Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
254 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [11] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: France bans Muslim protests rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
France bans Muhammad cartoon protests
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/World/Latest-News-W...

So in France now you can publish things that are highly offensive to a major world religion.

But those offended can't protest.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité?


What do you think--
An excessive restriction on freedom?
or is freedom of speech in France just another casualty of the terrorists?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
France bans Muhammad cartoon protests
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/World/Latest-News-W...

So in France now you can publish things that are highly offensive to a major world religion.

But those offended can't protest.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité?


What do you think--
An excessive restriction on freedom?
or is freedom of speech in France just another casualty of the terrorists?

I think it's a public safety issue. I'm OK with it given the context of prior riots and current mideast unrest.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
tesuji wrote:
France bans Muhammad cartoon protests
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/World/Latest-News-W...

So in France now you can publish things that are highly offensive to a major world religion.

But those offended can't protest.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité?


What do you think--
An excessive restriction on freedom?
or is freedom of speech in France just another casualty of the terrorists?



I think neither, you are offering two reasons that are irrelevant.

This is a serious public order issue as such protests are often used to invoke violence and hatred. The fact that some get offended at the drop of a hat so they can use this as an excuse to behave this way is irrelevant. No one has the right not to be offended. France has good reason to believe this could turn into riots and personal harm and therefore they have the duty to stop it.

This Muslim leader understands this too:

'Mohammed Moussaoui, leader of the French Muslim Council (CFCM), described both the film and the cartoons as "acts of aggression", but urged French Muslims not to take to the streets for unauthorised protests.

"I repeat the CFCM's call not to protest. Any protest could be hijacked and counterproductive," he told French radio station RFI.'
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I am absolutely astonished and disappointed that the first three replies all think it's a-ok for France to just pre-emptively ban public protests on an issue.

I guess the civil rights movement in the US would have been dead in the water after Watts if that was okay here. Gotta keep those Negroes in line. You know how violent they are in groups.
14 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
So the terrorists have won this round.

Fear has eliminated public speech in this case.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
I am absolutely astonished and disappointed that the first three replies all think it's a-ok for France to just pre-emptively ban public protests on an issue.

I guess the civil rights movement in the US would have been dead in the water after Watts if that was okay here. Gotta keep those Negroes in line. You know how violent they are in groups.


Please, do not assume Freedom of Speech exists only in the US. When I hear that claim it makes me cringe as it is false.

There is a vast difference between peaceful protest and a riot. If this is allowed there will be riots and even the Muslim leaders have said that. Any Government has a duty to address that.

In addition I know a lot of Muslims who are sick of extremists abusing their religion and exploiting it for their own gain. There is no comparison to the Black Riots in the US at all.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
I am absolutely astonished and disappointed that the first three replies all think it's a-ok for France to just pre-emptively ban public protests on an issue.

I guess the civil rights movement in the US would have been dead in the water after Watts if that was okay here. Gotta keep those Negroes in line. You know how violent they are in groups.
Well, it's a balancing test.

Danger to the public v. important social good.

In the case of the civil rights movement, the danger to the public was massively outweighed by the important social good of racial equality.

In this case the danger to the public is only weighed against the general right to speak that should be afforded in the free society, which is a significant but not overwhelmingly critical right to express in this context, and more specifically the freedom to right of Muslims to create social pressure to suppress other people's freedom of speech, which I am utterly opposed to.

Thus, you can see how I really don't care about suppressing the would-be suppressors all that much.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
I am absolutely astonished and disappointed that the first three replies all think it's a-ok for France to just pre-emptively ban public protests on an issue.

I guess the civil rights movement in the US would have been dead in the water after Watts if that was okay here. Gotta keep those Negroes in line. You know how violent they are in groups.
Well, it's a balancing test.

Danger to the public v. important social good.

In the case of the civil rights movement, the danger to the public was massively outweighed by the important social good of racial equality.

In this case the danger to the public is only weighed against the general right to speak that should be afforded in the free society, which is a significant but not overwhelmingly critical right to express in this context, and more specifically the freedom to right of Muslims to create social pressure to suppress other people's freedom of speech, which I am utterly opposed to.

Thus, you can see how I really don't care about suppressing the would-be suppressors all that much.


I think the hand wringing apologists have a lot to answer for. We should have put our foot down with Salman Rushdie. There is now a feeling that all you need to do is violently protest to get what you want. That should never have been allowed.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
tesuji wrote:
France bans Muhammad cartoon protests
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/World/Latest-News-W...

So in France now you can publish things that are highly offensive to a major world religion.

But those offended can't protest.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité?


What do you think--
An excessive restriction on freedom?
or is freedom of speech in France just another casualty of the terrorists?

I think it's a public safety issue. I'm OK with it given the context of prior riots and current mideast unrest.


I'm sympathetic to this, but it's a scary precedent to set. I'd much rather allow protests but have a scorched earth policy toward violence.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
tesuji wrote:
France bans Muhammad cartoon protests
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/World/Latest-News-W...

So in France now you can publish things that are highly offensive to a major world religion.

But those offended can't protest.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité?


What do you think--
An excessive restriction on freedom?
or is freedom of speech in France just another casualty of the terrorists?

I think it's a public safety issue. I'm OK with it given the context of prior riots and current mideast unrest.


I'm sympathetic to this, but it's a scary precedent to set. I'd much rather allow protests but have a scorched earth policy toward violence.
Um. So you let a bunch of misguided but generally harmless Muslims gather, one nutjob throws a rock and everyone gets mowed down by machine gun fire?

That does not sound like a better solution to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
tesuji wrote:
France bans Muhammad cartoon protests
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/World/Latest-News-W...

So in France now you can publish things that are highly offensive to a major world religion.

But those offended can't protest.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité?


What do you think--
An excessive restriction on freedom?
or is freedom of speech in France just another casualty of the terrorists?

I think it's a public safety issue. I'm OK with it given the context of prior riots and current mideast unrest.


I'm sympathetic to this, but it's a scary precedent to set. I'd much rather allow protests but have a scorched earth policy toward violence.


I would agree but in this case it is clear there will be violence. So for me they are banning riots not peaceful demonstrations so it is not a precedent. Of course there would have been peaceful demonstrations but if the government let some occur they would have been the target of activists who wished violence. So there was little choice in needing a blanket ban.

I see this as a government just doing its job of protecting the people it serves including Muslims, many who are sick of being branded violent and reactionary.

This is not a free speech issue in my opinion, it is simply a matter of stopping criminal action before it happens.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
After consideration, I can now see the other side too. (Hey, the RSP works. I changed my mind.)

If I had friends or loved ones in France, I would be worried that a large protest would turn violent, as they have in other countries.

I guess officials have to balance freedom of speech against the freedom of other citizens not to die or have their property destroyed. Tough call sometimes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Halfinger wrote:
Please, do not assume Freedom of Speech exists only in the US. When I hear that claim it makes me cringe as it is false.

I wasn't assuming that at all. I was pointing out that it apparently does is not valued in France to the same degree as it does here though.
Quote:
There is a vast difference between peaceful protest and a riot. If this is allowed there will be riots and even the Muslim leaders have said that. Any Government has a duty to address that.

Unilaterally banning protest because one or more violent agitators may attend is not the way to address that. Tighter monitoring of protests is.
Quote:
In addition I know a lot of Muslims who are sick of extremists abusing their religion and exploiting it for their own gain. There is no comparison to the Black Riots in the US at all.

I was not comparing Muslims and blacks. I was making the analogy that if you're going to ban protests because of violent incidents then you have o ban even the "good" protests.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
Danger to the public v. important social good.

Who gets to decide what an "important social good" is? The government? That seems like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Quote:
Thus, you can see how I really don't care about suppressing the would-be suppressors all that much.

You have to support the rights of people who disgust you, or else it's meaningless.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
tesuji wrote:
France bans Muhammad cartoon protests
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/World/Latest-News-W...

So in France now you can publish things that are highly offensive to a major world religion.

But those offended can't protest.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité?


What do you think--
An excessive restriction on freedom?
or is freedom of speech in France just another casualty of the terrorists?

I think it's a public safety issue. I'm OK with it given the context of prior riots and current mideast unrest.


I'm sympathetic to this, but it's a scary precedent to set. I'd much rather allow protests but have a scorched earth policy toward violence.
Um. So you let a bunch of misguided but generally harmless Muslims gather, one nutjob throws a rock and everyone gets mowed down by machine gun fire?

That does not sound like a better solution to me.


No, with any luck they will only mow you down, for taking what I said and interpreting it as "murder innocent people".
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
Danger to the public v. important social good.

Who gets to decide what an "important social good" is? The government? That seems like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Quote:
Thus, you can see how I really don't care about suppressing the would-be suppressors all that much.

You have to support the rights of people who disgust you, or else it's meaningless.


No, I really don't.

If you are specifically advocating the removal of a core tenant of democracy, freedom of speech, I reserve the right to not care if your own freedom of speech is violated.

We're the citizens, we get to decide how our society will operate. We get to decide that your group's track record with violence is so poor that we're not going to take the chance that you'll turn violent again, because it's just not worth caring that your message of suppression, intolerance and hatred of all who don't share your beliefs won't get out if we don't let you protest.


ejmowrer wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
tesuji wrote:
France bans Muhammad cartoon protests
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/World/Latest-News-W...

So in France now you can publish things that are highly offensive to a major world religion.

But those offended can't protest.

So much for liberté, égalité, fraternité?


What do you think--
An excessive restriction on freedom?
or is freedom of speech in France just another casualty of the terrorists?

I think it's a public safety issue. I'm OK with it given the context of prior riots and current mideast unrest.


I'm sympathetic to this, but it's a scary precedent to set. I'd much rather allow protests but have a scorched earth policy toward violence.
Um. So you let a bunch of misguided but generally harmless Muslims gather, one nutjob throws a rock and everyone gets mowed down by machine gun fire?

That does not sound like a better solution to me.


No, with any luck they will only mow you down, for taking what I said and interpreting it as "murder innocent people".


Wow, you went from zero to crazy pretty fast there. I didn't interpret what you said as "murder innocent people," however I do think that unnecessary death on the protester side would be the result of a rally with a "scorched earth policy" toward violence.

If you allow a rally, there is a high chance that there will be some violence. The phrase "scored earth policy" implies a strong, violent reaction by police.

My point is that you're creating a situation which creates a very high chance of violence and death. It's better to have no rally then a rally with a super violent response to any violence in my opinion. No rally is an infringement on basic freedoms and a suppression of speech, which is bad, but in this case the odds of violence are so high that the alternative is worse, and it's extremely likely that the actual agitators, the ones causing the violence won't be the ones killed - misguided but generally harmless protesters are much more likely to be harmed than the violent agitators who touch off the violence.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
If you are specifically advocating the removal of a core tenant of democracy, freedom of speech, I reserve the right to not care if your own freedom of speech is violated.

To use a US-centric example, someone should have every right to lobby, protest, whatever, towards any Constitutional amendment they want, including restricting the 1st Amendment. That's how the system is set up, and how it needs to work. The fact that some people still do care about that is the only reason you get to express your views, because I guarantee that no matter what your views are, large sections of the populace find them odious.

Quote:
We're the citizens, we get to decide how our society will operate.

Again, who, specifically, gets to decide? "The citizens" is not a valid answer unless you are proposing a democratic poll of the populace for each protest group. Saying the citizens already decided by choosing their leaders is not an answer because leaders often do very unpopular things, and the citizens cannot express that displeasure until after the fact.

Quote:
We get to decide that your group's track record with violence is so poor that we're not going to take the chance that you'll turn violent again, because it's just not worth caring that your message of suppression, intolerance and hatred of all who don't share your beliefs won't get out if we don't let you protest.

What is "your group"? Is every person who wants to protest part of that same group? How do you know? Is it just a tautology of protesters equal "that group"?

I don't really like where this is headed. If we're going to start doling out rights based on popular opinion, well, they kinda stop being rights at that point.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
If you are specifically advocating the removal of a core tenant of democracy, freedom of speech, I reserve the right to not care if your own freedom of speech is violated.

To use a US-centric example, someone should have every right to lobby, protest, whatever, towards any Constitutional amendment they want, including restricting the 1st Amendment. That's how the system is set up, and how it needs to work. The fact that some people still do care about that is the only reason you get to express your views, because I guarantee that no matter what your views are, large sections of the populace find them odious.

Quote:
We're the citizens, we get to decide how our society will operate.

Again, who, specifically, gets to decide? "The citizens" is not a valid answer unless you are proposing a democratic poll of the populace for each protest group. Saying the citizens already decided by choosing their leaders is not an answer because leaders often do very unpopular things, and the citizens cannot express that displeasure until after the fact.

Quote:
We get to decide that your group's track record with violence is so poor that we're not going to take the chance that you'll turn violent again, because it's just not worth caring that your message of suppression, intolerance and hatred of all who don't share your beliefs won't get out if we don't let you protest.

What is "your group"? Is every person who wants to protest part of that same group? How do you know? Is it just a tautology of protesters equal "that group"?

I don't really like where this is headed. If we're going to start doling out rights based on popular opinion, well, they kinda stop being rights at that point.


I think the state has an obligation to protect its citizen's bodily safety. "Youth" in heavily Muslim parts of France were rioting as recently as 6 days ago. 15 people just died in riots on this subject in Pakistan.

It's not like they're allowing people to assemble and chant "boo islam" but disallowing pro-islamic gatherings. It's not like they're banning muslim publications or speech. They're banning protest gatherings due to legitimate concerns about public safety.

Rights always have limitations and I think this is a reasonable limitation considering what's occurring around the world and in France at this time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
Rights always have limitations


This is certainly true.

Quote:
and I think this is a reasonable limitation considering what's occurring around the world and in France at this time.


But this does not necessarily follow. Were the protests in France violent? Well, since the ban was issued before any protests (at least, so far as I can find), no it wasn't. Were there threats of violence? If so, none are discussed in the reporting.

Reasonable limitations have reasonable causes. Banning a protest because something "might" happen is a poor excuse to restrict rights. But then, France has also banned various forms of religious dress, which I find offensive to individual rights.

It is unreasonable to restrict rights out of unsubstantiated fear. It is reasonable to do so in reaction to actual events (which you can see in various US cities that reacted to riots where curfews and limits on gathering were temporarily imposed). If you ask me, the French government needs to get the hell out of its citizens lives more than a bit.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
Rights always have limitations


This is certainly true.

Quote:
and I think this is a reasonable limitation considering what's occurring around the world and in France at this time.


But this does not necessarily follow. Were the protests in France violent? Well, since the ban was issued before any protests (at least, so far as I can find), no it wasn't. Were there threats of violence? If so, none are discussed in the reporting.

Reasonable limitations have reasonable causes. Banning a protest because something "might" happen is a poor excuse to restrict rights. But then, France has also banned various forms of religious dress, which I find offensive to individual rights.

It is unreasonable to restrict rights out of unsubstantiated fear. It is reasonable to do so in reaction to actual events (which you can see in various US cities that reacted to riots where curfews and limits on gathering were temporarily imposed). If you ask me, the French government needs to get the hell out of its citizens lives more than a bit.


Riots have occurred in France among "Muslim youth" in 2005, 2007, 2009 and less than 6 days ago in 2012.

I don't think this qualifies as an "unsubstantiated fear."
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
I think the state has an obligation to protect its citizen's bodily safety.

Holding that opinion is your prerogative, but that's not the actuality of the situation in the US at least. The state has no general obligation to protect its citizens from bad private actors. See, for example, DeShaney v. Winnebago County.

Quote:
It's not like they're allowing people to assemble and chant "boo islam" but disallowing pro-islamic gatherings. It's not like they're banning muslim publications or speech. They're banning protest gatherings due to legitimate concerns about public safety.

Are all gatherings of any type being banned? As far as I can tell the ban applies only to protests over this specific issue, to street prayers, and to wearing veils in public.

Quote:
Rights always have limitations and I think this is a reasonable limitation considering what's occurring around the world and in France at this time.

Rights should only be restricted in cases of clear and immediate harm, the old shouting fire test.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
Riots have occurred in France among "Muslim youth" in 2005, 2007, 2009 and less than 6 days ago in 2012.

I don't think this qualifies as an "unsubstantiated fear."

Maybe they should just ban Muslim youth?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
Riots have occurred in France among "Muslim youth" in 2005, 2007, 2009 and less than 6 days ago in 2012.

I don't think this qualifies as an "unsubstantiated fear."


Riots have occurred among minority populations here in the US numerous times over lots of different things, including peaceful protests that became riots. There have also been riots over sports teams winning/losing "big games." Are you suggesting that the government should have the right to decide which events "deserve" a pro-active crackdown and which don't?

I'm sorry, but I reject your foundation. It's one thing to suspend rights in response to an actual event. It's quite another to do so because there might be a riot. The former is responsible policing. The latter is excessive government control. Hell, if you wanted to protest the suspension of your rights, wouldn't that create a "reasonable fear" that there might be a riot?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
...and to wearing veils in public.


This is actually the law in France, period. One that I think is pretty abominable as well.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you don't think that a riot in a population six days ago is a reason to think another riot might occur in the same population now that they've been "provoked", I really don't know what to tell you. It seems like a reasonable assumption to me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [11] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.