SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Six writers have withdrawn from the PEN American Center's annual gala in protest over the organization's decision to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked on January 7th:
The writers who have withdrawn from the event are Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi, The New York Times reports. [...] Kushner, in an email to The Times, said she was withdrawing from the May 5 PEN gala because she was uncomfortable with Charlie Hebdo's "cultural intolerance" and promotion of "a kind of forced secular view." Those views, The Times added, were echoed by the other writers who pulled out of the event. Carey told The Times that PEN, in its decision, was going beyond its role of protecting freedom of expression." A hideous crime was committed, but was it a freedom-of-speech issue for PEN America to be self-righteous about?" he said in an email to the newspaper. Novelist Salman Rushdie, a past president of PEN who spent years in hiding because of a fatwa over his novel The Satanic Verses, criticized the writers for pulling out, saying while Carey and Ondaatje were old friends of his, they are "horribly wrong."
Glenn Greenwald has written about the controversy over at The Intercept, which is hosting letters and comments written by Deborah Eisenberg and Teju Cole. Greenwald notes:
Though the core documents are lengthy, this argument is really worth following because it highlights how ideals of free speech, and the Charlie Hebdo attack itself, were crassly exploited by governments around the world to promote all sorts of agendas having nothing to do with free expression. Indeed, some of the most repressive regimes on the planet sent officials to participate in the Paris “Free Speech” rally, and France itself began almost immediately arresting and prosecuting people for expressing unpopular, verboten political viewpoints and then undertaking a series of official censorship acts, including the blocking of websites disliked by its government. The French government perpetrated these acts of censorship, and continues to do so, with almost no objections from those who flamboyantly paraded around as free speech fanatics during Charlie Hebdo Week.
From Deborah Eisenberg's letter to PEN's Executive Director Suzanne Nossel, March 26, 2015:
I can hardly be alone in considering Charlie Hebdo's cartoons that satirize Islam to be not merely tasteless and brainless but brainlessly reckless as well. To a Muslim population in France that is already embattled, marginalized, impoverished, and victimized, in large part a devout population that clings to its religion for support, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.
Was it the primary purpose of the magazine to mortify and inflame a marginalized demographic? It would seem not. And yet the staff apparently considered the context of their satire and its wide-ranging potential consequences to be insignificant, or even an inducement to redouble their efforts – as if it were of paramount importance to demonstrate the right to smoke a cigarette by dropping your lit match into a dry forest.
It is difficult and painful to support the protection of offensive expression, but it is necessary; freedom of expression must be indivisible. The point of protecting all kinds of expression is that neither you nor I get to determine what attitudes are acceptable – to ensure that expression cannot be subordinated to powerful interests. But does that mean that courage in expression is to be measured by its offensiveness?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:18PM
When muslims stop killing anyone who doesn't believe the same things as them then I may have pity for them being mocked. As of right now the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered.
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
They can start demanding the rest of the world treat them as equals when they treat the rest of the world as equals. Its that whole you gotta give respect if you want respect principle, and I refuse to be the first to give. They have already been given vast amounts of respect, its their turn to pony up.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:43PM
the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered
[Citation needed]
Go spread your hate-speech somewhere else, please.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:05PM
There is no hate speech there, just truths. I don't care if they hurt you, they are the truth.
Citation needed?
How about Pew research?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ [pewforum.org]
There is your citation. From their own mouths they think killing is called for by sharia law.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:16PM
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.
Thanks. Any actual citation, or are you going to come up with Fox next?
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
If this is not hate speech? I don't know what is.
I don't care if they hurt you, they are the truth.
I don't care if you think you have a monopoly on truth, because you don't.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:59PM
If this is not hate speech? I don't know what is.
That particular sentence is about as much "hate speech" as saying the Christian god is a murderous thug (which he is); that is, it isn't. It's just criticizing a religion and the prophets they worship.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:17AM
You mistake criticism for insult.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:28AM
Err... the other way around, of course. It's late.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:06AM
He was a proper pedophile. That is not even an insult or criticism, but a fact of scripture.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:54AM
You're limiting the options. It could be:
1) An insult.
2) A criticism.
3) A simple statement of fact.
4) Some combination of these things.
I see no reason to limit the options to two things. Simply stating that their prophet is a pedophile is not necessarily an insult, or only an insult.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:26PM
Is there someone here that is Islamic and modding everything down involving the prophet? On a free speech article no less.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:08AM
Would you prefer to see the real deal on liveleak? How about apacheclips? We don't need words. They film it and post it for us.
Those things are nasty enough that nobody should be subjected to seeing them. If you want, you can find them yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:24PM
Wait a second. Someone asks for a link showing Islamic extremists denouncing free speech with death in their own words. I post two sources to find such, and get modded -1 offtopic.
Then what the hell was the topic? To be apologists and pretend people aren't beheaded, burned alive, stoned to death, and worse all on film with explanation by militant Muslims? Such a waste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:53AM
Some people can't handle ugly truths and their behavior to avoid facing such ugliness can seem irrational to an observer.
Feel free to post a link to the affected comment in question next time so modders with points can look it over for themselves - the threads here are getting quite tangled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:47AM
> There is your citation. From their own mouths they think killing is called for by sharia law.
No, from their own mouths they think killing traitors is called for by sharia law.
Want to bet most Americans think the same thing about traitors too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:56AM
Your comparison is misleading.
An apostate from Islam is the equivalent of an American expatriate. I'd win a bet that most Americans don't want to see American expatriates killed.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:45PM
When muslims stop killing anyone who doesn't believe the same things as them then I may have pity for them being mocked. As of right now the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered.
I haven't heard about such a world-wide poll of all Muslims.
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
You are welcome to do exactly that in privacy of your own bedroom. Doing it on TV or in newspapers would be, IMO, foolish. It will gain you nothing, but will create enemies. Go ahead, visit Saudi Arabia, go to a mosque and tell the assembled people what you really think about them and their false god. You'll meet a man with a rare job and a sharp friend the very next Friday.
They can start demanding the rest of the world treat them as equals when they treat the rest of the world as equals. Its that whole you gotta give respect if you want respect principle, and I refuse to be the first to give.
It's difficult to identify who hit who first, especially when first such conflict happened twelve centuries ago. But do you recall events that led to the Muslim unrest in the 20th century?
With regard to respect, it would be most proper to respect beliefs of a Muslim that hasn't done anything wrong to you and to anyone else as far as you know. He is respecting your beliefs, after all - he will not scold you for failing to pray to Allah, for example. Why do you scold him for praying to his god? I hold a firm and scientifically based opinion that all gods of humanity are invented by the humanity itself. This means that it does not matter who a person prays to, it has only a placebo effect. Do not hate an innocent person, as it only turns him into an enemy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:02PM
I haven't heard about such a world-wide poll of all Muslims.
Is a Pew research poll good enough for you?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ [pewforum.org]
Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%). Roughly two-thirds who want sharia to be the law of the land also back this penalty in the Palestinian territories (66%). In the other countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, fewer than half take this view.
In the South Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, strong majorities of those who favor making Islamic law the official law of the land also approve of executing apostates (79% and 76%, respectively). However, in Bangladesh far fewer (44%) share this view.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:15PM
Is a Pew research poll good enough for you?
This poll does not support the claims of the AC ("the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered".) In fact, the poll states the following:
Muslims generally say they are very free to practice their religion. Most also believe non-Muslims in their country are very free to practice their faith. And among those who view non-Muslims as very free to practice their faith, the prevailing opinion is that this is a good thing.
and:
Few Muslims see conflict between religious groups as a very big national problem. In fact, most consider unemployment, crime and corruption as bigger national problems than religious conflict. Asked specifically about Christian-Muslim hostilities, few Muslims say hostilities are widespread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:16AM
Oop! Another google-expert hoist by his own petard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:19AM
The segment of the poll best supporting the claims of the AC ("the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered") is the segment titled Sharia as the Official Law of the Land.
In short, Sharia Law demands that infidels either submit to Islam in one of several ways (convert, pay a heavy tax, be a third-class citizen with effectively no rights) or be killed.
It looks to me as though the original AC's claims are wrong... but also that the poll is clear that large numbers of Muslims do desire that Sharia Law be implemented where they live, with dire potential consequences for those who aren't Muslims.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:48AM
In short, Sharia Law demands that infidels either submit to Islam in one of several ways (convert, pay a heavy tax, be a third-class citizen with effectively no rights) or be killed. It looks to me as though the original AC's claims are wrong... but also that the poll is clear that large numbers of Muslims do desire that Sharia Law be implemented where they live, with dire potential consequences for those who aren't Muslims.
I think this conclusion comes from two unrelated facts. First, the respondents directly say that they support Sharia. And then someone else opens a book, reads what Sharia is about, and comes to the conclusion that infidels will be killed or forced to convert (see above.)
However this is a conclusion, and not a direct answer to a question. Obviously, there are not too many countries in the world who can get away with forcing the population to adopt someone else's religion or to be executed. The poll did, actually, ask respondents, and here is their answer:
Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five of 21 countries where this follow-up question was asked do at least half say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law.
Another factor that affects the "Muslims are coming!!1!" fears is the fact that respondents want to use Sharia primarily for resolution of domestic issues. Even punishment of apostates is frowned upon:
Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. The survey finds even lower support for executing apostates.
It is definitely true that Sharia is a harsh law. However if people want to be ruled by such a law... every true democrat has to accept their right to choose such a law. It won't apply to others.
If a Muslim does not want to be part of Sharia he has an option of setting his religion aside. Nobody will hunt him down and cut his head off. Certainly he could ask for trouble by flaunting his change of religion. But if he quietly moves to another city, or another state, and arrives to the new location as a non-religious person, or as an adherent of some other religion, who is going to lose her sleep over a new neighbor's affiliation, in a neighborhood that is not obsessed with religion? That would be nearly impossible in the 7th century, as people were tied to their tribe for all their life. They could not move far enough to be forgotten. Today it is trivial. You can easily be forgotten in any apartment building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:54AM
The Pew poll [pewforum.org] was shocking upon its debut as the constant refrain from the mainstream media and talking heads was, "only a tiny, insignifiant percentage of Islam's followers are the type who really believe and obey what is written in the sacred texts of Islam". The poll instead shows massive support for fundamentalist Islam (beheading the infidels, world war until all religion is for Allah, kill those who choose to leave Islam, etc.). It doesn't matter that such support may not even reach majority status - a majority isn't needed to have massive impact on external forces.
While the prior AC was wrong to state that "the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered", the underlying concerns remain completely valid in that there are literal millions of Muslims that apparently desire to force themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint.
Yes, like you, I have also met friendly people who also claim to be Muslim; the existence of such people does not negate the ugly claims reported above.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:16PM
Opinion polls are bad science to begin with. Often they suffer from issues like poor representation of the population, biased questions, and the claims of these people can't be verified objectively. Are they simply ignorant of what Sharia law exactly is? I don't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:18PM
the underlying concerns remain completely valid in that there are literal millions of Muslims that apparently desire to force themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint.
The USA is in business of exporting "democracy" for about 100 years now, by forcing themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint. As matter of fact, the major grievance of Saudis who hijacked airplanes on 9/11 was US presence in Saudi Arabia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:02AM
Agreed (except that the USA doesn't export rule-by-the-people democracy, but rule-by-the-unaccountable-few oligarchy).
Neither the USA's criminal behavior nor that of individual Muslims excuses the other.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:11AM
While also wrong, this is something very different than
"Infidels" for a Muslim are all non-Muslims. People who abandon Islam are people who stop being Muslims. The vast majority of non-Muslims ("infidels") were never Muslims to begin with (i.e. never abandoned Islam).
Note also that the second paragraph only makes statements about those who favour making Islamic law the official law, without stating what percentage of the population that is (and note that again, it's about killing apostates, not about killing infidels). Therefore the numbers given there are not very useful for determining the opinion of the majority of Muslims. For example, in Hypothetistan, there are a million Muslims, but only ten of them support making Islamic law official law. Nine of those ten also support killing apostates. None of the others support that. Therefore in Hypothetistan, 90% of those who support making Islamic law official also support killing apostates, but only 0.0009% of all Muslims do.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.