自由への絶叫、といったところか？
フランスをひざまずかせとしたが、ヨーロッパは立ち上がった！
立ち上がれヨーロッパ！ーーー 立ち上がれニッポン！ みたいな？
フォックスニュースのゲスト イスラム教徒をあまやかしたらアカン、地上を穢しているバカどもを抹殺しろ１
メディア王マードック イスラム教徒は、フランスのテロ攻撃の責任をとれ！
イスラム教の過激な説教師 イスラムをバカにすると、こうなる。
行進には、サルコジ前大統領ら仏政界の要人も参加したが、移民排斥などを訴える極右「国民戦線」のルペン党首は招かれなかった。
もっとも、表現の自由を弾圧する世界の怪しい要人たちは招待
These are the biggest hypocrites celebrating free speech today in Paris
フォロー
Daniel Wickham
@DanielWickham93
3) Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forced killed 7 journalists in Gaza last yr (second highest after Syria) http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-barometer-journalists-killed.html?annee=2014 …
Foreign minister Sameh Shoukry, Egypt
Three al-Jazeera journalists—Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed—were jailed for seven years for spreading false news and supporting the now-banned group, the Muslim Brotherhood. The trio had denied the charges. On New Year’s Day, the country’s top court ordered a retrial.
Reporters Without Borders ranks Egypt as second in the world for the number of journalists arrested, including this photojournalist who describes his 16 months behind bars as an “endless nightmare.”
Prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, Turkey
Turkey held almost 50 journalists in jail two years ago. There are seven journalists in jail at the moment, mainly for producing propaganda for outlawed political parties.
Prime minister David Cameron, UK
. フォロー
Daniel Wickham
@DanielWickham93
20) PM Cameron of the UK, where authorities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution http://en.rsf.org/uk-government-s-culpable-20-08-2013,45073.html …
返信 リツイート お気に入りに登録
その他
フォロー
Daniel Wickham
@DanielWickham93
5) Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant" http://en.rsf.org/russie-journalist-arrested-after-17-09-2014,46974.html …
Prime minister Enda Kenny, Ireland
Perhaps most surprising of all in these circumstances, Ireland has had “blasphemy” as a criminal offense on its books since 2009. Already one Muslim has threatened legal action against any Irish publication that reprints Charlie Hebdo’s front-page depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. Blasphemy is punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 ($29,500), but there are plans to hold a referendum to abolish it.
Blasphemy is defined by the Irish as “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion.” It doesn’t sound like the drafters of this law would have much time for the people at Charlie Hebdo.
ジャーナリストを投獄し（イスラエル、エジプト、トルコ・・・・）、神に対する不敬罪（アイルランド）がある国の要人が、言論の自由のための集会に集まるところは、まさに、ポストモダンのフランス式漫画なのか？
アメリカで同じように、キリスト教徒や極右によるテロがあったときも、
11 JAN 2015 AT 03:18 ET
ここまでの動きはまるでなかった。
なぜ、ここまでの動きになるのか？
自由を叫びながから、欧州の主流になりつつある反移民・反イスラム感情と結びついているせいなのか？
IN SOLIDARITY WITH A FREE PRESS: SOME MORE BLASPHEMOUS CARTOONS
BY GLENN GREENWALD @ggreenwald
Usually, defending free speech rights is much more of a lonely task. For instance, the day before the Paris murders, I wrote an article about multiple cases where Muslims are being prosecuted and even imprisoned by western governments for their online political speech – assaults that have provoked relatively little protest, including from those free speech champions who have been so vocal this week.
I’ve previously covered cases where Muslims were imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting “extremist” videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or (much more dangerously and rarely) Judaism. I’m hoping this week’s celebration of free speech values will generate widespread opposition to all of these long-standing and growing infringements of core political rights in the west, not just some.
One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them
西洋の政府により、政治的発言のため、イスラム教徒が投獄、訴追され、パレスチナのために、過激派の動画や、学術的な記事を翻訳し、イスラエルを批判したイスラム教徒はアメリカ政府により投獄されているが、表現の自由のため、といって、欧米は立ち上がらなかった。
さすがに、グレン・グリーンウォルドは冷静で、不快な思想を表現する権利は認めても、その思想を非難することもできる筈だ、と。
チョムスキーも同様で、表現の自由とはその内容の如何にかかわらず、仮に、その内容が憎悪にみちたものでも擁護されるべきもので、表現の自由を擁護したからといって、その差別的表現と関わるべきではない、と。
The reaction of horror and revulsion about the crime is justified, as is the search for deeper roots, as long as we keep some principles firmly in mind. The reaction should be completely independent of what thinks about this journal and what it produces. The passionate and ubiquitous chants “I am Charlie,” and the like, should not be meant to indicate, even hint at, any association with the journal, at least in the context of defense of freedom of speech. Rather, they should express defense of the right of free expression whatever one thinks of the contents, even if they are regarded as hateful and depraved.
And the chants should also express condemnation for violence and terror. The head of Israel’s Labor Party and the main challenger for the upcoming elections in Israel, Isaac Herzog, is quite right when he says that “Terrorism is terrorism. There’s no two ways about it.” He is also right to say that “All the nations that seek peace and freedom [face] an enormous challenge” from murderous terrorism – putting aside his predictably selective interpretation of the challenge.
Erlanger vividly describes the scene of horror. He quotes one surviving journalist as saying that “Everything crashed. There was no way out. There was smoke everywhere. It was terrible. People were screaming. It was like a nightmare.” Another surviving journalist reported a “huge detonation, and everything went completely dark.” The scene, Erlanger reported, “was an increasingly familiar one of smashed glass, broken walls, twisted timbers, scorched paint and emotional devastation.” At least 10 people were reported at once to have died in the explosion, with 20 missing, “presumably buried in the rubble.”
These quotes, as the indefatigable David Peterson reminds us, are not, however, from January 2015. Rather, they are from a story of Erlanger’s on April 24 1999, which made it only to page 6 of the New York Times, not reaching the significance of the Charlie Hebdo attack. Erlanger was reporting on the NATO (meaning US) “missile attack on Serbian state television headquarters” that “knocked Radio Television Serbia off the air.”
There was an official justification. “NATO and American officials defended the attack,” Erlanger reports, “as an effort to undermine the regime of President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia.” Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon told a briefing in Washington that “Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic's murder machine as his military is,” hence a legitimate target of attack.
Isaac Herzog, then, is mistaken when he says that “Terrorism is terrorism. There’s no two ways about it.” There are quite definitely two ways about it: terrorism is not terrorism when a much more severe terrorist attack is carried out by those who are Righteous by virtue of their power. Similarly, there is no assault against freedom of speech when the Righteous destroy a TV channel supportive of a government that they are attacking.
By the same token, we can readily comprehend the comment in the New York Times of civil rights lawyer Floyd Abrams, noted for his forceful defense of freedom of expression, that the Charlie Hebdo attack is “the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory.” He is quite correct about “living memory,” which carefully assigns assaults on journalism and acts of terror to their proper categories: Theirs, which are horrendous; and Ours, which are virtuous and easily dismissed from living memory.
アメリカが陰にいるＮＡＴＯにより、セルビアのテレビ局やラジオ局がミサイル攻撃され、死者がでたとき、その報道はＮＹＴの片隅で報道されただけであり、しかも、かのテレビ局はミロシェヴィッチの軍隊と同じく殺人マシンの一部なのだ、といって合理化した、と。
イスラム教徒のテロリストのテロの合理化とどこが違うのかとも思いますが、チョムスキーによれば、同じテロでも、正義の側にいるものの力によって、テロが実行されれば、それはテロではないのだ、と。
正義ではなく、より強大な権力をもったものによるテロ行為は”正義”の執行の一部とみなされるような、メディアの風潮がある、のではないでしょうか？
ＮＹＴのファクラーさんとか、ＡＰの山口さんたちのイデオロギーである 勝てば赦される の思想もその一部であります。
今回の事件に関しては、射殺された警官が英雄であって、
彼は、自分の宗教をバカにする人の権利を守ったわけで、まさに、ヴォルテールの、
「私はあなたの意見には反対だ、だがあなたがそれを主張する権利は命をかけて守る」を身をもって実践したのであります。
その弟さんの発言もすばらしい。
“My brother was Muslim and he was killed by two terrorists, by two false Muslims,” he said. “Islam is a religion of peace and love. As far as my brother’s death is concerned it was a waste. He was very proud of the name Ahmed Merabet, proud to represent the police and of defending the values of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity.”
Malek reminded France that the country faced a battle against extremism, not against its Muslim citizens. “I address myself now to all the racists, Islamophobes and antisemites. One must not confuse extremists with Muslims. Mad people have neither colour or religion,” he said.
“I want to make another point: don’t tar everybody with the same brush, don’t burn mosques – or synagogues. You are attacking people. It won’t bring our dead back and it won’t appease the families.”
「私の兄はイスラム教徒で、テロリストに殺されました、そのテロリストは偽のイスラム教徒でした。イスラム教は平和と愛の宗教です。兄は死ぬ必要もなかったのに死んでしまった。兄は、自分の名前や警官であることに誇りをもっていました。なによりも、自由、平等、友愛というフランスの理想を守ることに誇りをもっていたのです。 イスラム教徒と過激派を混同しないでください。狂人は人種や宗教を選ばず出現するものです。十羽一からげにして、イスラム寺院やユダヤ寺院に放火するのはやめてください。人間への冒涜です。それで、死者がかえってくることもなければ、家族が慰められることもないのです。」
