was for using any of the English words/phrases that were banned in France. Or, if there was truly any punishment.

But, I suppose that as long as they can express themselves only using the french language, they are free to express themselves openly?

Regardless of any restrictions- the tragedy, the grief, and the outrage are part of a universal language.

is fresh in the minds of the public, at least with some of the items. However, with France leaning right these days, I am not optimistic about lifting the bans on headcoverings and other things associated with Islam.

in France, and this for security reasons.

Head scarves, hijabs and full-body coverings can be seen anywhere you look. Just walk down my street or ride in any Metro car and you'll see them all over the place.

Only in France's resolutely secular public schools are all religious symbols banned, i.e. crosses, head scarves, scull caps, turbans, etc.

"But for the people of France to refuse any nuance in their understanding of the attacks, to permit themselves to indulge the temptation of simplistic, self-righteous, Manichean narratives that reduce the events in Paris as being explainable in terms of a barbarians-at-the-gate myth, while disingenuously (and somewhat dishonestly) holding their own country out as some kind of bulwark of free speech against assaults by those who hate France because of its freedoms (sound familiar?), is for the people of France to fall into the same delusion that overtook many Americans in the wake of 9-11..."

It is painfully obvious that you are not in France and have not been following events within and around the country in the last week.

It is impossible here to turn on a TV news program or open a French-language website without running into yet another nuanced and meticulously argued debate on the significance and consequences of these events for the nation and the Fifth République.

Not a discussion goes by without a "mise en garde" against over-reaction "à l'americaine".

Never make the mistake of accusing the French of "lack of nuance". Especially in contrast with American's simplistic penchant for black & white solutions, the French may be the most nuanced thinkers on the planet. They are the masters, bar none, of hairsplitting, nitpicking, and even quibbling political argument. They invented it.

"JE PENSE, DONC JE SUIS !" could only have been proclaimed by a French intellectual.

Edit: As for the interdiction on Muslim headgear, the ban is only on full-face coverage in public places, and this for security reasons. All religious symbols, i.e. crosses, scull caps, and head scarves are prohibited in France's resolutely secular public schools.

French intellectuals would be the first to welcome well-informed discussion as opposed to ignorant, gratuitious French-bashing.

If there's one thing they know, it's nuanced political debate.

is a line I stole from Rimbaud. He changes the identity of Je in the statement, by putting I in the place reserved for he or she. The "I" is no longer me. It is another. He or she.

I have been subject to an incessant bleating of the sacred JeSuisCharlie for a week now, and have seen it plastered all over Paris, not only in shop windows but stenciled into the sidewalk. Last night, Le Grand Journal spent the hour glorifying Charlie Hebdo. You cannot escape it. It is everywhere. I watch the phenomenon. Je est un autre.

There are some people in France who are not getting caught up in the mass hysteria, fresh in our minds what happened in U.S. after 9-11. We see what happened there (the wars, the Muslim bashing, the giving away of civil liberties under the false name of security), and we don't wish to see the same thing happen in France. Or worse. France has such a large unloved underclass of Arab immigrants who are already subject to a lot of bashing themselves. Witness the attack on mosques this past week. Not very nuanced as a political debate.

Is asking a people to look in the mirror and examine their own hypocrisy about freedom of speech what you consider ignorant? And it is French bashing? I would consider any inquiry into the actions of the dominant class in France or anywhere to be healthy and intelligent. And I would also consider it freedom of speech.

Your next-to-last paragraph is especially pertinent.

"There are some people in France who are not getting caught up in the mass hysteria, fresh in our minds what happened in U.S. after 9-11. We see what happened there (the wars, the Muslim bashing, the giving away of civil liberties under the false name of security), and we don't wish to see the same thing happen in France."

Of course, there are "dépassements" and excesses among the French public's response. Given the harrowing nature of the events, it's to be expected. But, as I remarked elsewhere in this thread :

"It is impossible here (in France) to turn on a TV news program or open a French-language website without running into yet another nuanced and meticulously argued debate on the significance and consequences of these events for the nation and the Fifth République.

Not a discussion goes by without a "mise en garde" against over-reaction "à l'americaine".

Never make the mistake of accusing the French of "lack of nuance". Especially in contrast with American's simplistic penchant for black & white solutions, the French may be the most nuanced thinkers on the planet. They are the masters, bar none, of hairsplitting, nitpicking, and even quibbling political argument. They invented it.
.../...

As for your ignorant assertion that "France does not have free speech, period", I'll pit France's free press against America's any time.

Self-censorship for fear of R/W corporate blow back, as practiced in the US press, is worse than codified restrictions (in France)."

_______
By the way, I'm a dual-national (FR/US) living in Paris. You are evidently in France (and French?) as well. I therefore give you leave to "mettre en cause en toute connaissance de cause". LOL!

Very well stated!

I always make a beeline for your always well-stated posts, and was glad to respond to this.

. . . where people post their thoughts, opinions and observations concerning various topics. if I am "posing as a pundit or expert on France" with my post, then so is every other member of DU "posing as a pundit or expert" on whatever topic about which they post. I have never claimed to be an expert on France. But, as a New Yorker, and one who was in New York during the 9-11 attacks, I like to think that maybe I learned a thing or two about the dynamics of mass hysteria in the wake of a terrorist attack.

national trauma as being "simplistic, self-righteous, Manichean", not to mention "disingenuous and somewhat dishonest" is not my idea of making observations, it's pontificating punditry, with all due respect.

. . . as if nothing like this has ever happened to anyone else, anywhere else. That's the same kind of thinking that happened here in the wake of 9-11, and it didn't end well.

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

If you had access to the French-speaking media, you would know that the phrase "sans précedent" has been used by journos, politicos and average joes of all persuasions to describe what we've just lived through.

They have very broad "hate speech" laws. Hate speech laws are an infringement on freedom of speech. Brigitte Bardot has been prosecuted no less than five times for criticizing Islam. How is it that Bardot is prosecuted for her remarks while Charlie Hebdo remained untouched after not just cartoons but downright obscene attacks on Islam and other religions? I find that VERY curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

are indeed prohibited in public places in France.

But, you must put these interdictions in their historical and social context.

In the last five hundred years, few countries have suffered as much as France from the effects of religious intolerance, fascism, and anti-semitism.

for its skewering of Muslim excesses. They've been taken to court many times.

BB's islamophobic pronouncements exhibited an appalling level of stupidity in public--the most egregious of sins in French minds.

At least CHARLIE can be very funny on occasion.

As for your ignorant assertion that "France does not have free speech, period", I'll pit France's free press against America's any time.

Self-censorship for fear of R/W corporate blow back, as practiced in the US, is worse than codified restrictions.

and saying and printing FAR more egregious things that BB would ever say - and NOT funny.

How odd you would defend what Charlie Hebdo does for a living while calling Bardot's comments stupid.

Hate speech laws are anti free speech. France does not have freedom of speech.

I have no idea what you're talking about with self censorship for fear of corporate blow back.

BTW, I'm not lauding the fascist USA, at all. I am merely addressing the OP and the fact that part of this narrative going in France is the phony notion of free speech.

The question remains: why can Charlie Hebdo say and print anything, including being obscene, and Brigitte Bardot gets prosecuted every time she criticizes Islam? What's up with that?

has never been successfully prosecuted for any of her silly pronouncements on Muslims.

As for your interpretation of CHARLIE's brand of humour, as the French say: "Les goûts et les couleurs, c'est personnel."

Do you realize how willfully blinkered and biased you sound to contend categorically that "France does not have freedom of speech"?

TOUT EST RELATIVE...

convicted. Should have done a better background check.

Yes, as I said in reply to s.o. else:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026083439#post65

Race baiting, rabble rousing and race-hate rhetoric are indeed prohibited in public places in France.

But, you must put these interdictions in their historical and social context.

In the last five hundred years, few countries have suffered as much as France from the effects of religious intolerance, fascism, and anti-semitism.

.../...

Don't forget that France is only now, 60 to 70 years after the fact, coming to terms with the appalling and shameful treatment of its own Jewish community during WWII, when "deniers" were thick as thieves.

Also, our beloved and resolutely secular public schools were being turned into religious-political battlegrounds, thus the ban on all religious symbols, i.e. headscarves, turbans, scull caps, prayer shawls, crosses, ad infinitum.

There are restrictions on speech in Germany, too, in a big way. Try trotting out the "N" word there and you'll find yourself in some very hot water. The "N" word, of course, being NAZI--the one we use with abandon to criticize everything from grammar to spelling on internet boards. In USA, if someone says "The Holocaust never happened" intelligent people will roll their eyes and pity the fool, in Germany the fool will face the wrath of the law.

France is undergoing a great deal of change lately. The society, which used to be very homogenous, is no longer so, and there are tensions as a consequence.

Yes, Germany practices 'relative' freedom of expression as well.

So true what you say about France undergoing a great deal of upheaval recently. I hope and trust that she will be up to the challenge and that our beloved "valeurs républicaines" will hold.

Vive la France, Vive la République!

In 2000, journalist Mona Chollet was sacked after she had protested against a Philippe Val article which called Palestinians "non-civilized"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo

what he wants, but a business is not compelled to print it or employ him.

of Charlie Hebdo being all about free speech and the right to attack anyone and everyone.

without being murdered but that isn't the ONLY point being made about Charlie Hebdo content. The point being made is that Charlie Hebdo should have the right to attack any all and all, in any way they choose, with or without the threat of murder. I agree with that. That should apply to EVERYONE, not just Charlie H. Free speech for all is freedom of speech.

that CH should lose their right to chose whom to hire or fire or that CH or ANY publication should be required to publish anything anyone writes due to "free speech".

about anyone being "required" to print something. It is Charlie Hebdo who claims the right to attack anyone and everyone (which I agree with). It's quite hypocritical to then turn around fire someone for making a joke about Jews or for defending Palestinians, which Charlie Hebdo did.

Charlie Hebdo has indeed broken French hate speech laws (which I think are bullshit) but they are given a pass while others are prosecuted. That is also hypocritical and a glaring inconsistency in these claims about free speech in France.

the stuff churned out at Charlie Hebdo.

Out of curiosity, I looked up "Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP)" to see if they took as much offense to Charlie Hebdo relentless attacks on Islam as they have against Bardot. Nope. In fact, Charb did a poster for MRAP.

Broad brush attacks on Muslims as people. I'm not surprised she was convicted.

and Charlie Hebdo has attacked Islam, thereby attacking it's adherents (often in a sexually lewd manner), i.e., "Muslim people". THAT is a broad brush. Bardot bemoaned the impacts of mass immigration and cruelty to animals and didn't try to couch it as "humor".

Attacking people for their religious beliefs is against the law in France (which I disagree with). Charlie Hebdo gets a free pass and is even lauded but Bardot is prosecuted. France has a hypocrisy problem and it does not have freedom of speech.

be depicted. Those are ideas and stances that it attacks, not people. Bardot attacked the people directly, calling them 'invaders'.

the hypocrisy while France carries on about "free speech!"


I support Charlie Hebdo and anyone else saying whatever the fuck they want to and that includes Bardot and the man Hebdo fired. Free speech for all, not just Charlie Hebdo. France doesn't have free speech, though.

I can't think of a time where I wanted to say something but didn't because of the response of some winger.

Freedom of speech is an individual right, it cannot really be conflated fully with the freedom of the press even though both are speech oriented.

The American press is silent, practices distraction, and pumps out propaganda not out of fear or right wing corporate blow back but desire because nearly the entire American press is right wing and corporate, owned by one of six or seven of the same corporate entities.

I don't see Democracy Now or TYT quivering in their boots. The mass media is doing what they do, when news departments became profit centers the press collapsed in this country completely not because of any fear but in pursuit of the dollar.

"Because nearly the entire American press is right wing and corporate, owned by one of six or seven of the same corporate entities," the 'journalists' who work for them have become craven cutter/pasters, cowering before the spector of boycotts and blowback.

Belief, like any other idea, should absolutely be open to attack.

Sid

or criticism but it is absurd to claim that attacking Islam is not an attack on it's adherents. Attack away and don't be a hypocrite about it. France is hypocritical with going after Bardot but not Hebdo.

Belief vs believers.

You cannot attack Islam without attacking the Muslim. There is no Muslim without Islam. When you attack Islam, you attack everything about the adherents to that belief system: their practices, their way of life, their dress, their world view. If you can't understand that, try this: If you attack the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan, you attack the Klansman who practices and believes in those ideas. There is no separating them. Your beliefs and actions in accordance with those beliefs are who you are.

that religion.

I disagree.

Please explain how the ideas, practices, way of life of a person can be separated from that same person. Tell me how the Klansman is anything other than ideas he professes and the behavior he engages in.

because I understand that the ideas and behavior of a person are what that person is.

You also didn't answer me. How is the Klansman who professes the ideology of the Klan, engages in the practices of the Klan, living a lifestyle consistent with the Klan, separate from the belief system? He isn't and to suggest that he is is mistaken. We ARE our ideas and actions.

of any religion, whether they arise from Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any other silly supernatural philosophy should never be restricted in a nation that claims to stand for Freedom. I think that pointing out the repressive nature of such tenets is very much a part of Freedom of Speech and is necessary under any secular government.

Charlie Hebdo has a long tradition of going after irrational, hypocritical, and discriminatory ideas within religions, not the adherents, themselves. Their cartoonists' satire has been aimed directly at foolish doctrines such as blasphemy and apostasy; the denigrating and oppressive beliefs that restrict the rights of women, LGBTs, and minorities; and the deadly medieval practice of jihad and martyrdom, that has no place whatsoever in a modern world. Most all of those tenets can be found in all three of the main Abrahamic faiths and I laud anyone who chooses to attack them, with words.

The bigots of the right-wing choose to designate certain people as "others", simply for who those people are. THAT is a broad brush.

There is a difference.

Islam is a system of beliefs and practices. Beliefs and practices are what make the adherent. You attack the system of those beliefs and practices, you attack the person believing and practicing that way of life. You want to try and tell me if you attack the beliefs and practices of the Klan that you mean no offense to the Klansman? lol, get real.

It's amusing to watch people try to weasel out of the truth in their effort to remain politically correct. Islam is not some abstract idea that exists outside of the Muslim. It is through the Muslim that Islam is expressed. It is the Muslim who oppresses women, flogs a gay person, stones an adulterer, kills an apostate, not some abstract idea out there in the ethers. The beliefs and practices are inseparable from the believer/practitioner.

The bigots of the right-wing choose to designate certain people as "others", simply for who those people are.

THAT is a broad brush (as is your comment).

How about you address my comment that you are responding to instead of changing the subject.

Well argued and finely written. The second § is a minor masterpiece.

Have you seen this other thread?--the debate continues to rage...LOL!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026083439

I don't normally do a lot of posting, unless I notice something is missing that hasn't already been stated a thousand times over. On this topic, I'd think it'd be obvious, but evidently not.

Thank you for your kind words!

BB's stupid remarks were laughably ignorant and egregiously personal.

Insulting the flag, sure, stupid law, should be overturned.

Burkas or niqab's are forced upon women by their husbands, they're not a "choice."

"Offending the dignity of the public" I think is borderline, because it also includes false accusations, and, say, for example, you were charged with a crime but were innocent, if it turned out you were innocent the media couldn't report on that you were even charged. This is unfortunate in the US where the media can literally make a criminal out of a completely innocent people (which disproportionately affects black people).

The drugs thing is also something that should be overturned.

As far as CH not being bad to jews, he's wrong... they really were equal opportunity and anyone who debates that hasn't looked up their rather long list of articles. There's a post somewhere if anyone wants me to find it. They really did go after everyone.

I've found that if you go into any statement of his knowing that it is exaggerated by a factor of 50 to 100, you will end up getting the truth out of it.

For how France sucks. But, Allah forbid we discuss the things that such about Islam and the ideology that fueled these killers.

Should we go full wingnut and start calling them "freedom fries" now, too?

It was about the hypocrisy with all of this crap about "free speech" when France prosecutes the same.

a.k.a. the official conspiracy theory is preposterous, offensive, and depends on a number of ugly assumptions that are simply not true per my perception of Paris and its inhabitants. For one thing, the idea that the Muslims are some kind of ghettoized minority is ridiculous. If anything it's the non-Muslims who are feeling persecuted and marginalized. JMHO.

since they are over 90% of the population, and I think there is still no Muslim representative in the National Assembly. Non-Muslims may feel they might be the target of terrorism, but 'persecuted' is normally used about attacks by official bodies. What do you mean?

per NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/world/europe/28marseille.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A 2000 French study put the Islamic pop. of Paris at 10-15%:

http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/chapter_1/integratingislam.pdf (Table 1-3, p. 22)

My personal perception from a week's observation last July is that the city is roughly 1/3 Islamic, 1/3 non, and 1/3 tourist of one stripe or another.

by a group without a single member in the National Assembly? You're still not making sense - you're quoting figures showing non-Muslims are in the majority, and not giving any examples of events that might show marginalisation.

Lots of people in lots of EU countries feel the same way. That's what je suis Charlie is all about and if I may be frank, no pun intended, it's about as RW as memes get.

p.s. if you'd like me to write you a dissertation make an offer and I'll consider it.

could actually be marginalised. That still doesn't make sense.

I don't accept that "je suis Charlie" is about a feeling of 'marginalisation'. To some using it, it may be about a feeling of danger, but they are saying they are the majority that represents 'real France', and that Charlie Hebdo is part of that. Far from 'marginalisation', it's an assertion of being 'the silent majority' breaking their silence.

You're not trying to defend or explain it.

For some reason, you are defending that right wing viewpoint here. You have given no reason for your defence beyond a claim they no longer build in the style of Le Corbusier. Instead, you highlight what you claim are the feelings of oppression of the non-Muslims.

What's missing here is a reason for you dismissing the living conditions of many French Muslims.

Better let Marine le Pen and her Front National cohorts know that immediately...

They must have been unaware of this amazing factoid, or they might have showed up at the March for the République, where "Je suis Charlie" was the WORD of the day.

Maybe you were joking? Can never be sure...

Please clarify as that makes no sense to me. Thanks

as protector of French sovereignty. He was, but he wasn't what the French right including the UMP currently revere him as. I can say more about this later if that's not clear.

"the non-Muslims who are feeling persecuted and marginalized" or what de Gaulle has to do with that. Sorry.

There's a little more to it but that's the gist.

sorry for being slow, I find internet communication annoying at times but thanks for taking the time to clarify what you meant.

Je suis Charlie is about "the non-Muslims who are feeling persecuted and marginalized" and is RW because the RW jerks (why do I hear Tattoo shouting "da pen, da pen" when I read Le Pen?) are meaning it to be anti-what it is for the rest of France?

I hope my reference is not too obscure, Fantasy Island.

I

literally a British design, but it's come to stand for something objectionable in current US culture. Not an exact analogy but that's the long and short of it.

If you are speaking broadly of Paris, the Muslims are persecuted and marginalized too often, rather than black people in the USA. Individually and on occasion not so, but too often they are. If non-Muslims are feeling persecuted and marginalized by supporting a magazine's ability to post satiric cartoons without fear of being murdered, I don't know what to say.

None of the non-Muslims I know living in Paris are feeling persecuted or marginalized by je suis Charlie. Jewish ones fear further attacks. Muslim one fear reprisal attacks and further discrimination, that some will use this as an excuse to persecute the majority for the acts of a few extremists. But others? meh.

Can you look over what I've already posted? I'll expand further but gotta run ATM so more later. . .

Where in God's name did you get that idea? "CHARLIE" refers to Charlie Brown after whom the lastest incarnation of the magazine Charlie Hebdo was named.

For 99% percent of French people who have used the meme, it means just that: I am in solidarity with the "liberté d'expression" symbolized by the existence and survival of CHARLIE HEBDO.

probably would not be on a typical tourist's place to visit.

Here's a quick 1 minute 53 second, tour:

Yeah it's hideous but it was all the rage in its day. Which thankfully has passed.

That's what has passed.

I am curious because you keep using that term in a way different than I am familiar with. Thank you.

"offensive", unpopular, repugnant, vulgar, inciting, you name it, speech falls under the meaning of freedom of speech. No, not just "even" those forms but especially those forms of speech. What is popular rarely needs protection. Not speech meant to cause PHYSICAL harm, like "fire!" in a crowded theater where people will get stampeded running for their lives. The other exception is where someone was harmed in order to produce the "speech", by which I mean things like child porn, snuff and torture films, etc. The criteria is physical harm. Sticks and stones. Of course, I'm talking about freedom of speech as acknowledged by the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights, which has nothing to do with any other country.

between the expression of ideas and causing physical harm to another. No human right, which freedom of speech is, can be claimed when violating the physical being of someone else.

What part of your right to swing your fist ends at my nose don't you understand? Causing physical harm to another is not freedom of speech. Saying or printing nasty, outrageous, repugnant, racist, fascist, communist, crazy or wonderful things is. You or I can call each other terrible things, disparage each other, try to convince others how each other sucks, etc., but when one of us punches the other in the face it is not free speech.

the difference between between doing harm to another and exercising your rights. Until you do, you are unable to comprehend the philosophical argument for freedom of speech.

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I lived in France many years ago. When I came back here in the mid-80s, it was mind-blowing how conformist the Reagan boot-licking media was compared with the press in France. Paris had 7 or 8 dailies, including La Libé and L'Humanité, far left and Communist respectively. There was also Le Canard with great satire and, of course, Le Monde, on the center left (or way left of our supposedly liberal WP and NYT).

I don't think it has changed much, and Robert Crumb agrees:

This is what I've been trying to get across in my posts, but with no-where-near your style.

If you don't care to make it into a separate thread, will you allow me to?

Allez-y.

With the possible exception of Kosovo and Bosnia.

False equivalency runs rampant.

. . . Those Muslim countries do not purport to have freedom of speech in the first place.

France has a degree of free speech that doesn't exist and isn't even aspired to in other parts of the world.

All those lashes people get in Saudi Arabia are ok so long as they admit they aren't quite as liberal on speech as the US. My bad.

We talk the best game, while walking roughly twenty steps behind.

we have terrible outdated marijuana laws

the populace does not write the laws - if we did their would be background checks on guns like 95% of the populace wanted

I'm sure a lot of the French that protested don't agree with their laws in the first place but can't do much about it

That's all I'll say...

and some interestng back and forth in the thread

but as a part Kraut, I tend to be a little ant-French anyway, so there's that.

I also sympathize with people who are anti-immigrant.

Best essay I've read on the subject of socially engineered mass immigration v. the individual who chooses emigrate and adopt another culture. The author is a Russian Jew who has lived all over:

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/immigration.htm

was that Canadians and Europeans have very different ideas from U.S. citizens of what constitutes "free speech." For example, my Canadian friends were somewhat appalled that the United States allows what they consider "hate speech." I responded with the typical justifications: free speech is only free if it applies to ideas you hate, sunlight is the best disinfectant, etc. They were unmoved. They felt that it was more important to assert that hate speech was not to be allowed than to assert that everyone has the right to say anything. I disagreed, but understood their point.

I think it's a mistake to view France's freedom of expression laws through an American prism, and then condemn them for alleged hypocrisy for how they are responding to the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. There is certainly a debate to be had vis-a-vis cultural differences in how political speech is (un)regulated, and that debate is much broader and deeper than what we're seeing with respect to the recent violence at Charlie Hebdo.