Sarkozy letter surprises French cartoons hearing (Mohammad cartoon trial)

[seriousstan]

PARIS (Reuters) - A French paper accused of insulting Muslims by printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad surprised a court hearing on Wednesday with a letter of support from presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy.

"I prefer an excess of caricatures to an absence of caricatures," Sarkozy, the conservative interior minister who helped launch the French Muslim Council, wrote in a letter read out by a lawyer for the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo.

The letter from the presidential frontrunner, whose ministry is also responsible for religious affairs, drew an angry response from one of three Muslim groups suing the weekly.

---cut----

He rejected suggestions from lawyers for the Muslim groups that the Prophet Mohammad should be beyond criticism, saying religion had no place in the political sphere and debate and criticism were essential elements of democracy.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-02-07T174323Z_01_L07890928_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-ISLAM-CARTOONS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22


DANCE MOHAMMAD >>>DANCE

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Is hate speech illegal in France?

[seriousstan]

2. Are the cartoons hate speech?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Clearly.

It's got a picture of Mohammed with a bomb.

That's as bigoted as a cartoon of Martin Luther King sucking on a watermelon.

[seriousstan]

4. What about a crucifix upside down in a jar of urine?

P.S. I didn't know MLK hated watermelon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Nope, sorry.

Not hate speech.

[seriousstan]

7. Then this isn't hate speech either.....

or this...



how about this???

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. How about this one?

or this one?




They both look like hate speech to me. And I really don't see a difference between them and the Mohammed cartoon. Do you?

[Hoping4Change]

9. Spare me. "philosopher Abdel Wahhab Meddeb said he laughed"

"Paris University philosopher Abdel Wahhab Meddeb said he laughed when he saw Charlie Hebdo's cartoon. "I urge Muslims to adapt to Europe and not the other way around. That would be catastrophic," he told the court.

" "In a secular state, no religion and no ideology is above the law. Where religion makes the law, one is close to totalitarianism."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. That's got what to do with what, exactly?

[Hoping4Change]

15. Its in the article, that's what. Obviously reading the article to get the facts

isn't high on your priority list.:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Facts?

You gave me some guy's opinion, not facts, and it's got nothing to do with my question.

Ironic that you accuse me of not reading.

[seriousstan]

10. First one no, second one yes. But then I don't believe in hate speech crimes.

I believe the second one promotes violence and intent directly. Mohammad with a bomb-hat does not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. I didn't ask if they were against the law.

I asked if they were hate speech.

What's the difference between the pictures in that post with the mohammed one?

[genie_weenie]

11. Sorry to interject but what if I drew

an image of OJ Simpson with a knife over a dead white man and white woman? Would that be racist?

Can a specific person be depicted in negative ways? Like say Bush as a Mayberry Machiavelli ordering troops to shoot Iraqis in the name of Freedom and Democracy as Jesus looks on?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. So you're saying Mohammed...

really had a cherry bomb on his head?

[genie_weenie]

16. Crap. Didn't most of the pictures

just depict a nomadic arabic man? But Mohammed did fight in battles and kill people. Can I draw him directing a battle in front of a trench with people being cut down with swords and spears?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. So does that mean he's a terrorist.

Did Martin Luther King ever eat watermelon in his life? Or sit on a porch?

[genie_weenie]

19. He did kill people and steal. Not that

others didn't back in the early 600s.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. So you're saying then...

that if somebody drew a cartoon calling Martin Luther King a water-melon eating porch monkey, it'd sit alright with you?

[genie_weenie]

22. Why do you keep wanting to equate the historical

record of a military leader with Dr King? :shrug: Fundamental difference in my mind.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Why are you trying to pretend...

that the mohammed cartoon isn't hate speech?

[genie_weenie]

27. groan. Can ANY historical figure be portrayed negatively?

Any? Can Thomas Jefferson be shown sipping lemonade while slaves work his lands?

Can Constaintine be shown hallucinating that he sees a cross in the sky before leading a huge battle which slaughters thousands of romans at Milvian Bridge?

Can Bush be shown with blood of Americans and Iraqis on his hands?

Can Tamerlane be shown standing atop a moutain of skulls as he destorys city after city in Asia?

Are these hate speech? Isn't there a difference between portraying an individual and a group? IS it not permissable because people may use images to promote their own bigoted agendas?

Showing a band of Roma stealing babies seems to be hate speech. Stating all jews are apes fits hate speech. Stating all arabs are inferior is hate speech. Saying Mohammed was a military leader or even depicting him at all is hate speech?

And if I drew a circle with two dot eyes and a straight line for a mouth and stated this is mohammed would I be committing hate speech?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Am I seriously to believe...

that a picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head is a historical commentary on his military leadership?

You don't really believe that, do you?

[Quantess]

36. I don't think it's hate speech, either.

You think it is? That's just your opinion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. It's very clearly hate speech.

As clear as the example in post #8.

[Hoping4Change]

25. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me

nor will they hurt Mohammed not any of his followers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Hmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=148117#148331

[Hoping4Change]

30. Hmm is right. How does that thread apply here?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Well...

in both cases you've got hate speech. In one thread you're of the opinion, "sticks and stones..."

In the other...

[Hoping4Change]

32. The other thread is about school curriculum encouraging hatred

toward living breathing human beings. The cartoons mock a religious figure whom Muslims believe to be a prophet. IMHO living breathing human beings deserve to be guarded from hate crimes but that is it. Prophets, gods, saviours, idols don't warrant protection of laws.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Yes.

This is about a newspaper encouraging hatred towards living breathing human beings.

:shrug:

[Hoping4Change]

35. There is nothing, nothing, nothing in the article encouraging hate.

Artile is about Mulsims groups not wanting Maohammed in cartoons.

[Odin2005]

21. So what? If you start regulating expression you start on a slippry slope.

I may not agree with someone's opinions but I will defend that person's right to express that opinion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. So you agree that they're hate speech, right?

I don't think it should be illegal either.

But if it is illegal under French law, then wouldn't such a lawsuit be a matter of French law, rather than Arabs trying to import their culture into France?

[NashVegas]

29. It's Only Hate Speech

When it castigates someone you (universal 'you') admire. At least, that seems to be the litmus test.

[genie_weenie]

6. Aargh the cartoons again!

No figure is beyond ridicule. No idea/hypothesis is sacrosanct.

[hogwyld]

33. Clearly hate speech here

Why do the French feel the need to keep opening up Muslim wounds? Why keep poking that hornet's nest? Leave them and their beliefs alone. Why do people feel this burning need to tear down and ridicule other people's beliefs? I hope the Muslims win this case and shut up these mean spirited people. If I were Muslim, and the west was raping my region of it's oil wealth, oppressing our culture, and ridiculing something sacred to me, I'd probably react much the way these people do out of utter frustration.

[Amused Musings]

38. Are muslims so insecure in their

beliefs that they are threatened of ridicule for their beliefs? Sorry, but one of the things people have to deal with in Western society is freedom of expression. There are no sacred cows, so to speak. No religion gets a pass and is above ridicule.

[Hoping4Change]

39. I think Saudi Arabia is doing very well oppressing its own people.

None of the oil producing Islamic countries accept immigrants even fellow Muslims. The Bamiyan Buddhas for centuries were part of Afghan culture but the Taliban saw fit to blow them up. Muslims are not quite the victims you'd have us believe. The world is rife with Muslims oppressing other Muslims. Just like Christians oppress Christians. Jews oppress jews. On paper all Muslims are brothers but in reality that is just wishful thinking.