The killer’s veto Technologybud

Much more funny than the “Charlie Hebdo” cartoon about Erdogan (showing him picking up a Muslim dress and shouting, “Oh, the Prophet!”) Was the Turkish president’s reaction. “My sorrow and anger,” he said, “is not for the infamous attack on my face, but because the same means is the source of disrespect to our prophet, which we place over our lives. It is a sign that Europe is now returning to the age of barbarism. ”Barbarism, then, according to Erdogan, is the exercise of the fundamental – for us in the West at least – right to freedom of speech. However, he does not consider the beheading of those who insult his religion to be barbaric, since he does not condemn the act on the same terms. No need to remind him of the Enlightenment: he has neither heard nor cared. Erdogan belongs to a different world. He can not understand that in Western culture no one has the right not to be offended (the phrase is attributed to John Cleese of Monty Python). There can be no such right, because if it were, it would be impossible to discuss and circulate ideas, and even in those very sensitive issues, where conciliation is necessary. Confrontation is necessary and insult is an inevitable element of the process. If each of us taboos what feels offensive to our beliefs, what discussion should we have with them? Insult, no matter how much it causes pain or anger to the recipient, is the price of free speech in culture. us. At the height of the Brexit campaign, the Times published a cartoon by Peter Brooks, in which then-Prime Minister David Cameron was portrayed as an ostrich that did not bury its head in the sand but in its buttocks. No one protested, no chirping was heard, even if many would find the sketch bold, vulgar or offensive. People weren’t upset either because Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell recently portrayed (really disgusting, awkward, and incompetent) Home Secretary Priti Patel as a bull, a cow, or a calf – all of which, of course, because interpretations vary. there is no lack of enlightened “naimenlades”, who find the easy solution to the problem with “yes, but”, such as the High Representative of the United Nations Alliance of Cultures (admittedly, I had no idea there was such a thing…), named Miguel Angel Moratinos. The official called for “mutual respect for all religions and beliefs” because, in his statement, he was following “with deep concern the growing tensions and cases of intolerance caused by the publication of satirical sketches of his prophecy. Muslims consider it blasphemous and deeply offensive. ” It is clear, even if it is not explicitly stated, that the representative of the representative of the Alliance of Civilizations is directed against President Macron for his rigid stance on the issue of the prophet’s sketches. In other words, he would prefer freedom of speech to decline so that it is not Muslims in general who are affected, but extremist Muslims. After the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in 2015, Oxford Professor of European Studies Timothy Garton As made the finding that “from the noise of the noisemaker we have now passed to the veto of the murderer”. Until the emergence, that is, of the radical Islamism that slaughters and beheads, the threat to freedom of speech came from the one who seeks to prevent it by intimidating the noise. After 2015, the threat now comes from killers. It is noteworthy, then, that the UN recognizes the killer’s veto… Follow it on Google News and be the first to know all the news See all the latest News from Greece and the World, at

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *