The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Free speech and the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo > Comments

Free speech and the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo : Comments

By Trisha Jha, published 20/1/2015

Underpinning the exhortation to restrict free speech are the ideas that free speech is a zero-sum game where the 'loser' is almost always a minority community.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Where the author says:

"For the right, it means an opportunity to cast doubt on the nature of our society on the basis that some groups of people will never really fit into Western society."

Is she talking about a certain commenter named after a kiddy's, plastic, block?

Only the the Centrists (neither Left nor Right) hold the pulse of their human conditions.
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 10:49:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's only one ethnic minority group who takes advantage of 18c on a regular basis, they're the same ones whose shops and schools in Europe are currently being guarded by paratroopers.
Ironically they're the same group who Charlie Hebdo refused to include in their satire for fear of retribution, even sacking one of their cartoonists who "crossed the line".
I'm talking of course about the "Eskimos" (wink wink).
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 11:35:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are instructed not to lampoon religion. That religious thought and practice is somehow sacrosanct. That it is wrong, very wrong indeed to offend and insult a person of religion be he/she an archbishop, rabbi or ayatollah.

I say this is nonsense. Humour, satire and ridicule have proved to be powerful weapons in controlling the excesses of religion. A religion out of control will permeate all aspects of our lives. Prelates would proscribe our eating habits [no fish on Friday, or the dietary rules of Jews and Islam]. Prelates would control our sexual activities; are they not empowered by law to oversee hatches, matches and dispatches. Religion is capable of the controlling business and trade [no shops to open on the Sabbath, for it is the Lord’s Day]

In the West religion is largely under control; gone are the days of burning heretics; gone too is Inquisition. Unfortunately this is not yet the case with Islam. It may well take centuries before the enlightenment spreads over the land of Islam. Until that date I foresee a bloody clash between the forces of enlightenment and the militant sects and subsects of Islam such as the Salafists and the followers of the 18th Century Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab.

I have yet to meet the person of religious faith who is able to provide empirical evidence that the universe is populated with gods, goddess, daemons, angels and the spirits of the dead. True Christians have concatenated the many gods of the ancients into a three headed monster, while others have by an equal act of magic concatenated the many into a single God. I leave it to others to determine if Jehovah and Allah are the same God or just two powerful deities in competition controlling the cosmos and orchestrating affairs on Earth.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 12:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So as I understand the current situation, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to: "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people because of their race or ethnicity".
And what's wrong with that?
Our Attorney-General George Brandis famously said that people have the right to be bigots. So they do. But it is still unlawful to take to the public airways to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people because of their race or ethnicity. Given the tone and content of some of its commentators, I reckon OLO sails very close to wind on this.
Murder was committed at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine. By whom is still not exactly clear, altho there is an official story and another one for those willing to look beyond the headlines. But murder it was.
Point 1: Prosecute the murder, and if possible also those flowing from the initial attack at the magazine's offices.
Point 2: The magazine's cartoons so much at the centre of the ensuing discussion could not be published in Australia under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Good. Let's keep it that way.
In our increasingly polarised and sectarian world, we need restraints and respect. By all parties. At all times.
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 12:53:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Halduell

My understanding is that the CH cartoons would probably be lawful in Australia because they attack religion, not race. I’m no lawyer and I could be wrong on this, though.

I agree the kind of hate speech that directly incites violence should be banned, but a right not to be offended is too vague and subjective and leaves people at the discretion of the courts. It also opens to door for vexatious claims and those seeking money (only a tiny percentage of claims make it to court). The threat of litigation can deter free expression even if that expression would be lawful.

There is a difference between behaviour that ought to be socially unacceptable, and that which should be illegal. Larry Pickering’s cartoons of Julia Gillard were misogynist, disgusting, coarse and unfunny. I would refuse to buy any publication that printed them. But I don’t think they should be illegal.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 1:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no reason why speech should be more free than any other action.

One should be able to do whatever they like so long as they do not hurt non-consenting others, but speech is often hurtful to others, so restricting it is just.

There should be no problem speaking and telling whatever you like to those who are willing to hear you, but not to others.

I would like to see in jail all those who speak at me despite knowing that it hurts me - I specifically refer to those who uninvitedly talk at me about their products and services which they want to sell and their prices, doing so is a criminal assault.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 1:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Rhian, Posted Tuesday, 20 January 2015 1:40:51 PM
I am surprised that no publication has yet published the CH cartoons here in Australia. I imagine a legal test case might then be mounted. In a way I would welcome this as it would clarification the issue here in Australia.
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 2:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Halduell,

<<I am surprised that no publication has yet published the CH cartoons here in Australia.>>

How can you tell? If someone did in fact publish the CH cartoons in Australia, would you expect them to just tell it to you openly? What if you were a Muslim? or from the government?

---
How does an Arab commit suicide?
- They lift their arm, place their nose under their armpit and take a deep breath.

And how does a Frenchman commit suicide?
- They tell the above to an Arab.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 3:36:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Trisha,

We need to constantly remind ourselves of what freedoms have been fought for over the past millennia. Your citing of the work of Kenan Malik is most timely:

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/je-suis-charlie-its-a-bit-late/

Malik has just published a sort of moral history of the world, The Search for a Moral Compass, which I urge all thinking readers to seek out - steal it if you have to :)

Can one speak of progressive-liberal values ? Surely that includes the freedom of expression, the freedom to upturn what others take as sacred, certainly the freedom to annoy and irritate, to make us re-examine what we believe, or think we believe, and improve on it ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 4:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And what about the truth
Should the truth be illegal if what offends
Or insults is the truth

We all know the historical behaviour of Mohammed
Riding at the head of conquering armies
Armies don't descend on people to give them
Flowers and kisses

Then there is the issue of the poor little 9year old girl
He took as his wife so he could have sex with her

Insulting and offensive to those who wish to revere
Him as a holy prophet but according to historians this is
Documented as historical fact
Should the truth be banned under 18c because there
Are those who wish to ban the truth

There were also those who were offended and insulted
When Galileo said that God did not put man at the centre of the
universe but that mankind actually revolved around the sun
With lots of other planets. The law threw Gallileo in prison
Because he spoke a truth that offended those who held
Unproven religious beliefs.
Posted by CHERFUL, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 5:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cherful,
The truth about Galileo is that he was summoned to prove his theories to the Holy Inquisition, if he could scientifically prove heliocentrism the church would accept it but he couldn't prove any of his theories.
Galileo was then confined for five months of mild discomfort in the tower of the archduke of Tuscany and given penance, he even managed to get a deal from the court to allow the penance to be recited by his daughter on his behalf.
When Galileo was busted again for spreading his unprovable theories he was given home detention in his luxurious villa known as "The Jewel" where he enjoyed every comfort befitting his station.
The Church showed heretics a great deal of tolerance and only really cracked down on dissent when it turned violent or openly seditious, the Inquisitions would hold an inquest into the heretic and then if they found evidence of wrong doing they handed the prisoner over to the civil courts for trial and punishment.
Galileo kept pushing his luck and when a person does that they can expect a response from the state (or in his case the duchy) because the state can't be seen to back down or to let things slide once the courts have made their ruling.
It's not that different to the Human Rights tribunals set up in Canada, the U.K and some European countries, an extra judicial hearing is held and if the accused person refuses to recant or to participate in mediation with their accusers they are handed over to the state for trial and punishment.
Ernst Zundel for example kept pushing his luck, defying court orders and spreading the modern day heresy until finally the state locked him up, same deal with Galileo.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 6:22:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cherful,
Actually the church in Gallieo's time held to the Aristotlean/Ptolemaic theory of an earth centred cosmos, it's a scientific theory albeit a much older one than heliocentrism, it's not Christian dogma.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 6:31:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Yuyutsu, Posted Tuesday, 20 January 2015 3:36:52 PM
Yuyutsu
Instead of indulging in puerile humour, can you confirm that the cartoons have been published in Australia?
What would be the point of publishing them and not making that fact public?
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 11:19:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unless we as a society repeal 18c, Australia should stop calling itself a "free society", because unless we have the right to speak or write about any social issue, we have become exactly like Soviet Russia or every Islamic country where the authorities suppress criticism of their regimes by shutting people up.

Human Rights commissioner Tim Wilson wrote in "The Australian" newspaper yesterday that since Andrew Bolt was successfully prosecuted for criticising the fact that people who were not really aboriginals at all were accessing the generous government benefits for 'aborigines", 130,000 more people are now claiming that they are "aboriginal."

And who is to say they are not? Denying the right of anybody to self identify as an aboriginal in order to claim special welfare benefits is now illegal under 18c.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 2:35:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only reason there is a debate about "reforming" or repealing 18C is b/c Andrew Bolt got push-back for his personally-abusive attacks, using misinformation, on women who identify as Aboriginal. Those victims of Bolt's rhetoric could have sued, with many legal opinions they had a good case to do so.

Conflating 18C with the Charlie Hebdo attacks or Charlie Hebdo's satirical ethos, or both, is disingenuous. To say

"It is a strange defence of freedom of expression that simultaneously condemns the killing of people for drawing cartoons and, implicitly affirms that Australian law should nevertheless have a chilling effect on those who might produce similar words or images" is a mangled take on disparate events and views of them.

Talking about law having "a chilling effect" is weird.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 10:13:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu:

“speech is often hurtful to others, so restricting it is just.”

Free speech has to be an all or nothing value because speech of itself cannot hurt anyone. Unless you can prove that it is the speech that causes the pain then you cannot restrict it. Just because someone feels pain when something is said does not mean that the pain is a direct result.

Muslims feel pain when Islam is criticised or the Prophet is ridiculed because it triggers off insecurities and doubts they have about their religion. The cause of the pain is not what is said but the unexamined beliefs and behaviours that they adhere to. It is without doubt the case 100 per cent of the time that words cannot hurt unless you have insecurities about the subject. Insults about religion, cultural background, race, physical appearance – everything reflects on the hearer and their own attitudes to themselves.

If speech cannot hurt then there is no need to restrict it. Everyone should be free to say what they like. That is not to say that some people do not use speech with an aim to hurt. Although it is impossible to hurt with speech it is quite common for people to try and this, like any act whose aim is to hurt, is aggression. This may have been the aim of some of the published articles in Charlie Hebdo. If and how you deal with such aggression is another story. Certainly violence is never the answer.

People often feel powerless in the face of aggression and one way they respond is to call upon an authority like the government to protect them. No one needs protection from words but you can still take appropriate action against someone who has shown themselves to be aggressive. You can move away from such a person and refuse to relate to them until they change their behaviour. This is the most natural response. You could stop buying their magazine or create one which satirises their attitudes. We do not need legislation.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 11:16:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The latest Charlie Hebdo cartoon was published in either Sydney Morning Herald or the Daily Telegraph. It was approx 2cms x 3cms. I don't think the cartoon(s) used as the excuse for the murders in Paris were published anywhere in Australia.
Posted by HereNow, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 4:39:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay of Melbourne

If the religious authorities of the day put Galilleo in
prison because he could not prove his theory, then they should
have put all the religious believers in prison also, because they
couldn't prove their theories either. Still can't.

What if I am offended by the the fact that people preach religious
doctrines that they cannot prove and then want to change the
laws of a secular society that I believe in to their own sharia laws.

I am very offended that they come here and do that. Can I take them to court under 18c because I am offended by their actions.
No, it only works the other way doesn't it. I am not allowed to offend them by disclaiming their beliefs but they can offend me with their beliefs and attitudes.

It is not society that is intolerant of religion, it is religion
that is intolerant of the society around them, so much so that they want to break off into their own groups wearing different clothes
and seeking to persecute or kill anyone who doesn't conform to their beliefs. And 18c aids them in shutting up any descent
or other view. Every religion in history has been intolerant
of the societies around them. The Christians burnt people at the stake for not conforming to their beliefs.

The Amish in America
don't mix with the unholy people from the outside world and shut themselves away in their own groups as do all the other crazy sects
out there who think the society around them is wrong and not to be
tolerated.

Every religion thinks it is unique in it's beliefs but they all
follow the same patterns.
Posted by CHERFUL, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 10:31:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Phanto,

<<speech of itself cannot hurt anyone. Unless you can prove that it is the speech that causes the pain then you cannot restrict it.>>

A bird poo'd on a car's mirror, the driver stopped the car and came out to clean the mirror - and was hit by a truck.

The truck by itself did not hurt anyone - the bird, the driver and some bump on the road may all share the blame, but the driver is hurt.

In ideal principle, one should not be hurt even when their body is injured, how less so when somebody calls them 'idiot'. In practice we do hurt because we identify with our bodies and minds, consider their hurt to be ours and experience this as pain.

The truck-driver, seeing a man on the road cleaning their car's mirror should press the brakes, rather than drive on saying "it's the bird".

All sensations create impressions in our brain/mind, often unwanted. Why then should unwanted sensations of touch be considered "hurt" but not likewise unwanted sensations of sight, smell and sound? It makes no sense (pun intended)!

Yes, insecurities are involved: can you show me a person who has no insecurities? Our core insecurity is for not knowing who we are, believing that we are this body, which must eventually perish, therefore let the man who has no insecurities cast the first stone.

<<You can move away from such a person and refuse to relate to them until they change their behaviour. This is the most natural response. You could stop buying their magazine...>>

Definitely, but that person should respect this decision and not pursue me any further. If they continue, then it is aggression and should be a criminal offence.

I was not referring to people who buy the magazine - if they do despite knowing what the magazine is about, then they have none but themselves to blame. However, if the offending pictures appear on the cover page, then they are likely to hurt innocent people who visit the news-agency to buy something else.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 23 January 2015 12:54:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu:

I never said that people cannot be hurt by physical blows to their body. I said they cannot be hurt by words or speech. If speech can hurt by the physical act of hearing it then why does not all speech hurt since it is the same physical experience? If I say you are wonderful then it is just a set of sounds that vibrate your ear drums. If I say you are an idiot then it is exactly the same event – it is the reaction that takes place inside of you that makes all the difference.

Maybe we do all have insecurities but that does not excuse us from taking responsibilities for them and not expecting governments or anyone else to temper the right to free speech because of them.

We do not need to know your theories about body/mind dynamics or whether we are more than a body. These things are totally irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking only about physical action and reaction. Someone speaks, another listens and feels pain. There is nothing metaphysical about any of it.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 23 January 2015 8:40:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Phanto,

If you beat someone physically, they normally experience it as pain - unless they are a masochist. Depending on one's mental constructs one may experience the same as a pleasant stroke or as a threatening sexual advance, as a physical assault or as a good massage.

Occasionally physical pressure is unavoidable, such as on a crowded bus or train, but we do try to minimise it if we can except when the other party agrees.

Why should this be different when instead of the sense of touch are involved the senses of smell, sight and hearing, is beyond me.

In general, differences in metaphysical outlook can account for ethical differences, but I think that in this particular case our metaphysical outlooks are close enough so we can arrive at the same conclusion (unlike for example someone who believed that for every pain you feel now you are saved 100 such pains later in hell).

So yes, the situation is such: someone speaks, another hears (not necessarily with intent to listen) and feels pain. Can we agree that the one who speaks should do their best to avoid such situations?

Regarding the call to government, it comes down to the question whether or not it is legitimate for one to defend themselves against verbal/sound attacks. If it is legitimate, then it is also legitimate to delegate this form of self-defence to a government, otherwise it is not.

So if the neighbours or the ice-cream man play loud music that you really hate and cannot escape from, or if the neighbour constantly calls you and your family dirty names, day and night, or if they don't stop telling you and your family unsolicitedly about their products and prices, and assuming you are not a saint who embraces such suffering as penance, surely there is a point where self-defence is a legitimate option?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 23 January 2015 2:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu:

There is a difference between speech and noise. If someone is speaking too loudly and you are trying to sleep of course it is annoying. It is not what they say but the intrusiveness upon your environment that you are unhappy with and have every right to try and stop. If someone says something in a clear and calm way which causes you pain then it is the content that is the issue. You cannot respond with legislation against speech in the same way as you respond to the sound of a jack hammer.

“Can we agree that the one who speaks should do their best to avoid such situations?” It shouldn’t make any difference. People use speech with the intention to hurt because they suspect someone to be insecure enough for it to trigger pain. It can only cause pain because such insecurity exists. The exact same insult to another person may cause no pain whatsoever so who is responsible for the pain?

The fact that a person has shown a willingness to cause pain means that you deal with their attitude and not their speech. We should avoid such people not because of their speech but because of their willingness to hurt. We know from experience that if they cannot hurt by words that they may well resort to violence and this is why every bone in our body wants to retreat from them. You cannot legislate to silence people because they have an intention to hurt – you can only legislate for actions which inflict pain and speech cannot inflict pain.

Many people find it hard to make such a retreat especially from someone who has some kind of power over them. Instead of owning their insecurities and taking themselves out of the relationship they remain because they feel powerless. These are the people who want some authority to step in and control the speech of their aggressor. It does not work. A person intent on harming you will find another way.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 23 January 2015 4:59:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy