Last week, France's president Emmanuel Macron said, during a memorial ceremony for beheaded teacher Samuel Paty, that France "will not give up cartoons" that depict Mohammed.
This statement has angered much of the Muslim world, who are now calling to boycott French goods.
The battle lines can be seen in two statements, one from the Organization of Islamic Coordination and the other from Emmanuel Macron himself.
The General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been following the ongoing practice of running satirical caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), being struck with astonishment at so unexpected a discourse from certain French politicians, which it deems to be harmful to the Muslim-French relations, hatemongering and only serving partisan political interests.
The General Secretariat says it will always condemn practices of blasphemy and of insulting Prophets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Taking an unequivocal condemning stance against all acts of terror in the name of religion, the General Secretariat had earlier condemned the brutal murder of French citizen Samuel Paty.
While dissociating this horrendous crime from Islam and its magnanimous values, blaming it as an individual or collective terrorist enterprise punishable by law, the General Secretariat continues to decry justification for blasphemy-based harassment of any religion in the name of freedom of expression. Furthermore, the General Secretariat deplores pairing Islam and Muslims with terrorism, urging for a review of anti-Muslim discriminatory policies, unjustifiably provocative to the feelings of a billion and a half Muslims across the world.
We respect all differences in a spirit of peace. We do not accept hate speech and defend reasonable debate. We will always be on the side of human dignity and universal values.
Taking both at face value, we see both commonalities and differences. It is worthwhile to examine the exact differences between the positions.
The OIC and Macron seem to agree that hate speech should not be accepted. The both agree that terrorism is unacceptable, even terrorism that is ostensibly defending religious figures from attack.
The difference is in what speech is acceptable.
Macron is against "hate speech." The OIC, representing Muslims, is against "blasphemy-based" speech.
That is the key.
The Muslims are insisting that the West accept Sharia law in determining what is acceptable. Macron rejects that.
Muslim anger is centered on the cartoon depiction of Mohammed far more than on the words or context of those images. Macron is concentrating on the context - if it is based on hate it is unacceptable, if it is based on debate it must be defended.
Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, offensive to all religions and groups, are not motivated by hate. Even though this cover that equates Israel's treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews is inarguably offensive, in the context of Charlie Hebdo which delights in offending literally everyone, this is not hate speech. Whether it is funny is another question - offense for the sake of offense is puerile, not witty. In practically every other context, that equation of Jews to Nazis is unquestionably antisemitic and hate speech, meant to hurt Jews. For Charlie Hebdo, it is "look at us and how edgy we are," the equivalent to dead baby jokes.
The OIC is pretending to care about insults to Judaism and Christianity but it is really saying that since Islamic law prohibits the depiction of any prophets, the entire world must adhere to those standards. After all, no Jew or Christian would be insulted by this cartoon, which is prohibited in Islam because it depicts Moses:
Macron is saying that the intent is the key for determining what is hate speech and what is allowed. The OIC is saying that the intent is irrelevant - things are objectively offensive if they violate Islamic law.
Macron is saying that all groups must be treated equally. The OIC is saying that Muslims must be treated with kid gloves because they get offended by more things than other groups do.
When you examine their positions, it is apparent that Macron is correct. One may and should choose to respect others and their beliefs, but this is out of courtesy and kindness rather than compulsion, as the Muslim groups are insisting. The line is crossed at incitement and hate, and the evidence of that is often based on looking at the entire history of the words of the alleged inciter.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
[Elder of Ziyon] JPPI report on European Jewry is very well doneThe Jewish People Policy Institute release a report, European Jewry - Signals and Noise, which seems to do a very good job in only 12 pages of describing the situation of Jews in Europe and the reasons things are the way they…Read More
City of Illegals
-
While Mayor Brandon Johnson showed up to defend Chicago’s sanctuary city
policies before Congress, federal immigration authorities were expelling
Prince...
-
This is Sali, the LSW posting for Yaakov. Yaakov is recovering from a stoke
that he had about a month ago. Thank you all so very much for your good
wishes,...
Emigration to Mandate Palestine from the Hauran
-
A report on the present conditions in the Hauran was published in the
Journal of The Royal Central Asian Society in 1936.
One of the topics was the emigr...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
Over & Out
-
Thanks to the readers and commenters who have supported this blog over the
past ten years. Regular readers from the United States and Israel, from
Austral...
It must be noted that Haiman had Russian citizenship. I have no idea how that would have affected his travel plans. I do know that one of my Israeli cousins...
Family stories are my occasional relief from politics. Pray for me to get burnt out again! (In addition to being burned out from writing about politics, the...
Agree it makes more sense. But family stories change over the years until it's difficult to know where the truth lies. That's why I tried so hard with...
So my own doubt is about the timing of the trip to Egypt. I think it's possible he never made it to Vashilishok. It makes more sense he went to Egypt from...
Another interesting aspect of Haiman's travels was that he either a.) went through Austro-Hungarian territory by train to Russian territory or b.) went...
If it exists, I have a few ideas who might have it . . . I should really get up the courage to ask about it. Maybe I will send out some emails. There's one...
Omri: "Elder is one of the best established and most respected members of the jblogosphere..." Atheist Jew:"Elder of Ziyon probably had the greatest impression on me..." Soccer Dad: "He undertakes the important task of making sure that his readers learn from history." AbbaGav: "A truly exceptional blog..." Judeopundit: "[A] venerable blog-pioneer and beloved patriarchal figure...his blog is indispensable." Oleh Musings: "The most comprehensive Zionist blog I have seen." Carl in Jerusalem: "...probably the most under-recognized blog in the JBlogsphere as far as I am concerned." Aussie Dave: "King of the auto-translation." The Israel Situation:The Elder manages to write so many great, investigative posts that I am often looking to him for important news on the PalArab (his term for Palestinian Arab) side of things." Tikun Olam: "Either you are carelessly ignorant or a willful liar and distorter of the truth. Either way, it makes you one mean SOB." Mondoweiss commenter: "For virulent pro-Zionism (and plain straightforward lies of course) there is nothing much to beat it." Didi Remez: "Leading wingnut"