane. After repeated FOIAs, the CIA said, look, stop asking, none of them show a plane.

So not only is the "official" story of 9/11 merely an opinion, it is a poorly supported one, and to many experts, an utterly impossible one.

So what is Dieudonne's statement, if not an opinion?

My slightly related evolution on the topic as it pertained to America/Obama not being present at the march in France.

Me: 'Thoroughly disappointed America is not showing a face or lending any support in Paris.'

Me at the end of the day 'Religious extremism and Freedom of Speech...shouldn't be a stretch to assume these are fundamentally important issues to a majority of Americans and a rare occasion for our country to be united on something, for once in a generation. Then again, America 2.0.... who the hell are 'we' collectively? To try to offer an example on how to fight religious extremism when 'we' are too scared to even calI radical Isam by name???, Who are we to stand for Freedom of Speech, when political correctness dominates not only what we say or don't say but even think and don't think, what our schools teach and don't teach, who gets fired and who can keep their job, accept certain words from a certain races as totally normal, but another race says it they can be forced out of business, and for any who don't go along with whatever feels right it's they are ostracized and categorized by hateful terminology. .I guess my original take was based on what I thought was important and what I thought we should strive for,. Absorbing America 2.0 in the correct and current context, I realize any possible talk from America at the march about Freedom or Liberty is going to be met by claims of hypocrisy, and the claims won't be without merit either. The constant task of working towards a more perfect union may have peaked.'

Expressing empathy with a terrorist's grievances = supporting terrorism?

Emmmmmm, no

_sabotage_ wrote:Anything anyone believes about 9/11 is just an opinion.

According to the FBI up until the alleged death of Bin Laden, there was not enough evidence to list him as a suspect in 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission was just an opinion, not supported by the majority of the commission itself. They didn't even mention WTC 7 which wasn't hit by a plane and whose owner says he decided "to pull it".

The NIST report on why WTC 7 fell is in conflict with itself, with science and cannot be replicated and it's methodology has been kept secret.

There were 70+ cameras point at the site of the pentagon attack, 3 of which have been released, none showing a plane. After repeated FOIAs, the CIA said, look, stop asking, none of them show a plane.

So not only is the "official" story of 9/11 merely an opinion, it is a poorly supported one, and to many experts, an utterly impossible one.

So what is Dieudonne's statement, if not an opinion?

lol, you were talking about bigard being allowed to say something about 9/11 being an inside job in one of his shows. you brought it up yourself. now you are mixing this as if it was Dieudonné who said it and was "stripped from his freedom of speech".

can you guys go look the other way... you're not making any point here, just being ridiculous and uninformed.

mrswdk wrote:Expressing empathy with a terrorist's grievances = supporting terrorism?

Emmmmmm, no

there is no empathy to have with people who murdered others because of their religion or their drawings or because they are cops. Mostly a week later when things are so fresh. If you can't understand that point of view, well there is no need for further discussion.

betiko wrote:you don't get it. we do not protect offesive speech. we protect dangerous speech that encourages hatred and violence.

huh?

Anyway, in related news, Israel was upset they weren't the center of attention at the Paris "semi free speech march" and threw a hissy fit.

The Israeli ambassador to Britain has written to the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, to express his abhorrence at “offensive and shocking” comments made by David Ward MP on the presence of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the solidarity march in Paris on Sunday.

During the march, which followed last week’s terror attacks in the French capital that left 17 people dead, the Lib Dem MP for Bradford East tweeted: “#Netanyahu in Paris march – what!!! Makes me feel sick” and “Je suis #Palestinian.”

Ward has a record of causing controversy with his remarks on Israel. In 2013, he was reprimanded by his party for “use of language” after he compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the Holocaust. Later that year, he was suspended by the Lib Dems and had the whip withdrawn for two months for tweeting: “Am I wrong or am I right? At long last the Zionists are losing the battle – how long can the apartheid State of Israel last?”

In July last year he said that he would probably fire a rocket into Israel if he lived in Gaza.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... david-ward

How is the term "incite terrorism" defined under French law? I think that would be relevant to determine whether this comedian has violated the law (and whether Charliehebdo violated the law when publishing cartoons). I think it's pretty obvious that prosecuting this particular comedian is rather hypocritical.

Betiko,

I am making a point. Opinion can be valid and invalid. We have a method of validating it, through trial. We hear from both sides and we weigh the merit and proof they bring to the table and make a social decision on social affronts and take such actions that will limit them.

During that trial process, sides may come out for or against that particular party. For 9/11 for example, most of the hundreds of firsthand witnesses who reported explosions in all three WTC buildings were not heard at the 9/11 commission, and those that were heard were not questioned about it. When they brought it up themselves, it was left out of the report. This pre-empted the whole purpose of a trial. A trial is the chance for the state to prove it is acting towards justice, to prove the guilt of the suspect based on real evidence, and to prove they are not abusing the public trust.

Without a trial, all is opinion. In shoddy trials with shoddy evidence, witnesses and circumstances, there is still room for opinion.

In only one circumstance should the public feel favorable towards a massive use of state power, by trial.

They are attempting to prejudice any trial that comes. They are prejudicing the mind of anyone who questions whether a comment is worth making on social media or media against the governments position/story. We saw a lot of this in the US after 9/11.

We had the patriot act into law in 45 days with little public debate, since the media was itself being threatened with anthrax. Since it is the media itself that was attacked this time, I would be very concerned with what powers may be abrogated under the circumstances where the media is prejudiced, and there is public persecution of semi-public opinion.

I suggest you give this terrorist act a trial and secure effective measures in preventing such acts. Remember, all that you have is an opinion at the moment and a government willing to prosecute against other opinions at the moment.

_sabotage_ wrote:Betiko,

I am making a point. Opinion can be valid and invalid. We have a method of validating it, through trial. We hear from both sides and we weigh the merit and proof they bring to the table and make a social decision on social affronts and take such actions that will limit them.

During that trial process, sides may come out for or against that particular party. For 9/11 for example, most of the hundreds of firsthand witnesses who reported explosions in all three WTC buildings were not heard at the 9/11 commission, and those that were heard were not questioned about it. When they brought it up themselves, it was left out of the report. This pre-empted the whole purpose of a trial. A trial is the chance for the state to prove it is acting towards justice, to prove the guilt of the suspect based on real evidence, and to prove they are not abusing the public trust.

Without a trial, all is opinion. In shoddy trials with shoddy evidence, witnesses and circumstances, there is still room for opinion.

In only one circumstance should the public feel favorable towards a massive use of state power, by trial.

They are attempting to prejudice any trial that comes. They are prejudicing the mind of anyone who questions whether a comment is worth making on social media or media against the governments position/story. We saw a lot of this in the US after 9/11.

We had the patriot act into law in 45 days with little public debate, since the media was itself being threatened with anthrax. Since it is the media itself that was attacked this time, I would be very concerned with what powers may be abrogated under the circumstances where the media is prejudiced, and there is public persecution of semi-public opinion.

I suggest you give this terrorist act a trial and secure effective measures in preventing such acts. Remember, all that you have is an opinion at the moment and a government willing to prosecute against other opinions at the moment.

You are not making a point because your post doesn't answer anything regarding the OP.

OP was saying France allow Charlie Hebdo to offense Muslim but doesn't allow French comedian to say "I feel like I am Charlie Coulibaly".
How your post is related to that I don't see.

The answer is clear.
"I feel like I am charlie coulibaly" can be seen has a support of terrorism and therefore the french comedian may be judge guilty of "promoting terrorism". Note : He may also be judge innocent of promoting terrorism.

Charlie Hebdo is not promoting terrorism, and therefore there is no problem with them making funny drawing of Mahomet.

thegreekdog wrote:How is the term "incite terrorism" defined under French law? I think that would be relevant to determine whether this comedian has violated the law (and whether Charliehebdo violated the law when publishing cartoons). I think it's pretty obvious that prosecuting this particular comedian is rather hypocritical.

Well, it's pretty obivous for someone that doesn't know anything about french law maybe.
But otherwise no, there is absolutely nothing obvious.

Please - also note that Charlie Hebdo has also been prosecuted in the past and was judged innocent.
Note that this particular comedian has also been prosecuted several times in the past, sometimes guilty, sometimes innocent. Will see for this one. But this has nothing related or to do with Charlei Hebdo.

How is the term "incite terrorism" defined under French law?

Promoting terrorism is forbidden. After what it's a judge that decide. Not you - not me. Justice is independant in France

I'm defining what the guy did and how France has reacted in comparison to other reactions.

Mrs and Betiko can go on for pages, I am merely pre-empting them.

Mrs is going to say: Same-same
Betiko: different-different

I'm just fast forwarding past all this to show a previous different-different to show that Betiko's different-different is actually the same-same.

Until there is a trial, we cannot say who is promoting terrorism. In the case of 9/11, I believe it was the government promoting it, and that act has lead up to this day.

After the WTC bombing, many FBI agents are on record expressing disappointment that it wasn't more devastating. They just want to use their weapons and training to be seen as heroic by the public. Sounds like the back-story of most super-villains in comics. How many French anti-terrorist operatives were feeling the same?

Most recent attacks in the West described as terrorism all too often show direct links suggesting at minimum coercion by government agents. Hmm.

_sabotage_ wrote:I'm defining what the guy did and how France has reacted in comparison to other reactions.

Mrs and Betiko can go on for pages, I am merely pre-empting them.

Mrs is going to say: Same-same
Betiko: different-different

I'm just fast forwarding past all this to show a previous different-different to show that Betiko's different-different is actually the same-same.

Until there is a trial, we cannot say who is promoting terrorism. In the case of 9/11, I believe it was the government promoting it, and that act has lead up to this day.

After the WTC bombing, many FBI agents are on record expressing disappointment that it wasn't more devastating. They just want to use their weapons and training to be seen as heroic by the public. Sounds like the back-story of most super-villains in comics. How many French anti-terrorist operatives were feeling the same?

Most recent attacks in the West described as terrorism all too often show direct links suggesting at minimum coercion by government agents. Hmm.

what is the point regarding the OP?
just so you know; I can find Dieudonné extremely funny. I always try to look at his stuff as if it was trolling. As a troll, it is extremely funny. The problem is that he is clearly not. The worst part is that Dieudonné started being a comedian with a jew comedian. They were both hilarious. Dieudonné is not muslim by the way, he is a catholic mixed race french/cameroonese. Many of Elie and Dieudonné's comedies involved some really harsh jokes about black people and jews. No one was offended. Then they both went their own separate ways, and Dieudonné started becoming more and more borderline... You were like... "he's still kidding right?"
But then you would listen to him in interviews and he would continue to talk in the same way. So it can still sound funny because he becomes the ultimate troll... but after 10 years of going down that path, looking at the crowd he has and looking that he is now basically friends only with negationists etc... you see that what he is doing isn't humour anymore... it's politics. He is being extremely racist against jews, so yeah, this seems like the new trend. New trend also to pin point muslims like the poor victims and start with conspiracy theories against the jews... that people take seriously.

It relates to the OP in regards to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is to question, criticize, dissent, debate, and come to the best understanding with the best information.

France is sending a message with this prosecution: "You are not free to have an opinion on this attack".

It was ok to have an opinion on 9/11, but not on this. They are cutting off the premise of free speech at a time where public debate and scrutiny are the best assets France has for preventing future attacks.

In our Canadian terrorist attacks, we generally see what has happened is that our agents provided means, plans and opportunity to the would be terrorist and then caught them prior to the act they got them to engage in. We publish this and then dismiss it.

It would certainly be harder to dismiss if the attacks were carried out. We don't know what happened, and without free speech in France, there won't be a chance to find out.

You've accepted a dialogue and your government is ensuring that none other is present. But if you can't see the basic irony that Mrs is pointing out, then I guess you have no room for suspecting those with the most to gain from a terrorist act either.

Another interesting thing going on here:

"Je suis Charlie Coulibaby" in québécois means "I am Charlie Coulibaby", which is still a play on words with Hebdo, but also becomes a play with Spartacus. Why the attempt at hiding the reference? Does the media want to prevent the perception of a military hungry government using it's forces against societies weakest elements?

PS: I would expect a Swede living in China to miss this, but when a German validates the translation and a Frenchman fails to mention it...

Donelladan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:How is the term "incite terrorism" defined under French law? I think that would be relevant to determine whether this comedian has violated the law (and whether Charliehebdo violated the law when publishing cartoons). I think it's pretty obvious that prosecuting this particular comedian is rather hypocritical.

Well, it's pretty obivous for someone that doesn't know anything about french law maybe.
But otherwise no, there is absolutely nothing obvious.

Please - also note that Charlie Hebdo has also been prosecuted in the past and was judged innocent.
Note that this particular comedian has also been prosecuted several times in the past, sometimes guilty, sometimes innocent. Will see for this one. But this has nothing related or to do with Charlei Hebdo.

How is the term "incite terrorism" defined under French law?

Promoting terrorism is forbidden. After what it's a judge that decide. Not you - not me. Justice is independant in France

How is "promoting terrorism" defined? I do think it's important to define the terms (as they are defined under French law).

Note, I'm not trying to defend what this guy says; I'm just confused as to how the French can support free speech on the one hand and not support free speech on the other where the only apparent (to me, unknowledgeable about all things French) difference is the target of the speech.

If I pretend the United States has a law that prohibits speech that would "promote terrorism," I could argue that a newspaper posting cartoons that would anger terrorists is "promoting terrorism" (or "inciting terrorism"). We don't have that kind of law (to my knowledge).