After terrorists attack the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the
magazine put a picture of the Prophet on the cover of its first issue after the attack. I posted that the magazine was being stupid and provocative. The French
says they were defending freedom of speech.
Well, it seems the French definition of “freedom of speech” is
kind of limited because since the attack, French police have arrested more than
70 people for allegedly "defending or glorifying terrorism". One of the people
arrested was a French comedian named Dieudonne M'bala M'bala. He was charged
over a Facebook post saying "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly", play on the
names of magazine Charlie Hebdo and Amedy Coulibaly, the attacker who killed
four hostages at the supermarket.
That's it. He didn't call for people to attack Charlie Hebdo again or say the attackers were doing a good thing. He just did a play on their names. He was arrested for that.
Let see here; a magazine (that sells millions of copies)
showing a picture of the Prophet is okay even though almost all Muslims considered
it an insult to their religion, but a Facebook post against the magazine can
get you jail time. Uh…how do you spell hypocrisy in French?
5 comments:
Killing people is a gravest crime.So if someone shows support for the terrorist, he is supporting murder.
Insulting a religion is less serious offence.The magazine doesn't insult only Islam but other religions and politicians too.It is considered acceptable and legal in France.
A play on the name of the magazine equal support for terrorism? Really? That is acceptable in France? Thank goodness I'm not French then.
For French, it is acceptable to insult living politicians and religions. This is their freedom of expression.Muslims shouldn't read the magazine or report its insulting comics if they don't want to be offended.
"He was charged over a Facebook post saying "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly", play on the names of magazine Charlie Hebdo and Amedy Coulibaly, the attacker who killed four hostages at the supermarket."
The French were outraged with the killings. But this guy seemed to endorse or support the killings. Suppose I say the killings were justified,do you think it is not against the law?
Another blogger is sympathetic to the killers. He says: The Charlie Hebdo example of "Freedom of Expression" has this rather hypocritical stance. The law allows me to be as childish and immature as I like in order to offend you, but you are not protected by the law and so you cannot respond in a childish and immature manner. You must rise above childishness and immaturity, by acting in a mature manner.
*Freedom of speech" means total freedom (but of course there is limitation: one should not go against other law). If someone insults you, I suppose the normal response is you insult or scold him back. So you have freedom of speech too. But if you slash him with a knife, you are against the law and overly react. Revenge should be legal and appropriate.
Post a Comment