I really think you are wrong. There is still a long way to go and it is plain for anyone to see that there is still discrimination on the basis of race in Europe and other western countries but things are generally better than they were even fifty years ago. I don't know how old you are but I grew up through the sixties and seventies and the difference now from those days is enormous. You're a student of black history I think so you must be aware of that. This sort of sign was common in England in living memory but is unthinkable now.
And this photo by Elliot Erwitt was taken in the US in 1950:
I remember the I have a dream speech and it has been there as a touchstone and an ideal for what the world should be. I remember JFK, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King being assassinated. I agree wholeheartedly with this:
As a site we take racism and homophobia seriously and will ban people who engage in either.
We take the same view on religion when people use it to express bigotry and hatred against individuals or groups of people. That's why there are no Celtic vs Rangers threads on here - the petty, tit-for-tat bigotry is offensive on those terms. But pointing out that religion is wrong or finding flaws in religious texts is different. That's an intellectual and philosophical debate and the moment anyone says I can't have that debate because someone, somewhere, anywhere, is offended I have problems.
I shouldn't insult someone but I should be free to insult their God. Because if I am wrong their God can punish me when I'm dead. It's no business of the living.
What is the business of the living are the things that religions (and governments of course) do, and we have to be free to comment on that.
Sir,
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to engage with some of my points. I appreciate that, I'm bunged up with a cold but decided to respond, now rather than later, out of courtesy and respect for the time you to took to engage.
I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other sentiments. My comment is subsumed on the principle of respect and I would implore other readers just try to internalize my points.
I agree in this country our society has made strides forward to a remarkable level. Of course when something is criminalised and there is an active campaign to teach children from a young age, one will expect such an improvement. Those improvements, as you know, did not come from the government but rather from the collective will of the majority of people (different races, creeds, sexes and sexualities). A collective coming together under the umbrella of
respect.The truth is, curtails on freedom of speech have always been there and we experience them as kids when our parents teach us to show
respect to others.
Mocking is a facet of Freedom of Speech which is selective in this country and in France - the common theme being that the underclass in those countries (Muslims and to an increasing degree, immigrants) are considered fair game. Somebody can deny the Armenian Genocide and play down the numbers massacred by the French in North Africa (both happens) yet cannot deny or play down the Holocaust. Which sets alarm bells ringing as it's inconsistent to an inexplicable level.
If one really feels strongly about somebody's religion rather than insulting and mocking with cartoons (i.e. embarking on a superiority/inferiority play) why not converse with the person?
That
respectful conversation brings togetherness, understanding and an exchange of ideas while mocking brings about division and increases misunderstandings.
You made the point that the level of racism has decreased (and I assume you were allaying my concerns that these cartoons will be a slippery slope to racist cartoons against Blacks, Chinese people, etc.). It has not decreased in France, in fact Chris Hedges who lived there says it's awfully racist and the same applies to French friends of mine from African and Arab descent.
What is there really to stop the French from allowing racist cartoons in the future as this current support of the anti-religion bigot Charlie Hebdo has set a precedent in (mis)using caricatures of races. They have already featured a pic of somebody from my race as a monkey.
The point here is, if 'freedom to insult' is being conflated as freedom to mock and demean then what is there to stop a bigot of a different kind to try and push the envelope and depict us as zoo animals and mock the Holocaust? Nothing, if the nation is consistent with its policy freedom to mock.
You mentioned MLK. It's weird because I was just listening about the March on Washington on one of my podcasts - which you cited to a guy earlier to show that protests/marches to have potency. That march was a coming together of people of all races and creeds (Charlton Heston was there to add a bit of star power!) but they all came under the banner of respecting other humans.
Sure, people have the ability and (in many cases sadly are even encouraged) to mock underclasses such as the Muslims in this day in the West but the reality is we know as children ALL our parents/guardians taught us not to exercise that ability to mock as it was
disrespectful.Why are people so quick to betray basic principles of
respect to pour more misery on an underclass?
It's easy to destroy - one can do that by insulting and mocking but it's difficult to show respect as it takes more effort and engagement.
Lastly, I'm not Charlie Hebdo. I'd rather be Lassana (the Muslim African lad who saved lives in Paris) or Ahmed (the Muslim Arab policeman who was gunned down protecting French people). These people had respect, Charlie Hebdo did not have respect as he was trolling an underclass and cementing segregation.
And, who in the world is the 1000's of Nigerians massacred or the 1,000's of brown kids in Iraq/Afhganistan/Yemen who were at the end of phosphorous bombings and/or drone strikes by gangs ran by extremists such as Obama, Cameron, Blair and Bush.
Would MLK encourage the mockery of an underclass? No, because MLK taught us
respect...