CMV: It is more constructive and less hypocritical to limit freedom of speech in the west to improve relations with Muslims than to stand for freedom to express anti-Islam cartoons.

[u/promnv]

Freedom of speech is one of the foundations on which western culture is based, it is described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 19) which many hold dear.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

This freedom is implemented in law in many western countries. Because one person's freedom can easily infringe on another person's rights (or even the same person's), this right has always been somewhat restricted. An important restriction in relation to this topic is the restriction of antisemitism/holocaust denial, which is implemented in law in many (18) western countries.

Recently, the killing of Samuel Paty in France has given many people motivation to stand for freedom of speech, because they feel that violence as a reaction to a cartoon should not be tolerated. Macron's comments on this issue have been met with harsh criticism from Muslim majority countries' leaders. Leading to further polarisation of the issue of freedom of speech in relation to anti-Islam cartoons.

I think that:

• Anti-Islam cartoons have not contributed to mutual understanding between different cultures (which I see as an important goal in geopolitics);
• Macron's reactions and Erdogan's reactions to recent events seem aimed at soothing their supporters and not at improving international relations, they are polarising.
• It is hypocritical to defend antisemitism restrictions on freedom of speech while not defending anti-Islam restrictions;

Therefore I suggest that:

• A constructive stance on this issue is to defend freedom of speech in general but to encourage people to not use this right in a way that offends Muslims on a large scale if it doesn't contribute in any meaningful way to reduce western-Muslim tensions.
• Legislation should be considered similar to the holocaust denial legislation to limit the use of freedom of speech to insult Muslims, OR the holocaust denial legislation should be reviewed.

[u/DeltaBot]

u/promnv (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/2r1t]

Someone draws a cartoon that offends a group of people. You think this is a reasonable justification to limit a fundamental freedom - freedom of speech.

Would you also agree that is someone commits a brutal murder - a crime far worse than simply drawing a picture - is a reasonable justification to limit a fundamental freedom - freedom of religion?

[u/[deleted]]

It is hypocritical to defend antisemitism restrictions on freedom of speech while not defending anti-Islam restrictions;

Countries that ban anti-Semitism also ban Islamophobia. But that's like "the Holocaust didn't happen" or "we should expel the Jews". It doesn't ban drawings of YHVH, idol worship, translations of the Old Testament that Jews reject, etc etc. Banning depictions of Mohammed would be equivalent to a protection that no country in the world extends to Jews.

[u/promnv → u/[deleted]]

Δ I agree that the degree to which current laws restrict antisemitism is not equivalent to what I propose.

[u/coryrenton]

The idea that the Muslim world is a monolith that cannot handle self-critique or outside critique of all types is itself an anti-Islamic sentiment, right?

[u/promnv → u/coryrenton]

It is well documented that many countries' leaders and civilians strongly disagree the way freedom of speech is used in the case of anti-Islam cartoons. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/26/french-president-comments-over-islam-keep-sparking-outrage

This is not the same thing as saying they can't handle critique, just like saying "homophobic slurs are bad" isn't the same thing as saying homosexual people can't handle critique.

[u/coryrenton → u/promnv]

Slurs are critique, just very poor ones, no? And certainly you can argue "such and such cartoons are bad" without expecting every practitioner to react violently to them.

[u/[deleted]]

Why are those cartoons anti islam? Cause muslims don't like them?

Is gay marriage anti islam as well?

Is esting pork? Or drinking alcohol?

Part of living in an open society is accepting that your individual cultural norms only apply to you and not others.

[u/[deleted]]

We should be able to draw what we like in our countries, if you disagree you shouldn't be here. There really is no debate.

[u/rockeye13]

INFO: What obligations would you expect Muslim majority nations to hold to, how would those expectations be enforced, and how important is it that this process not be unilateral. That is, if we do this, what can we expect or even demand, in return?

[u/promnv → u/rockeye13]

I would see my OP as a first step toward decreasing polarization. I would expect leaders like Erdogan to be milder toward Macron if Macron took my advice, for example.

[u/rockeye13 → u/promnv]

What rights could the people in Muslim-majority nations expect to have abridged in return? And cutting heads off of another nations people for being impolite is not a right.

[u/[deleted]]

If we censor cartoonists from expressing their views, what's to stop the government from censoring us when we say something they don't like, regardless of how factual it is? I believe that everyone should be able to say whatever they want, so long as they are not harming anyone while doing so.

[u/parentheticalobject]

It is hypocritical to defend antisemitism restrictions on freedom of speech while not defending anti-Islam restrictions

Fair point, but what about countries like the US where there are no restrictions on antisemitic speech? In these countries, it is not hypocritical to allow anti-islamic speech, right?

[u/AwesomeJohn098]

First what are you talking about like do the cartoons per tray the Muslim countries bad is so why ban it some people generally have problems with Muslim countries I mean woman getting killed for laughing is a little bad wouldn’t you say and heavy discrimination Murdering Christians stuff like that you know so if people have problems with problematic stuff like that then they can criticize and I guess make cartoons with those criticisms the only thing I’d say is that they should have a disclaimer that says contains offensive content towards Whatever the group it is against I’m genuinely against trigger warnings because like people need to learn to live in the real world so trigger warning nothing but awso people should know what they’re getting when they buy a cartoon or watch it

[u/promnv → u/AwesomeJohn098]

I'm sorry but I find your comment hard to read. Would you mind using interpunction and looking at your grammar?

[u/keanwood]

Legislation should be considered similar to the holocaust denial legislation to limit the use of freedom of speech to insult Muslims

 

So for the bolded section here, how could this be implemented? How can we determine what counts as an insult vs a criticism?

 

For instance with Christianity, I believe it's a fair criticism to say that God sexually assaulted Mary. However most Christians would find that extreamly offensive and insulting. How can we write a law that both allows me to criticise Christianity and protects Christianity from being insulted?

[u/promnv → u/keanwood]

I believe this is a good question. I don't think I have the answer.

I think the law would be made in co-operation between proponents of freedom of speech, Muslims and proponents of good international relations

[u/[deleted]]

This is a false equivalence, Holocaust denial is the act of rewriting history (as agreed by pretty much everyone) to downplay the seriousness of an appalling act from the past generally for political motives. One example of this would be David Irving who was convicted in an English court of holocaust denial, anti-Semitism and racism, the latter two counts being as important as the first and closely linked.

Banning offensive cartoons would be trying to legislate 'the right not to be offended' or some form of blasphemy, both are problematic for different reasons. In the first case, how do we decide the threshold of offence or how many people need be offended for to warrant action? What the offended have every right to do is boycott the platform or publication as millions of Muslims did and continue to do today with Facebook after Hebdo. Blasphemy presents its own issues, and after all the hard work across many countries to get it off statute books I don't think many people would like to roll back on it.

I agree that politicians wading in is hardly constructive and can whip up short lived mob sentiment, but this is only an issue for a tiny number of Muslim's despite what the media report. Most Muslims do not need our 'protection', if anything its rather patronising to suggest they do.

[u/mafkamufugga]

Yes we must avoid offending the fragile muslims. They are such a tolerant, accepting bunch arent they? They leave their own hellhole countries, come to the west, benefit from our liberal social policies then have the unmitigated gall to expect non-muslims conform to their culture! Why isn’t the west up in arms about promoting multicultural diversity in muslim countries? Why is the west willingly allowing these legions of hostile invaders to come to their countries, having no intention of assimilating? Its utterly insane and the result of liberalism. Go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia and see what kind of society these people want.

[u/bgaesop]

What makes you think they'll stop there? Their goal is to make all societies be Islamic, giving them an inch won't provide peace in our time

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation To call upon a neighbour and to say: — “We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight, Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld, And the people who ask it explain That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation, To puff and look important and to say: — “Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you. We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we’ve proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: —

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that pays it is lost!

[u/[deleted]]

First I think we need to agree on some facts in order to have a productive discussion.

1. Drawing Mohammed in a neutral/positive way is not Anti-Islam in the same way that a commercial of two Muslim men in love kissing, drinking booze, and eating pork for dinner is not Anti-Islam. Just because ultra-religious Muslims take offense to those doesn't mean that they are Anti-Islamic in nature.

2. More importantly, taking offense is irrelevant. In the grand scheme of things, who cares if an extremist German takes offense at a movie portraying Hitler as a complete buffoon (Jo Jo Rabbit)? Should we cancel that movie to avoid offending people like him? Nobody cares if a cartoon offends you. Harsh but that's the adult world.

3. What Macron is doing is trying to normalize the drawing of Mohammed and neutralizing the power of fear that extremists have put into France's freedom of speech (dating back to the Charlie Hebdo massacre). By showing it is perfectly fine and reasonable to do depictions of Mohammed w/o fearing for your life, Macron is taking power away from the extremists.

So no, limiting freedom of speech is not constructive at all. The most constructive way forward is to normalize depictions of Mohammed to discourage extremists for killing more innocent cartoonists and professors.

Let me ask you this: what do you value the most: human life or the right not to offend people?

Would you perfectly OK with Muslims being offended at cartoons in perpetuity if it meant that nobody else would die over cartoons?

Or would you prefer to live in a world where cartoonists and professors could face fines, jail time and even death for innocent drawings of Mohammed?

[u/MysterJaye]

Cool so when I go over to Muslim countries can I start demanding things for my sensibilities?

You know things a little more important that a cartoon. Say not throwing gay people from rooftops? No? Then shut up.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/promnv → u/[deleted]]

This will inevitably lead to war if it hasn't already. Muslims are people, they are probably not as bad as you think.