Some say that Freedom of Expression means that one can say anything. That’s completely false.
Maybe it means one can say anything if it is clearly a work of fiction? Not really: a line has been drawn with evoking some types of crimes against minors. That line was drawn into legislation, worldwide.
(Even the USA, which violates the Conventions on the Rights of Children, applies said legislation, and countless websites have been closed and criminals prosecuted, just about that.)
Try to make death threats against the president of the USA. Rightly so, you will be prosecuted. Actually death threats will generally result in prosecution.
[Old “Blasphemous CH covers; Left: 100 Lashes, if you are not dead from laughter; Right: Put a veil on Charlie Hebdo. Notice that it is the fanatics themselves who decide that their so-called “Prophet” talks that way, and is thereby represented! So they are the ones engaging in blasphemy!]
Threatening to kill children and other horrendous suggestions, are, by themselves, crimes. Why? Two reasons: first, they create a climate of terror. That, by itself, is not just an aggression, but an injury, and it can result in fighting, or even death (in diverse fashions).
Secondly, floating around horrible propositions is suggestive that to engage in them would be a good thing.
In physics, much progress was brought by considering “THOUGHT experiments”. Buridan may have been the first, when he explained the Heliocentric system around 1320 CE. Galileo repeated basically the same idea by pointing out that physics was left intact, deep in the dark recesses of a moving boat. Newton later illustrated that a projectile sent with great velocity parallel to the surface of the Earth would fall around (another dressing of Buridan’s idea).
So I want to introduce THOUGHT CRIMES.
They already exist, pointwise. In countries which suffered the most of Nazism, such as France and Germany, it is against the law to deny the facts of Nazism.
So now I see (on German TV) demonstrators in (some) “Muslim” countries carrying posters saying “Help our Kouachi Brothers”. The Kouachis were the two brothers who attacked Charlie Hebdo under order from the co-founder of Al Qaeda, Ayman Al Zawahiri (the USA has a 25 million dollar reward for him).
Al Zawahiri’s wife was below part of a house in Afghanistan demolished by an American bombing. She “refused to be excavated” because “men would see her face”. While the rescuers were arguing with her, her unhurt 4 year old daughter died from exposure in the very cold Afghan winter night. Zawahiri said that was good that the little girl died, because she won’t be an orphan.
You see, there is such a thing as absolute morality. It’s given by the ethology, the behavior, which enables the survival of the species. It comes straight from our Creator, tens of millions of years of evolution of our species. Contradicting this: immorality.
Human females had faces human males could see, for millions of years. By refusing this, and imposing that denial of reality to others, with lethal consequences, Muslim theoreticians of that fanatical persuasion make themselves lower than animals, in the sense that they do not allow, not just our survival, but even that of the species.
Bin Laden’s official biographer admitted that Zawahiri was the “real brains” behind Al Qaeda”. Zawahiri, an Egyptian, entered the “Muslim Brotherhood” at 14.
There we are. It ought to be a crime to expose young, 14 year old people to criminal thinking. Zawahiri is not stupid: he is a trained surgeon. But he was imprinted at such an early age into (violent) Islamist verses and commands. See the Hadith 41; 6985, one of many, explicitly about killing Jews.
One ought to criminalize criminal imprinting. And first of all that of youth.
One has the right to criticize an idea, a concept, a religion, the powers that be, a system of thought, an emotion, or a system of mood. But one does not have the right to attack people physically and to incite hate (so that others, in turn, will be inclined to attack the people who are hated, physically).
Have a look again at Hadith 41;685: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…”
The “last hour” is the Day of Judgment (as found already in the Bible). When …”Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds to gardens beneath which rivers flow. They will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearl, and their garments therein will be silk.” (Qur’an S22; v23)… others will meet a “painful punishment.”
Proposing that everybody good will be rewarded and the miscreants punished only after the Jews will be killed seems to me to be hate speech. From Allah’s Messenger, that is, Muhammad (supposing it was faithfully related by Sahih Al Muslim). It is to be feared that, left to be literally interpreted, this statement will bring many a Jihadist, to conclude it is a religious duty to kill the Jews.
Can the statement be mitigated? Sunni Islam has no professional priests (supposedly). Once I met a real blonde in New York City. A real blonde in several senses of the term. She told me she switched from fanatical Catholicism to fanatical Islam, not just because she fell in love with the local Imam, but because Islam had no priests (and she probably disliked their moral commands, and lack of balls, to put it as it was, between the lines; she is still at it, decades later, teaching Jihadism in the greater New York area).
The lack of professionalism in Islam teaching means that, if an Imam mitigates Hadith 41; 6985 (above), a terrorist can show up, and claim that the Imam is an apostate (he has “left Islam” and thus, ought to be killed).
Solution? Have agents of the Republic at the ready, supporting mitigating Islam teachers (official Imama, paid by the State; those already exist in Belgium).
Each time a fanatical Muslim shows up, loudly interpreting Muslim sacred texts such as Hadith 41;6985, literally, and making threats, have them arrested, and put in isolation in prison (so that they cannot engage in proselytism; Salafist proselytism connects with organized crime, and is extremely well financed by the oil propelled, feudal terrorist powers of the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia).
The notion of THOUGHT CRIME has proven useful against a resurgence of Nazism. Denying the facts of the Shoah is enough to send someone to prison in Franco-Germania.
As humanity depends ever more crucially upon truth regarding basic facts, criminal thought systems ought to be crushed. This is the most basic way in which Voltaire’s command to “crush infamy” has to be implemented.
Some are bound to say: ’Oh, you are just like the Jihadists. They kill because people don’t think right, and you want to jail people because they don’t think right.’
Not so: I am for all thinking, and feeling absolutely anything, as long as it does not result in severely adverse consequences to others, or the human species’, or intelligence’s prospects.
“In France, one can draw everything, including the prophet,” Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said, and she is right, and I approve.
We depend crucially of truth, and increasingly so, as we are becoming like gods, with ever increasing powers. But we don’t want to be like Darth Vader in Star Wars, and blow up planets, just because we can. Actually, Darth Vader is modelled after the god of the Bible and Qur’an, getting to order whatever atrocities, just because he can.
I advocated setting up a Ministry of Truth. Ministry of Outrageous Potentially Lethal Lies maybe a better concept. For example, when fossil fuel companies pay for disseminating lies about the gathering atrocity (I weight my word) they are contributing to, by some of their actions, they ought to be prosecuted.
Any human organization that is large enough (so I am deliberately excluding small public associations, including small and medium companies) has a fiduciary duty.
Example: the Pope just supported, in context, the attack against Charlie Hebdo, and against a Jewish supermarket. At this point, a week later, we are talking about two dozen people dead, and many grievously wounded. A plot against Belgian police and justice by Jihadists, related to the French attacks, has forced to protect police stations and courts with special forces and mobilize the army to help (for the first time).
The Pope said, that’s all right, “it’s normal, it’s human nature. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
Even the Sidney Herald recognizes that: “The Pope Sides With Muslim Faithful in Charlie Hebdo Debate…” Faithful Muslim? It is more like fanatical Muslim. The Pope is an accomplice of murderous Jihadism, after the facts, in a horrendous context. That makes him the most famous fanatical propagandist at the head of the largest institution. He should be prosecuted, at least intellectually.