|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hate Speech
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
At the suggestion of our hosts I am mving part of a discussion from the 'Dead Horses' section to here.
This is an exchange from the 'Gay Bakery' thread
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
The way the left interpret the term 'hate speech' is to include any disagreement with left wing ideas of 'progress' no matter how politely or respectfully expressed. It doesn't include the most vile, nasty, aggressive or even violent language if those words are spoken in support of 'equality'
What matters is whether the nasty language is being used against a specific identifiable group of people on the basis of some personal trait.
No what matters is that the identifiable group be one the left deems worthy of its patronage. Then anything deemed insulting is seen as 'hate speech' (see for example here.) On the other hand groups not deemed worthy of the patronage of the left (e.g. Christians) can be insulted without anyone seeing it as hate speech. For example a number of people (including it seems yourself in an earlier post in this thread) have suggested that people who worked at Charlie Hebdo (i.e. people who were the actual victims of murderous religious repression) were somehow to blame for their fate. That doesn't gat called 'hate speech'. They weren't Christians but they were white middle class Frenchmen and so didn't fall into any of the all important 'protected classes'.
The left in particular tolerates bile directed at its political opponents who can be described in the most hateful language imaginable without calling it 'hate speech'.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that in England (and probably Scotland), hate speech has a legal definition, and involves certain protected categories, which (I think), include colour, race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, and sexual orientation (cribbed from Wiki).
However, it's more complicated than that, since stirring up racial hatred has its own legislation, and there are also public order offences, basically causing alarm and distress to somebody.
Of course, prosecutions are up to the police and CPS. There are many different cases, and they are quite complicated, e.g. calling homosexuality a sin, is generally not considered hate speech, but anti-religious leaflets have been seen as such. I think the courts will chuck out something seen as trivial.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think the point Bibliophile misses about how hate speech is defined is that the degree to which a class of people is protected is linked to two things: the first, and most important, is the extent to which the identifying characteristic is a matter of choice; the second is the relative power that group has in society. As far as UK law goes, only the first is relevant. Consequently religion is fair game in a way that race isn't, but using religion as a proxy for racism, as is the case with a lot of Islamophobia, is also out. Context also matters. What you shout in the street is less protected than what you say from the pulpit in your own church. Free speech is about the right to speak, not to have other people listen to you.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point Bibliophile misses about how hate speech is defined is that the degree to which a class of people is protected is linked to two things: the first, and most important, is the extent to which the identifying characteristic is a matter of choice; the second is the relative power that group has in society.
The second point is the point that some people make that insulting people is OK if it is 'punching up' but is hate if it is 'punching down'.
I think that a quote from Starlight from the 'gay bakery' thread helps to illustrate some of the problems with that idea
quote:
If you piss people off severely enough and oppress them enough they will respond with anger, and that is predictable. You can talk about 'free speech' until the cows come home, but anyone who is using that speech to deliberately offend and antagonize others and using laws to demean and downgrade others is pretty short sighted if they don't realize that the offended parties might well take action if they are sufficiently offended. (Charlie Hebdo being an example of this principle)
Now Charlie Hebdo were attacked because they had insulted and satirised Islamism. Now Islamism is a powerful force in the world today, a force that has used its power to silence those it doesn't like (see the refusal, motivated by fear, of so many media outlets to republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons). Charlie Hebdo is a little satirical magazine without the power to silence anyone. Charlie Hebdo were clearly 'punching up' and they were punished for it. Yet because those facts don't fit in with identity politics theory about who 'punches up' and who 'punches down' we get victim blaming.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
The left in particular tolerates bile directed at its political opponents who can be described in the most hateful language imaginable without calling it 'hate speech'.
There was an interesting case a few years ago in Australia in which the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, appeared at a political rally directed at the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, at which signs were displayed carrying the slogan "Ditch the Witch", which were condemned as inexcusably offensive.
There was not a whimper from these critics a little later when the left in Australia joined in singing "Ding, dong, the witch is dead" on the news of Margaret Thatcher's demise.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Charlie Hebdo blanket-attacked Islam and the Islamists were the ones who responded violently. And no, in terms of global power (and even less so in terms of power in French society) CH were not "punching up" they were picking on what in their society is an oppressed minority. Genuine criticism is one thing, deliberately breaking taboos that do you no harm to get a response is a dick move. CH didn't deserve what happened to them, no-one does, and the response they provoked was utterly wrong and disproportionate to the offence. Nor should what they did be illegal; it's not up to the state to enforce religious taboos.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Charlie Hebdo blanket-attacked Islam and the Islamists were the ones who responded violently. And no, in terms of global power (and even less so in terms of power in French society) CH were not "punching up" they were picking on what in their society is an oppressed minority. Genuine criticism is one thing, deliberately breaking taboos that do you no harm to get a response is a dick move. CH didn't deserve what happened to them, no-one does, and the response they provoked was utterly wrong and disproportionate to the offence. Nor should what they did be illegal; it's not up to the state to enforce religious taboos.
Whether they were satirising just Islamism or Islamism in either case CH were 'punching up'. Islamism is a powerful force in the world with the support of governments. It has demonstrated its ability to shut people up. CH is a little magazine without any such power (they hypocritically called for the Front National to be shut down and it had no effect).
If we're talking about Islam as a whole then this is even more true. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has 57 member governments and the Muslim religion has powerful friends across the world. CH is a satirical magazine tolerated but not necessarily well liked by the French establishment. Whether you agree or disagree with what CH said it certainly couldn't be called punching down.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, we can always find examples of doylans (a Leeds expression, possibly with Irish origins?) on all sides.
I know plenty of people on the left who didn't join in the 'ding dong the witch is dead' thing when Maggie Thatcher died. I know others who did.
We are all selective in these matters, whether we be left, right or inbetween.
The fact is, whenever anyone on the right starts to rail about the hypocrisy and selectivity of those on the left it's dead easy to find examples of right-wing hypocrisy to match ...
The same is true in reverse.
Get over it already.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Whether you agree or disagree with what CH said it certainly couldn't be called punching down.
Islam is not particularly powerful on a global scale (nominally Muslim states have numbers but not a great deal of political, financial or military power in comparison with secular or nominally Christian states) and certainly not in France. French Muslims, mostly of Algerian descent, are routinely discriminated against and have, in recent years, have had laws aimed at outlawing some of their customs. CH, made up of white middle-class secularists, were most certainly punching down at the national level and arguably at a regional and global level.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I disagree with arethosemyfeet. After accusations like these were made in the wake of the killings I went back through Charlie Hebdo's twitter account for about a year seeing what they posted. Their predominant targets were the French extreme right. They also had some very very powerful cartoons on Gaza which made Steve Bell look like Milly Molly Mandy and they had also posted some satire on Islam - but in small quantity compared to their other targets (which was also more carefully documented by Liberation who studied the actual targets of their front covers and again found that their major targets were the extreme racist right).
The concept of 'punching down' ignores the extent to which the French population from Muslim backgrounds is not monolithic but also contains large numbers of secular/non-practising people of North African extraction who are also (especially women) targets of conservative religion. Two people from this demographic worked on Charlie Hebdo - one was killed, one was out of the office and survived - interesting how you ignored this. The 'punching down' obsession works to muzzle people like this and warns off their allies who become afraid of being accused of racism if they show solidarity against misogynistic and homophobic religion.
It effectively insulates religion from criticism because some people practising a religion are underprivileged and it ignores the plight of people in the underprivileged community who are being attacked by the conservative forms of that religion - suddenly we abandon people who are dealing with religious attacks from sexists, fundamentalists, homophobes and see only race - abandoning people to right wing attacks we would normally fight because of the colour of their skin and our guilt about social advantage.
Had this concept of 'punching down' existed earlier - all criticism/satire of, for example, Catholicism in the UK would have been deemed illegitimate from the left because until recently it was a religion predominantly practised by an immigrant group who were the subjects of racism (The Irish - who were seen as a 'degenerate', inferior separate race in late 19th/early 20th century thinking). People who fought for abortion rights, women's rights, LGBT equality etc would have faced similar slandering from their own side to that which the Charlie Hebdo staff got - who were gunned down while organising their part in an anti-racist conference.
Turn it on its head and imagine if there was a united Ireland where the Protestants in the North were the minority and you'd have poor wee evangelical Orangemen demanding the majority stop criticising their religion because their critics have 'Catholic privilege' and are 'punching down'.
You might take the position that it's wrong to offend with offensive depiction of a religious figure - but all church art is blasphemous idolatry to people with strong iconoclastic beliefs. Jesus is a prophet in Islam - statues and depictions of him, let alone God, are offensive blasphemy to iconoclasts- if you don't want to offend and want to scold cartoonists who do, presumably you're proposing to cleanse your church by iconoclasm and to burn your Monty Python collection (remember those cute animations which depict God speaking from the clouds in Holy Grail? They're just as offensive)
If we scold cartoonists for being religiously offensive- then what happens when we admit the fundamental tenets of our faith are deeply blasphemous and offensive to other faiths? This is why societies backed away from blasphemy laws in the first place because they were used (as they still are in Pakistan) to attack other faiths not just avant-garde, atheist or hipster artists. Adopting the 'punching down' mantra to stop anything a religion finds offensive, just succeeds in sneaking blasphemy in by the back door in modern dress.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
There's a big difference between causing offence as an incidental side effect of another purpose and deliberately causing offence because you don't like that people are offended by something.
You're also conflating that sort of gratuitous provocation with legitimate criticism.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Those opposed to punching down always insist on conducting the weigh ins themselves.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There's a big difference between causing offence as an incidental side effect of another purpose and deliberately causing offence because you don't like that people are offended by something.
You're also conflating that sort of gratuitous provocation with legitimate criticism.
If as a matter of principle I decide I am not, as a female, sitting at the back of a bus when a male supremacist (eg. an Israeli Ultra Orthodox Jew) demands I do, his offence might be an 'incidental side effect' of my happening to be female in a public place, but if I refuse to move, suddenly I am 'deliberately causing offence because I don't like that people are offended'. That boundary is very easily crossed - it's all 'incidental side effect' until someone challenges you and you refuse to back down. I'm not conflating - I'm pointing out to you that what you think is a nice hard boundary is actually subjective, porous and dangerous. As soon as it's challenged, what you were doing 'incidentally' becomes 'deliberate', and if people want to make it so, a provocation.
As an 'incidental side effect' of campaigning for people to have enough to eat, there is implied criticism of government policies like benefit sanctions- but to the government this is 'deliberately causing offence' and provocation - witness the attacks made on the Trussell Trust. It's very very easy to represent legitimate criticism as 'deliberate offence and provocation'. The excellent Charlie Hebdo cartoons on the war in Gaza were from my point of view absolutely legitimate criticism, but no doubt Bibi Netanyahu thinks they are 'gratuitous provocation' and anti-semitic.
The more ground that is ceded so as not to hurt the feelings of religious conservatives, the more women and gay people suddenly find their rights in danger. (I could give plenty examples of this from Israel - where there's been a rightwards march which has involved conceding ground to the Ultra Orthodox and National Religious with especially bad effects for women) But woe betide people who satirise fundamentalism or conservative religion, well that's just a 'deliberate provocation' from white middle class racists. And then of course when the fundies/conservatives start making their religious claims with violence, well it's all our fault for provoking them.
Anyway, nope, nope, nopity nope - all misogynist/homophobic religion is 'punching down' on women and LGBT people and if it gets punched right back on the nose with something no more violent than a cartoon- fine by me.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Same with the people concerned with Othering. Rarely are they honest with themselves about who their Other actually is. Doing so would make welcoming the Other hard when they would just assume use it as a self-righteous slogan with which to beat the Other over the head.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Those opposed to punching down always insist on conducting the weigh ins themselves.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Because the offender should?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I'll take begging the question for a thousand, Alex. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Whether you agree or disagree with what CH said it certainly couldn't be called punching down.
Islam is not particularly powerful on a global scale (nominally Muslim states have numbers but not a great deal of political, financial or military power in comparison with secular or nominally Christian states) and certainly not in France. French Muslims, mostly of Algerian descent, are routinely discriminated against and have, in recent years, have had laws aimed at outlawing some of their customs. CH, made up of white middle-class secularists, were most certainly punching down at the national level and arguably at a regional and global level.
Some Muslim states are highly significant regional powers (e.g. Saudi) and collectively Muslim states have quite a bit of weight. Of course the US and a few other western countries are more powerful but the elites in those countries are not hostile to Islam, indeed in many cases they are very positive about the religion. They tend to get on very well with the elites in Muslim countries. Oh I know that propagandists in both sets of countries sometimes like to crank up 'clash of civilisations' rhetoric for political reasons and make minor symbolic stands (like the veil issue in France) but would never push it so far that it would upset their cosy relationship.
People like that will for example fawn over wealthy Arab royalty whilst no doubt seeing the kind of middle class people who worked at CH as being well below their level.
Algerians in France tend to be poor. If CH had insulted them specifically you may have a point, but they didn't. There are millions of dirt poor Catholics in the world. Does than mean that satirising or insulting Catholicism is 'punching down'?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I would suggest that satirists in, say, Indonesia going after Catholics would almost certainly be punching down. There is such a thing as context.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Anybody willing to kill those who offend them have power. Ask Matt Parker and Trey Stone if Muslims have more power than fundamentalist Christians. Also, when being a victim conveys privelege, then everybody will claim victimhood. It helps if you can claim all the privileges of victimhood without being victimized. If not, you have to settle for being an ally. True, you don't get as much privilege but less effort overall is required.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Same with the people concerned with Othering. Rarely are they honest with themselves about who their Other actually is.
You describe the tactics of Her Majesty's government quite beautifully.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There's a big difference between causing offence as an incidental side effect of another purpose and deliberately causing offence because you don't like that people are offended by something.
You're also conflating that sort of gratuitous provocation with legitimate criticism.
So, what if someone goes up to a gay couple holding hands at a coffee shop, and says "That really offends me, you need to stop right now." The gay couple then proceed to start deep kissing right in front of him, not because they're feeling particularly smorous, but just because they wanna spite the guy?
Now, on the one hand, you could argue that the couple didn't really need to start making out right then and there, they were just doing it to tick off the busybody. On the other hand, you could argue ticking off busybodies is a legitimate activity in and of itself, because people like that need to know that, actually, no, you can't go around dictating how other people behave just to suit your personal whims.
I bring this up because I think that might sort of be what the Charlie Hebdo was doing with their caricatures of Muhammed. They had gotten initial complaints from certain Muslims about their cartoons, and just to prove that they weren't going to be browbeaten, they upped the ante a little.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
One of the biggest problems with hate speech laws is their enforcement is dependent upon the offendedness of the listener (or possibly just some hypothetical "reasonable listener"). This seems geared towards having the state limit speech to only what is acceptable to the most thin-skinned potential listener. In other words, it's the kind of encroachment unworthy of a free society.
"Don't be a hateful jerk" is a pretty good social standard, but becomes problematic as a legal standard.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Charlie Hebdo aren't satirists, they are arsesholes. Arsesholes who also do satire.
Here is an article that fairly well sums it up.
Satire, IMO, should always "punch down". Else, what good is it? One should target practice not general groups.
Islam is not a valid target, IMO. Those who use Islam to perpetrate harm are.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
We could go round in circles about this but I can't really see the point as it's about the grey area between good manners and self-censorship, and that's always going to be a personal decision. None of us think that should be about the law (though there might be some mileage in discussing whether the hypothetical gay couple holding hands are being harassed by the interrupting bigot).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
As I mentioned on the other thread, there are hate speech laws in many countries. Anyone care about how they work? Or is it more fun to fling insults about "lefties" and "righties"?
When is it hate speech?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We could go round in circles about this but I can't really see the point as it's about the grey area between good manners and self-censorship, and that's always going to be a personal decision. None of us think that should be about the law (though there might be some mileage in discussing whether the hypothetical gay couple holding hands are being harassed by the interrupting bigot).
Except that there are hate speech laws in numerous jurisdictions. That takes it out of the realm of "self-censorship" and into just plain censorship. (For those unclear on the concept, censorship is when the state suppresses speech or expression. Other people telling you you're a jerk isn't censorship, it's criticism.)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Same with the people concerned with Othering. Rarely are they honest with themselves about who their Other actually is.
You describe the tactics of Her Majesty's government quite beautifully.
Indeed...regardless of who controls Her Majesty's government...the Other is always the same.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We could go round in circles about this but I can't really see the point as it's about the grey area between good manners and self-censorship, and that's always going to be a personal decision. None of us think that should be about the law (though there might be some mileage in discussing whether the hypothetical gay couple holding hands are being harassed by the interrupting bigot).
Except that there are hate speech laws in numerous jurisdictions. That takes it out of the realm of "self-censorship" and into just plain censorship. (For those unclear on the concept, censorship is when the state suppresses speech or expression. Other people telling you you're a jerk isn't censorship, it's criticism.)
I don't think there are any countries where publishing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed would be banned by hate speech laws. That was what I was getting at. Whether or not it's an ok thing to do is separate from the debate about what should be illegal hate-speech.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet wrote:
quote:
I don't think there are any countries where publishing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed would be banned by hate speech laws.
In Canada, someone took a political blogger to a human-rights board after the blogger published the Danish cartoons. The rationale was that publishing the cartoons constituted an act of discrimination.
The complainant withdrew his action in the middle of the proceedings, something which I don't think would be allowed had it been a criminal case conducted in court. There was a backlash among the general public, and the law was later amended to remove speech as a form of discrimination.
Obviously, given that it was a civil case, the blogger wouldn't have been convicted of a crime anyway. But he did have to retain a lawyer and take time to appear in front of the board. So, arguably there could be a chilling effect had the law been allowed to stand as written.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Charlie Hebdo aren't satirists, they are arsesholes. Arsesholes who also do satire.
Here is an article that fairly well sums it up.
Satire, IMO, should always "punch down". Else, what good is it? One should target practice not general groups.
Islam is not a valid target, IMO. Those who use Islam to perpetrate harm are.
No, it doesn't sum it up, though I grant you it is a very good type specimen of the kind of stuff which proliferated after the event. She doesn't even try to back up her accusations with examples - she just takes her premises as read. At the time, I looked at a lot of the covers which were being touted as evidence of racism and hate speech and many of those most commonly cited turned out to be attacks on the Front National/French Right - eg. the welfare queen cartoon, the Christiane Taubira cartoon etc.
On the other hand this female journalist who used to write for them, now lives in fear of her life and I'm perfectly happy for her to totally take the piss out of the religion which treated her like this.
Growing up in Morocco, she routinely asked critical questions about the subordinate status of women under Islam. In secondary school, she made a point of wearing black nailpolish and low-cut blouses to school, where her teacher was a conservative man with a long beard. “As a woman in a male-dominated country, you sooner or later face a choice. You can comply, let yourself be cowed, and shut up, or you have to fight
While people who work for satirical magazines, tend not be angels or in contention for sainthood, I'm not going to piss on the graves of anti-racist journalists who the French Right regarded as their deadly enemies because they reserved the right to mock taking religion too seriously to the point where a cartoon or a novel can justify a massacre.
Go back for a moment in time to end of the witch-hunts where the privileged elite refused to believe old women made demonic pacts with Satan and roundly mocked the underprivileged peasants who were still trying to lynch old women as servants of Satan. Being underprivileged is not a guarantee of religious sanity and beliefs about blasphemy and idolatry used to justify killing deserve utterly to be mocked.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Satire, IMO, should always "punch down".
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) That should have been never "punch down".
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think there are any countries where publishing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed would be banned by hate speech laws. That was what I was getting at.
I'm pretty sure publishing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed would fall afoul of the blasphemy laws (a particular variety of hate speech law that only concerns itself with religious speech) in many Islamic nations.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Croesos wrote:
quote:
blasphemy laws (a particular variety of hate speech law that only concerns itself with religious speech)
I recall an interview with Mary Whitehouse, the English anti-vice campaigner who had instigated the Gay News blasphemy prosecution in the 1970s.
I assume she had been asked something along the lines of "Why are blasphemy laws neccessary, given that God is all-powerful?". She replied something to the effect that the point of the laws isn't to protect God, but to protect society from the type of social disorder that can come about when peoples' most sacred beliefs are publically mocked.
It came pretty close to the rationale for hate-speech laws as applied to religion. Though I guess the defenders of those laws throw in protection of the underdog, by arguing that they should only be applied to marginalized or oppressed faiths.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
No, it doesn't sum it up, though I grant you it is a very good type specimen of the kind of stuff which proliferated after the event. She doesn't even try to back up her accusations with examples - she just takes her premises as read.
To be fair, it only takes a quick Google search to back up these claims, so...
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
At the time, I looked at a lot of the covers which were being touted as evidence of racism and hate speech and many of those most commonly cited turned out to be attacks on the Front National/French Right - eg. the welfare queen cartoon, the Christiane Taubira cartoon etc.
After your reply, I did a 'Charlie Hebdo Racist' search and found a Vox article which presents a much more balanced view.
tl;dr version: CH are still racist, but in a more subtle way.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
On the other hand this female journalist who used to write for them, now lives in fear of her life and I'm perfectly happy for her to totally take the piss out of the religion which treated her like this.
Not the Religion, but the application of it. Christians, as Christians are directly responsible for heinous crimes. Should Christianity as a whole be held responsible for the crimes of some?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure publishing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed would fall afoul of the blasphemy laws (a particular variety of hate speech law that only concerns itself with religious speech) in many Islamic nations.
Blasphemy laws are not hate speech laws.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure publishing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed would fall afoul of the blasphemy laws (a particular variety of hate speech law that only concerns itself with religious speech) in many Islamic nations.
Blasphemy laws are not hate speech laws.
In a way they are. Hate Speech laws are designed to stop language that offends threatens or insults particular 'protected classes'. Blasphemy laws are the same but with a particular religion taking the role of the protected class.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Croesos wrote:
quote:
blasphemy laws (a particular variety of hate speech law that only concerns itself with religious speech)
I recall an interview with Mary Whitehouse, the English anti-vice campaigner who had instigated the Gay News blasphemy prosecution in the 1970s.
I assume she had been asked something along the lines of "Why are blasphemy laws neccessary, given that God is all-powerful?". She replied something to the effect that the point of the laws isn't to protect God, but to protect society from the type of social disorder that can come about when peoples' most sacred beliefs are publically mocked.
It came pretty close to the rationale for hate-speech laws as applied to religion. Though I guess the defenders of those laws throw in protection of the underdog, by arguing that they should only be applied to marginalized or oppressed faiths.
It comes even closer when supporters of a religion claim for it underdog status when in reality it has no such status e.g. the Muslim religion in the West.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
But blasphemy laws were originally also about upholding a specific doctrine held by a specific religio-political institution. If there are spiritual rules in a recognised spiritual book, it's all very well enforcing them by human law, but that largely removes free will and places the human lawmakers and enforcers in a demigod role. Yes - we can base societal laws on the ethics in the Bible or Koran but to enforce the religious aspect is seriously problematic, in terms of how this is implemented, by what authority it is done, and where that leaves the issue of free will.
So I'm not sure that Blasphemy laws are useful here - and the fact that we use the term "Hate Speech" is also disturbing - that it has gone past the point of one human being having respect for another. In the end it's down to having respect - from both sides of the coin.
And at some point it also has to form a limit to the principle of free speech. There are already limits - we say that I am not allowed to express myself by murder or GBH - those are not considered freedoms. The question is just how that grey transition zone is defined and enforced. If society in general expresses more hatred, then that really has to be balanced by a restriction in freedom of expression. But after a certain point, the restriction will be seen as something to push against rather than a reasonable limitation by too great a proportion of society for the law to be easily sustainable. I think we've gone well past that point.
Personally, I think a lot of the blame has to lie in the way that our society has gravitated towards infantilisation of children and young adults. When we have a population with a substantial proportion of adults behaving like toddlers, there is bound to be trouble.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact is, whenever anyone on the right starts to rail about the hypocrisy and selectivity of those on the left it's dead easy to find examples of right-wing hypocrisy to match ...
Obviously true in a general sense, but the left displays a proprietary interest in the specific issue of offensive(or allegedly offensive)speech, while the liberal/conservative side tends to be more interested in free speech.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
never "punch down".
Depends.
Neo-Nazi organisations, for instance, tend to consist of small groups of losers with no money or clout.
They still deserve all the satire they get - assuming they can read or understand it.
Same goes for other individuals or collectives with repulsive ideas, regardless of their size and influence, or lack thereof.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Hate Speech laws are designed to stop language that offends threatens or insults particular 'protected classes'.
Part of the problem here is failing to disentangle these.
Threatening people is morally wrong, and laws rightfully ban both speech and acts that are threatening.
Being offended or insulted by the opinions of others, on the other hand, is something we should - up to a point - just grow up and live with. At the point where these opinions become an attack on reputation, there are legal remedies against slander that should be available to all.
Direction of punching is irrelevant - everyone should be equal under the law. The only relevance ISTM is in deciding when something becomes a threat. Being a member of a persecuted minority (and that means a minority who are subject to a significantly-above-average incidence of physical attacks against them, not just a minority that the majority don't have a high opinion of) might lead a reasonable person to construe something as a threat when it wouldn't otherwise be so.
And therefore the reasonable person should take reasonable care, when broadcasting their opinions regarding minority groups, to avoid any phraseology which might imply a threat where none is intended.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
never "punch down".
Depends.
Neo-Nazi organisations, for instance, tend to consist of small groups of losers with no money or clout.
They still deserve all the satire they get - assuming they can read or understand it.
Same goes for other individuals or collectives with repulsive ideas, regardless of their size and influence, or lack thereof.
Neo-nazi organisations are punching down as they are doing it from their majority status of being white.
Your second example doesn't contradict what I said either as it is the idea being challenged, not the group.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Basically, it is wrong for any of lilBuddha's political opponents to use satire because they are punching down. At the same time, all of lilBuddha's political opponents deserve to be satirized mercilessly. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.
[ 12. July 2015, 10:32: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Basically, it is wrong for any of lilBuddha's political opponents to use satire because they are punching down. At the same time, all of lilBuddha's political opponents deserve to be satirized mercilessly. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.
I'm at a loss to see the point of that post. Could you clarify it please?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
never "punch down".
Depends.
Neo-Nazi organisations, for instance, tend to consist of small groups of losers with no money or clout.
They still deserve all the satire they get - assuming they can read or understand it.
Same goes for other individuals or collectives with repulsive ideas, regardless of their size and influence, or lack thereof.
Neo-nazi organisations are punching down as they are doing it from their majority status of being white.
Any status gain that neo-nazis gain from their colour is more than cancelled out by the low status of their ideology. Yes there will be some very low status people from minority groups they could 'punch down' to. However anyone who satirises them say from a position in the mainstream media will be 'punching down' irrespective of their ethnicity. That does not mean that such satire is not fully deserved.
To give an extreme example to illustrate my point if an Indian billionaire were to exchange insults with a neo-nazi living in a trailer park even you wouldn't think the billionaire was the one 'punching up'.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
At the time, I looked at a lot of the covers which were being touted as evidence of racism and hate speech and many of those most commonly cited turned out to be attacks on the Front National/French Right - eg. the welfare queen cartoon, the Christiane Taubira cartoon etc.
After your reply, I did a 'Charlie Hebdo Racist' search and found a Vox article which presents a much more balanced view.
tl;dr version: CH are still racist, but in a more subtle way.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
On the other hand this female journalist who used to write for them, now lives in fear of her life and I'm perfectly happy for her to totally take the piss out of the religion which treated her like this.
Not the Religion, but the application of it. Christians, as Christians are directly responsible for heinous crimes. Should Christianity as a whole be held responsible for the crimes of some? [/QB]
Google is not your friend when you don't speak the language and use search terms which pre-load your bias into the search. Try reading French sources like Le Monde and reading a few issues of the magazine yourself and you might think why Le Monde calls your point of view 'une incroyable calomnie' (an incredible calumny) and why Dominique Sopo the president of SOS Racism in France not only doesn't share your view but affirms that "Charlie readers know it denounces racism and anti-Muslim hate every week and harshly attack those who are the bearers of racist hatred, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim ...'"
And you might see why Christiane Taubira would give an elegy for one of the murdered cartoonists.
It might be because, not being American journalists who'd never heard of it before the shooting, they know it's a famous, long-running anti-racist publication, even if the foreign press don't. My first clue was when I found my profoundly anti-fascist French friend, who lost family members in concentration camps, in tears about the shooting - and I went off to brush up my rusty French and do some reading to try to follow the news in French. I found that the context was often grotesquely misreported in Anglophone media.
It might also be useful to point out to you and to others that there's a breakdown of the Charlie Hebdo covers here - only 7 out of 523 concerned Islam (there were more about Christianity) but the vast bulk were taking the piss out of the French politicians and enraging the far right, which is why the article calls the magazine 'Irrévérencieux et indéniablement antiraciste' 'irreverent and undeniably anti-racist' ( note - Google translate mistranslates 'antiraciste' so don't just run Google translate over it without checking)
I'm not saying nobody is going to call it racist because it uses a style of caricature for everyone which, if seen out of context, is going to seem shocking, especially I'd guess to American eyes, and of course it's going to offend those who don't believe in mocking/criticising religion, if the religion has significant overlaps with minorities, but there's a reason why Oliver Tonneau points out in his letter to my British friends that the attack was on
quote:
the very newspaper that did the most to fight racism....
Charlie Hebdo ... campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, you have lost precious friends and allies.
It doesn't fit a particular American template of how to do activism and that's its crime, so the fact that it was a significant anti-racist publication which fought for migrants and minorities against the far right gets distorted, because if you don't do things exactly the way the American identitarian left tells you you should do them, you're bad wrong and clearly deserve to be shot at work while er... planning your contribution to an anti-racist conference.
The rest of your post simply doesn' t make sense to me. Christians have committed crimes but there's plenty beyond crimes that Christianity and other religions can be mocked for, if someone so wishes. If someone thinks something's absurd or wrong in a religious concept or its application -fine.
The Mohammad front cover on Charlie Hebdo was aimed at those who carry out violence about cartoons ( in the wake of the Danish controversy) - it had the prophet in tears, saying “C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons” - it's hard to be loved by idiots/jerks'. I could imagine the same thing being done with Jesus instead to comment on people who kill for religion, and making a good point. Of course it's pointed and more offensive, because it's also taking aim at the anti-iconographical tradition of one of the big strands of Islam* but that's their principle, that they are against religious subjects being put off limits to cartoonists and they have a perfect right to that. I don't see why secularist cartoonists should be required not to skewer religious concepts.
*NB - not all Islam is anti-iconography, while they would never countenance irreverent depiction, Shiites do not ban religious depiction
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Basically, it is wrong for any of lilBuddha's political opponents to use satire because they are punching down. At the same time, all of lilBuddha's political opponents deserve to be satirized mercilessly. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.
I'm at a loss to see the point of that post. Could you clarify it please?
He's saying lilbuddha is FOR targetting powerful groups and against targetting weak groups, but that lilbuddha's definition of "powerful" and "weak" just happen to line up exactly with the groups that lilbuddha dislikes and likes, respectively. And he doesn't think this is a coincidence.
I don't neccessarily agree with Beeswax, because like LB I also distinguish between powerful and marginalized groups, in terms of who it's okay to make fun of. As far as the law is concerned, however, I recognize that it is almost impossible to come up with an objective standard for deciding who does and does not deserve protection.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Thanks for depersonalizing the argument, Stetson.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
But, I bet if somebody you agree with satirized somebody you disagreed with you'll find a reason to say it's OK. Most satire I see could be characterized as punching down. Any millionaire with a television show broadcast nationwide who satirizes poor people with less money and no platform is punching down. Behind this whole nonsense about punching down is the implied assumption that those not allowed to punch are wrong and deserve to be satirized. Once a person accepts that they are a proper target of satire but cannot use satire, they've conceded whatever argument was being had. The only reason that anybody accepts that premise in the first place without believing themselves to be wrong is because the self-righteous hypocrites who talk about punching down will punch them. And the self-righteous hypocrites will be punching up not down.
[ 12. July 2015, 17:04: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Thanks for depersonalizing the argument, Stetson.
Oh please...all this bullshit is about making it personal.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
