Sloboda govora - da li postoji granica?

[mlatko]

Sve se na kraju svodi na jedno krajnje jednostavno pitanje koje je Indy još jutros postavio: da li je prihvatljivo ravnati sebe i svoje postupke prema pretnjama izvršenjem najtežih mogućih oblika nasilja?

 

Ako nije prihvatljivo onda nema šta da se priča o uviđavnosti, osećaju za trenutak, razumevanju objektivnih okolnosti itd.

 

Ako je prihvatljivo onda lepo svako da sebi pronađe mišju rupu u koju će da se sakrije od nasilnika, njima prepustiti svet i doviđenja prijatno.

Definiši "nasilnika", šta sad treba da rade muslimani koji se osećaju silovanim čim pogledaju novine, tv ili crtane filmove? Da uđu u mišje rupe tj isele se na Istok? Ne kažem ja da treba da uhvate oružje ali prava će da se dobiju alatom na koji su navikli, koji im je dostupan... I na koji ih navikavaju borci za demonkratiju svih i po svaku cenu.

 

Uzgred, jel taj CH bio zabranjen za maloletnike?

[Budja]

Digao se mainstream?? Digle su se kojekakve zene, sto organizovane u feministicka drustva, sto solo, i nadigle halabuku. Mejnstream je vise bio na liniji >>ma sta hoce ove nedojebane babe<<.

 

Pardon, ali zene se same bore za svoja prava i svoju ravnopravnost, vec jako dugo, i pored poboljsanja jos nisu tamo gde treba da budu. Sad ispade da se mejnstream - drustvo u kome vlada old boys club - bori za njih (wtf, ali w-t-f) a nece za muslimane.

 

Ukratko, ja se ne bih mogla sloziti jer ovo prosto cinjenicno nije tacno.

 

Da, digao se mainstream, koji ukljucuje americku i australijsku asocijaciju astronoma.

Primeti posledicu: placno izvinjenje.

[Dagmar]

Da, digao se mainstream, koji ukljucuje americku i australijsku asocijaciju astronoma.

Primeti posledicu: placno izvinjenje.

 

 

Matt je iz evropske agencije. Kako se tacno mejnstrim kontinenta agencije za koju radi digao na njega zbog ovoga? Sem toga kako je posledica njihovih izjava mogla biti placno izvinjenje, kad se covek koliko sam ja ispratila isplakao pre toga? Koliko sam ja razumela, vise je bilo do toga da su njega pogodili komentari sa twittera itd pa se izvinjavao zbog toga. A i koliko sam shvatila, udruzenja su se vise fokusirala na odbranu svojih clanova (clanica) koji su izrazili kriticizam prema Metovoj kosulji, od napada mejnstrim zajednice koji su bili u stilu kako se ususdjujete da prigovorite coveku koji je spustio kometu. Otprilike pokazao se mejnstrim lepo na temu sta ima zenama da smeta kosulja kad je covek takva velicina, i to odlicno ilustruje ono o cemu ja pricam.

[Weenie Pooh]

Kakve veze ima rozeta kometa sa slobodom govora? Srećom bar u tom slučaju niko nije (koliko znam) bio dovoljni kreten da ustvrdi kako SG štiti izbor dezena košulje od kritike "kojekakvih baba" po twitteru.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Weenie Pooh

[Gandalf]

Kao drugo, oni nisu znali (tj. ne znaju - još postoje) šta je to PC.

khm...

 

 

Maurice Sinet just turned 86. In 2008 he wrote a column in which he expressed views described by Claude Askolovitch, a high-profile political commentator in France, as being as anti-Semitic. This later resulted in Sinet facing charges of “inciting racial hatred.”

 

He also received a death threat posted on a Jewish Defense League website, saying: “20 centimeters of stainless steel in the gut, that should teach the bastard to stop and think.”

 

Sinet, who works under the pen name Siné, got fired from his job but later won a €40,000 court judgment against his former publisher for wrongful termination.

 

Had he not been fired, he might now be dead — his employer was the magazine Charlie Hebdo.

 

http://warincontext.org/2015/01/08/double-standards-on-free-speech/

[yolo]

...

Edited January 10, 2015 by yolo

[Lord Protector]

Levy: Napadači u Parizu nisu shvatili Kur´an 

 

10 Jan 2015 Izmijenjeno 19:25 CET Francuski filozof kaže da građani ne bi smjeli reagirati na terorističke napade izljevom straha, haosom ili naoružavanjem.

 

V: Muslimani trebaju nastaviti izjavljivati kako napadi nisu počinjeni u njihovo ime [EPA]

Francuski filozof Bernard-Henri Levy napisao je u autorskom tekstu u američkom listu The Wall Street Journal kako građani Francuske ne smiju dozvoliti da grupica ekstremista našteti nacionalnom jedinstvu u Francuskoj.

"Najvažnije od svega, a sada je i pravi trenutak, sad ili nikad, za mirnu reakciju svih pobornika demokratije da pogledaju u lice zla, bez padanja u katastrofalno vanredno stanje", objasnio je Levy.

Naglasio je kako francuski građani ne bi smjeli reagirati na terorističke napade izljevom straha i stvaranjem haosa, ili da se, pak, naoružavaju.

Podsjetio je da su građani svih vjerskih i političkih zajednica izišli na ulice Francuske nakon posljednjih terorističkih napada, ujedinjeni u osudi nasilja i ubijanja nevinih civila.

'Ubice nisu istinski muslimani'

"Nacionalno jedinstvo je znak da su Francuzi shvatili da ubice u redakciji lista Charlie Hebdo nisu istinski muslimani, nego samo mala grupa muslimana, koji su pomiješali Kur'an sa smrtnom presudom", istakao je francuski filozof.

Na kraju je naglasio kako je vrlo bitno da, kao što su to i ranije činili, muslimani nastave izjavljivati kako takvi napadi nisu počinjeni "u njihovo ime".

 

 

The Wall Street Journal

 

A France United Against Radical Islam

 

 It’s time to break, finally, from Leninist reasoning about the sociology of poverty and frustration behind terrorism.

By 

BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY

Jan. 8, 2015 6:40 p.m. ET

 

Twelve faces. Twelve names, some of which the killers specifically called out, as the name of a condemned prisoner is called out before his execution. Twelve symbols mourned around the globe, symbols of the assassination of freedom of laughter and of thought. The least that we owe to these dozen dead is to rise to their level of commitment and courage—and, today, to prove worthy of their legacy.

It is incumbent upon the leaders of France, of the West, and of the world to take the measure of a war they did not want to see, one in which the journalists of Charlie Hebdo, its writers and caricaturists, long ago put themselves on the front line. They were war reporters of a sort, as we now know, Robert Capas with a sketch pad and pencil.

This is the Churchillian moment of France’s Fifth Republic, the moment to face the implacable truth about a test that promises to be long and trying.

ENLARGE

At the Place des Terreaux in Lyon, France, after the Jan. 7 terror attack in Paris. AFP/GETTY IMAGES

It is time for us to break, once and for all, with the Leninist reasoning that has been served up for so long by the useful idiots of a radical Islam immersed in the sociology of poverty and frustration. And most of all it is the moment, now or never, for a calm resolve among all believers in democracy to look evil in the face without losing ourselves in the catastrophic measures of a state of emergency. France can and must erect dikes—but not the walls of a besieged fortress.

To us as citizens falls the duty of not reacting to terrorism with fright or by arming ourselves against that obsessive fear of the other that nearly always follows such explosions. As I write, democratic moderation seems to have prevailed. The “Je suis Charlie” movement that sprang up simultaneously in cities across France after the massacre showed a spirit of resistance worthy of the best the country has been and known. And the arsonists of souls who preach nonstop about the unbreachable gulf between being French by blood or just on paper—the troublemakers of the National Front and elsewhere—can only be disappointed by this unified response.

The question is whether the moderate spirit can endure in France. It is essential that the de facto democratic union of people across the religious and political spectrum who filled the streets in the hours following the carnage continue to mount a response to the “France for the French” of Marine Le Pen and her far-right ilk. Because France for the French is the opposite of national unity. From Cato the Elder to the theoreticians of the modern social contract, the beautiful idea of national unity never mistakes its true enemy. National unity is a sign that the French have understood that the Charlie Hebdo killers are not “the Muslims,” but rather the small fraction of Muslims who confuse the Quran with a death warrant.

Those whose faith is Islam must proclaim very loudly, very often and in great numbers their rejection of this corrupt and abject form of theocratic passion. Too often have we heard that France’s Muslims should be summoned to explain themselves. They don’t need to explain themselves, but they should feel called to express their tangible brotherhood with their massacred fellow citizens. In so doing, they would put to rest once and for all the lie of a spiritual commonality between their faith as they know it and that of the murderers.

They have the responsibility—the opportunity—before history and their own conscience to echo the “Not in our name!” with which Britain’s Muslims dissociated themselves last year from the Islamic State killers of journalist James Foley. But they also have the even more urgent duty to define their identity as sons and daughters of an Islam of tolerance and peace.

Islam must be freed from radical Islam. We must say and say again: To assassinate in the name of God is to make God an assassin by association. What is needed from Islamic scholars and their many followers is a courageous statement of modernization—like theaggiornamento of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s—clearly stating that, in a democracy, forcing obeisance to the holy is an attack on the freedom of thought. They should explicitly acknowledge that in the eyes of the law, religions are systems of thought with no greater or lesser status than that of secular ideologies—and that the right to doubt them, debate them and laugh at them, like the right to join or leave them, is the inalienable right of every citizen.

In the dark times ahead, battles await: Islam against Islam, pluralistic civilization against the nihilists of jihad. But it is really one war, and we must wage it together, united.

Mr. Lévy’s books include “Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism” (Random House, 2008). This op-ed was translated from the French by Steven B. Kennedy.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2015 by slow

[Dr Arslanagić]

raleme jesi li se ikad zapitao zasto bas 3 pizde materine, a ne dvije ili pet?

 

[Gandalf]

...

cekaj, zar ovo ne bi trebalo na Charlie Hebdo temu? 

Edited January 10, 2015 by Gandalf

[Gandalf]

+1

 

lucidno

+1

[Lord Protector]

cekaj, zar ovo ne bi trebalo na Charlie Hebdo temu? 

 

Tamo je već odmakla rasprava o SWAT akcijama, a ovde govorimo o slobodi govora, a to ne može bez korifeja slobode BHL

[Gandalf]

Tamo je već odmakla rasprava o SWAT akcijama, a ovde govorimo o slobodi govora, a to ne može bez korifeja slobode BHL

[Muwan]

Definiši "nasilnika", šta sad treba da rade muslimani koji se osećaju silovanim čim pogledaju novine, tv ili crtane filmove? Da uđu u mišje rupe tj isele se na Istok? Ne kažem ja da treba da uhvate oružje ali prava će da se dobiju alatom na koji su navikli, koji im je dostupan... I na koji ih navikavaju borci za demonkratiju svih i po svaku cenu.

 

Pa ono, lik sa kalašem koji sprema terorističku akciju bi bio taj nasilnik. Ili lik koji javno poručuje da ima da umre svako ko uvredi njegovu grupu. Ili lik koji to ne kaže javno ali zato u nekoj sobi podučava otudjenu omladinu ubijanju nevernika.

 

Ako ćemo da oblikujemo svoje ponašanje tako da se slučajno ne zamerimo navedenima, onda čemu vekovi nastojanja da se izdignemo iz blata i izgradimo civilizovano društvo? Ko ima kalaš i spreman je da ga upotrebi, taj propisuje društvene norme. Taman da se Ruso i Volter izcentrifugiraju u grobu.

 

Svaki nenasilan oblik otpora karikaturama i uvredama, koji islamska zajednica i pojedinci mogu da smisle, ima moju podršku. Ali Bagdadijev šerijat vala nema, i podržavam svakog ko odbije da se tome povinuje/paktira/kohabitira a živi izvan Kalifata.

[ultra plasticni]

Pozivanje na nacionalno jedinstvo? Kakva je to retrogradna retorika?

[Gandalf]

Svaki nenasilan oblik otpora karikaturama i uvredama, koji islamska zajednica i pojedinci mogu da smisle, ima moju podršku.

hm... ako bi npr. Saudi ili UAE, ili pak muslimanska zajednica u Francuskoj, krenuli kintom, lobiranjem, potkupljivanjem politicara?