Blame The Victims: Murdered French Cartoonists “Sinned” Against Society, Chabad Rabbi Says

Talk about blaming the victims. A prominent Chabad rabbi in England triggered outrage after he wrote that that the cartoonists at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo who were slaughtered by Islamist fundamentalist terrorists sinned against society.

Above: Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet

Blame The Victims: Murdered French Cartoonists “Sinned” Against Society, Chabad Rabbi Says
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

Talk about blaming the victims.

A prominent Chabad rabbi in England triggered outrage after he wrote that the cartoonists at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo who were slaughtered by Islamist fundamentalist terrorists sinned against society.

Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, the senior rabbi at the Mill Hill synagogue, made the remark in the Ask The Rabbi column he writes for the weekly British newspaper the Jewish News.

The cartoonists were “sinning against society,” the Canadian-born Shochet wrote, by drawing and publishing unflattering cartoons of religious figures.

“[The cartoons were] not merely insensitive but a breach of fundamental rights,” the addled Shochet wrote, adding that Judaism says “putting someone to shame is like bloodshed.”

Shochet’s remarks were meant to address “the paradox between the legality of freedom of speech and the illegality of incitement toward racial hatred.”

They drew widespread condemnation from non-Orthodox rabbis and from British Jewish communal leaders, but no public condemnation from Modern Orthodox, haredi or Chabad rabbis.

Comments

[JamesMadison]

The Rabbis has common sense. The pope agrees:

Pope Francis, speaking of last week's deadly attacks by Islamist militants in Paris, has defended freedom of expression, but said it was wrong to provoke others by insulting their religion and that one could "expect" a reaction to such abuse.
"You can't provoke, you can't insult the faith of others, you can't make fun of faith," he told reporters on Thursday, aboard a plane taking him from Sri Lanka to the Philippines to start the second leg off his Asian tour.

Francis, who has condemned the Paris attacks, was asked about the relationship between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

"I think both freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights," he said, adding that he was talking specifically about the Paris killings.
"Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good ... we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending," he said.

To illustrate his point, he turned to an aide and said: "It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if (he) says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it's normal.

"You can't make a toy out of the religions of others," he added. "These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits."

[JamesMadison]

From Reuters

[H]

He's a very uncompromising man -very provocative and opinionated. He tends to see things in Black and White (most unlike lubavitchers I've known), and is certainly no hypocrite.
He has a point, but since when do we allow other religions to pin their values onto us?
That is the central argument in my view, and offending someone or their beliefs is no defence to murder.

[dh]

ISIS would agree with him.

[Shmarya]

JamesMadison –

The Pope is wrong, as well.

[Jeff]

"but no public condemnation from Modern Orthodox, haredi or Chabad rabbis"

No, of course not. The Modern Orthodox have been kissing the collective ass of the gedolim for so long, they've forgotten what it's like out here in reality.

[JamesMadison]

I disagree. The pope is right. Insulting other peoples' dearest beliefs should not be condoned in decent society.

Of course no one is condoning murder. That needn't be said.

[Shmarya]

"Insulting other peoples' dearest beliefs should not be condoned in decent society. "

Oh, please.

You are an idiot.

Many (but not most) followers of Islam believe Islamic terrorism is justified. Is insulting their belief wrong?

What about polytheists? They believe in many gods and often bow down to statues. But doesn't the Torah you claim to follow (and which is printed and sold every day in France and the US) ridicule them?

To say that you are idiot is a dramatic understatement.

[Heblew]

This Schochet fellow has it right. Charlie Hebdo was putting out material which crossed the line between satire and racism. For those of a Hasidic inclination reading this blog, imagine the outrage which Hebdo would invoke if they were to print a cartoon depicting Schneerson as a gay alcoholic. The Hasidic community would whip out their lawyers immediately.

By the way, Schochet seems to have the meaning of "slaughterer" in Hebrew. A fitting name, as this Rabbi slaughters a misconception about Charlie Hebdo.

[JamesMadison]

I'm not going to get into it with you Scott, youre simply not worth it. Decent human beings don't insult other people's beliefs. That you are a despicable worthless pice of shot is the understatement of the century.

[JamesMadison]

*piece of Monkey shit

[Shmarya]

JamesMadison –

You have every right to disagree with their cartoons and even hate them. But you do not have the right to ban them or justify any type of violence against them.

Charlie Hebdo lampooned and satirized everyone – right, left, religious, atheist, all religions, all persuasions. It was not and is not anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic or anything like that.

That's far, far different from racists who publish racist satire and cartoons (Stormfront, for example, and the KKK).

What Charlie Hebdo did is not incitement to anything except humor and thinking.

Most of their Mohammed cartoons, in fact, were not lampooning him – they were lampooing idiots like you.

[JamesMadison]

That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Muslims take it more personal than others, therefore we should be decent and not insult them. Like the pope said, don't insult a person's mother. No one is condoning the murder, but decent people don't condone the magazine either. Fuck Je Suis Charlie!

[Shmarya]

Please.

The issue isn't how personally people take the satire or insult. If were, than essentially nothing could be said about anyone ever.

If you had anything approaching a mind, that would be clear to you. But you don't, so it isn't.

[jancsibacsi]

JamesMadison----Theese deranged jihadis and many of their muslim brothers live in france or brittain and want to dictate what their people should or shoudln't read or write in their own country, while they dont even allow chritians to worship in their muslim countires,in my house no one can dictate to me or threaten me,if they dont like it tough luck let them go back to their own countries.

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

"[. . . ] but no public condemnation from Modern Orthodox, haredi or Chabad rabbis."

The Modern Orthodox community -- what's left of it -- has to earn it's "frum" bonafides everyday.

[John]

I totally agree with James. The 1.5 million Muslims don't like Muhammad being drawn. It's a very simple thing. The world can go on just the same without the cartoons. You can criticize Muslims as much as you like and Muslims are ok with that. If you know brainwashed Muslims are going to kill cartoonists, then I would say don't draw those cartoons. You are not going to change these extremists minds EVER. Doesn't mean they are right, but that's how it is. Is it so important to draw these pictures?

[JamesMadison]

"As he knew not what to say, he swore" [Lord Byron The Island]

[Shmarya]

JamesMadison –

No. I know what to say and I said it.

You, on the other hand, are far too dim to be able to answer it.

Idiot.

[Shmarya]

John –

Really?

Chabad hasidim don't like it when people point out that their late rebbe had serious mental health issues or that he knowingly allowed Chabad to falsely pump up his academic background in order to ensnare new followers and raise money.

Does that mean we should be banned from writing it or saying it?

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

++Decent human beings don't insult other people's beliefs++

++you are a despicable worthless piece of monkey shit++

Oscar Wilde was right. Irony is wasted on the stupid.

[Allan]

No Shochet is 100% wrong - and Bravo Shmarya. You are 100% right.

Personally, I will make a point of insulting that bastard Muhammad and his garbage religion as often and as loudly as I can. I will draw any cartoons I want of any religious figures I want - including God himself. I will not be “respectful” and “sensitive” to my enemies and Islam is the enemy of civilization.

The last person I will take advice from is that old man in Rome who presides over the largest child molesting and pervert protecting organization on earth. The head of a Church that hoards a priceless art fortune in Rome while millions of Catholics live in poverty. Get lost Frances.

I will also mock other cult leaders, including Shochet’s hero, the dead Failed Messiah from 770 who was too stupid to even appoint a successor and has now become a demi-god of a new religion.

Speaking of insensitive cartoons - has anyone seen the way the Egyptians, their Pharoah and their religious beliefs are depicted in Chabad cartoons? The are invariably drawn as disgusting ugly trolls. Every bit as insulting as anything Charlie Hebdo put out.

Thank you for saying it as it is Shmarya. This is an outrageous attempt to blame the heroic martyrs for free speech at Charlie Hebdo - and lift some blame off of the Islamic murderers. Shame on Shochet.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

++You can criticize Muslims as much as you like and Muslims are ok with that. ++

Really? Where is that? In Fantasy Land?

[Rocky]

Let's look at the discussion from another angle. There are constitutional rights (like freedom of the press) and then there are street smarts. SR: Can you tell the difference between the two? Hint: If you ever visit the Detroit area, stay out of the central city, i.e. south of Eight Mile Road, especially after dark. Yes, you have the constitutional right to use the public streets but you also make an excellent target for a mugger or a car jacker. In 2013, Detroit recorded 45 murders per 100,000 population, which made even Chicago look good (at 15 per 100,000). In recent years, the cities of Detroit and Chicago together recorded more murders than the entire country of Germany. A little common sense goes a long way.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

If you don't like the magazine, don't buy it and don't read it.

The frumma of both Judaism and Islam cannot comprehend that.

Just as the frumma Jews try to sabotage this site, and have threatened Shmarya on numerous occasions, so too are the frumma Moslems hell bent on murder and destruction of anyone who 'insults' their beliefs.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

Rocky, the fact is that if you wanted to drive in that neighborhood, however ill advised, you have the right to do so. Just like Jews who move to the West Bank to make a political statement, and then complain when the Arabs attack them. Sometimes the principle is important enough that you have to take a stand.

We're talking about political satire. I've seen a whole bunch of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. They are clever and biting in their sarcasm. Of all their many targets, nobody gets violent. Only the Religion of Peace gets violent.

[dh]

WSC @ 7:43, haha, oh WSC, you crack me up.

[n ' Aron]

If u r a white boy strolling downtown detroit at 1.00am shouting nigger...and you get killed would it be justified? I hope not. Would it be acceptable for a community leader to strongly suggest that you should refrain from imitating this guy..and if not don't be surprised if you end up likewise.
Shmarya with your colored glasses u only see things one way... pity

[dh]

That is the antithesis of what he said. You can't be serious.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

The frumma cannot stand freedom of speech. That's why the frumma are supporting the Moslems on this topic. Birds of a feather.

The frumma, BTW, live in disgusting crime-ridden areas, and yet insist that the police protect them, whether in Crown Heights, Williamsburg, etc.
why don't the frumma just move out of these dangerous neighborhoods instead of being crime victims over and over?

[JamesMadison]

Actually the "nigger" analogy is perfect. Can Storm front publish offensive cartoons? Yes. Will any decent people defend them for doing so? No.

[JamesMadison]

You guys confuse freedom of the press with common decency. You are wrong and Schochet and Francis are right. The NY TIMES and the Washington Post don't publish such cartoons, because they have standards of decency. You guys dont.

[m]

cha-bad sin against society all the time ,
everyday . cha-bad have no shame for all the evil they do to all jews who are not like them . cha-bad have no respect for
any jew who is not chabad .
cha-bad ppl laugh at non chabad jews , ridicule non chabad jews , hurt ppl any chance they get .

[Shmarya]

Rocky,

I know you think you're an expert on a lot of things, but the fact is that downtown Detroit is making a strong resurgence. Lots of artists and hipsters live there, as well young professionals.

Are large parts of Detroit crime-ridden and desolate?

Yes, they are. But that's true because of the 2008 financial crisis and the housing crisis, and because Detroit can't afford to pay enough city workers – like police – or make streetlight repairs.

Think about that.

[Shmarya]

JamesMadison –

Again, you are wrong.

Stormfront is a racist publication.

Charlie Hebdo is not.

That you cannot see the difference between the two speaks directly to how truly dull your mind is.

Past that, as I said above, everyone has the right to criticize a particular Charlie Hebdo cartoon or all Charlie Hebdo cartoons or the entire publication. But what cannot be allowed is vigilante violence against the publication.

Can someone – you, for example, or Pope Francis – justify violence against Charlie Hebdo?

You have the right to speak freely, and as long as that speech is not clear incitement to violence, you can.

But does it make what you say correct?

No, it does not.

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

Well, here is my opinion, for what it is worth, and I think that both James Madison and Shmarya have very good points.....

Few people on this site (with the possible
exception of Shmarya) have a more fervent
belief in the Freedom of the Press than I do.

I'd like to think that there is a reason
that our Founding Fathers made it the First
Amendment; and when we look at American
History, we see how valuable it is to
have "Freedom of the Press".

Just two examples come to mind ----->

1. The resignation of Richard Nixon
almost 41 years ago. Without a Free
Press, he probably would have stayed
in office.

2. The scandal regarding the Veteran's
Administration scheduling mishaps-
and mishaps is a kind word. Without
a Free Press, would the public have
any idea what was going on with
that institution?

And I could spend the rest of the
night giving more examples. As a lawyer,
there is no doubt in my mind that a
Free Press is the lifeblood and/or
the oxygen of a free society.

But at the same time.....

....just because you can do something,
does that mean you should?

Yes, a Freedom of the Press is a value
we all hold dear. But can you explain
to me how you expect other people to
value Freedom of the Press if that
selfsame freedom is used to deliberately mock and/or degrade a symbol and/or a figure that many people hold sacred?

I realize that there is no right
or wrong answer to the questions I
have just asked. But I will end
my statement with this:

My father's birthday was January 14.
He would have been 84. Naturally,
I was thinking about him last week.

He did not have the benefit of a college
education; which is why the rule growing
up in the Barron household was "You are
going to college- PERIOD." And we did.

But he was self-taught; an autodidact.
He was always reading books and newspapers
to educate himself about the world.

And he was very proud of his faith; and
later in life, spent more time at the
synagogue.

In all the years I knew him, I never
heard him say one derogatory thing
about any other religious belief,
or the believers of any other religious
belief. For him, it was more of a "this
is what we believe, and other people
believe other things".

I frankly think he would have had
a hard time with Charlie Hedbo. Needless
to say, this in no way excuses the
violence that has occurred; there is
never an excuse for violence- but
I don't think my father would have
appreciated Charlie's portrayal of,
and ridicule of any religious figure
or any religious symbol.

And frankly...I don't appreciate it either. I don't see what is gained- and how society is improved- by mocking, ridiculing and degrading things are held sacred by other people.

For what it's worth......

[Shmarya]

Robert Barron –

The point is not liking or disliking what Charlie Hebdo publishes.

The point is not arguing that Charlie Hebdo was gratuitously rude or inappropriate.

The point is that it is wrong to argue that the violence directed at Charlie Hebdo was to be expected and is natural because Charlie Hebdo was insulting.

Should ardent backers of freedom of speech or militant atheists be able to punch the Pope in the nose because of what he says? Should the Pope expect to punched and expect no different? Should his followers all remain perfectly calm if the Pope is so punched because he essentially insulted someone's mother?

Again, condemn Chalie Hebdo all you want, but there is no justification for any type of violence against it at all.

[JamesMadison]

2 points:

1) The supreme court has ruled that racist speech is also protected under the constitution. As such, it's in the same category as Charlie. It's legal and indecent. They are both shit, and people should condemn them both.

2) Violence is never an option and should be condemned in the strongest terms possible. The question is not if you CAN publish offensive content, it's if you SHOULD publish offensive content. Charlie Hebdo shouldn't and they do; Stotmfront shouldn't and they do. Both are shit, Storm front more so, but both are worthless shit. That the pope's point.

[Shmarya]

JamesMadison –

You really are a fool.

SCOTUS would not in any way consider Charlie to to the equivalent as Stormfront except that they are both publications and are in that sense equivalent to the NY Times, the Forward and the Catholic Weekly.

In the US offensive speech is legal. In France, offensive speech is legal.

But that doesn't make Charlie Hebdo the equivalent of Stormfront.

Past that, what the Pope did is justify the anger that led to the violence and justify the violence itself. The Vatican later clarified his remarks to excise any support for the violence. But the Pope himself was very clear – and he was also very, very wrong.

[JamesMadison]

Actually Scott they are the same in more ways then that. They both publish offensive content with absolutely no value other than insulting other people and their values. Yes Stormfront is more offensive, but they both are worthless shit. They have the same protection under the law, and they both shouldn't be published.

The pope's point was that insulting other people's dearly held values will ultimately lead to violence. It's wrong but true. If someone screams nigger in Harlem they will get hurt, even if they "only meant it as satire". If someone insults Latinos in LA, they will get hurt even if it's "only satire". If the publication would be making valid and important contributions to society then I would support them. Since all they say is worthless, I'll protect their legal right to speech, while wrinkling my nose in disgust. Sort of like a cop protecting a KKK rally.

[Allan]

@Robert J. Barron. -“For him, it was more of a "this is what we believe, and other people believe other things‘ ".

You father’s philosophy is very admirable. And it's the policy of most religions today. But NOT Islam! Their motto is “This is what we believe - and you’d better believe it too or else we will KILL YOU!” And it’s not just words - they are killing non-believers at this very moment.

And that is why Charlie Hebdo was completely justified in mocking Islam (symbolized by its founder). To show these savages that the free world will not bow down to their tyranny or turn a blind eye to the bloody record of radical Islam.

Yes it WAS offensive - but it HAD to be. because radical Islam is itself offensive. It's usually wrong to offend - I agree. But there comes a time when we MUST offend. Radical Islam cannot kill and kill and kill and expect us to sit still and respect their delicate religious sensibilities.

[sifter]

I understand free speech and, of course, they shouldnt be killed. Its an appalling crime. But I I love how above someone argues Hebdo COULDNT be called racist or anti semitic, since the make fun of everyone. Bullshit. Being the Don Rickles of satirical news rags doesnt absolve the Left of racism,etc. Being an equal opportunity lout doesnt excuse poor taste and judgement.

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

@Shmarya ---> Again, condemn Chalie Hebdo all you want, but there is no justification for any type of violence against it at all.

I agree completely.

@James Madison ----> Violence is never an option and should be condemned in the strongest terms possible. The question is not if you CAN publish offensive content, it's if you SHOULD publish offensive content.

I agree completely.

[A Yid]

Here is the scene from People vs Larry Flint the Supreme Court discussing satire published by Hustler claiming Rev. Jerry Falwell lost his virginity with his mother in an outhouse (Falwell sued Flint and Hustler magazine for defamation and willful infliction of emotional distress. The courts found he has no claim because for defamation it has to be believable and he himself admitted under cross examination that no-one would believe such a thing about his mother. So the remainder of the claim was litigated all the way to Supreme Court and they discussed satire including cartoons the long history of very insulting cartoons against public figures in this country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTuNES82O0

[Rocky]

WSC @ 7:58pm The newspaper employees made a statement of principle and paid for it with their lives. If the remaining employees think it was a fair exchange, let them go on doing what they are doing. Muslim terrorists have already shown that they are all too willing to take extreme measures in the name of their religion, even if it means their own deaths. They don't respect freedom of the press or other western freedoms.

SR: Detroit had major problems long before 2008. Its last department store closed in 1976. A former co-worker of mine drove a National Guard tank along the city's northern city limits in the 1967 riots. Yes, the artists and hipsters have a constitutional right to live in the city, but they do so at their own risk. I don't think there is a single Jewish institution left in the city and there probably hasn't been for many years.

[jimmy]

Fascinating how JammesMadison has finally thrown in the towel and answered Scotties' ad hominems!
Bravo.You see Scott is one of the few people it does not pay to be nice to.He loves insulting people and calling them demeaning names.

For what it's worth, I wish Shochat would shut the fuck up.Nobody thinks Charlie Hedbo "makes nice", they are equal opportunity insulters and part of "democracy", THE SAME DEMOCRACY that allows him to be outspoken

[Michael from Lakewood]

"Posted by: Shmarya | January 21, 2015 at 09:09 PM"

Too bad... I was starting to like this pope. Was John XXIII from a lifetime ago a good man? In the kindness department, he impressed me as being genuine, but I was likely wrong about him, too.

[Shmarya]

Rocky –

Again, you imagine yourself an expert on many things – most of which you know little, if anything, about.

Use Google, do a few minutes of work, and you will see there are several Jewish institutions thriving in Detroit's revived downtown.

[Rocky]

Robert Barron: Your father was a wise man even though he didn't have a college degree.

[Shmarya]

"eing the Don Rickles of satirical news rags doesnt absolve the Left of racism,etc. Being an equal opportunity lout doesnt excuse poor taste and judgement."

Sifter –

So you're saying Don Rickles is racist?

[Robert K.]

I think everyone is missing the point somewhat.
1) First and foremost, we need to see everything Schochet wrote and the context it was written in. All I have seen are a few excerpts of what he wrote.
2) No one is condoning violence or murder (I did not gather that from any of the excerpts mentioned). In fact the Detroit example (or any bad neighborhood) is the perfect example. No one condones violence. But no one would be surprised if you get shot holding a "I hate N!G&3RS" sign (Die Hard With a Vengeance, anyone?). It's wrong but unfortunately to be expected. If you have a friend that you know is mentally unbalanced or has an extreme sensitivity to something and you provoke a reaction out of them, often that is a legitimate defense under the law or torts and sometimes battery. True, that words can never be excused as a provocation/ 'heat of passion' to murder, but the fact that the law has to say that, in and of itself shows that the wrong words at the wrong time, will incite people to murder. And when the murderer is caught, he is tried and convicted. As he should be.
3) Did you ever consider the possibility that Schochet was not coming from a Western Civilization/ modern law perspective, but rather from a Torah/Judaism perspective? The Constitution is about 'rights'. Judaism (and most religions) are about 'duties'. Evil speech (Loshon Hara, motzei shem ra, rechilus) are all forbidden under Jewish law (which is antithetical to the very notion of 'free speech'). Interesting to note, that the article in the Jewish News that this article is based off of, all the Rabbis that condemned Schochet, acknowledged that Judaism frowns upon or considers it a grave sin, what Charlie Hebdo was doing. But then they went on to defend the importance of free speech, which is not a Jewish concept. By way of example, under Jewish law, if you blaspheme, the Jewish court will put you to death. Sound familiar? On the other hand, there was a Jewish Court involved and there was a full on trial and even so, Beit Din rarely killed anyone (once in 7 years or some opinions 70 years). There is never a justification for vigilantism, even if the Muslims thought they were in the right (which they couldn't be, since they were in a country that made what they did illegal). Not to mention the fact that Judaism doesn't practice any of this any more since we live in foreign lands that are not our own and we have an obligation to follow the laws of the land (so long as they don't conflict with a Torah directive).
To sum up this long winded post (turned out to be a lot longer then I anticipated:
- The perpetrators were murders/terrorists and despicable human beings.
-Charlie Hebdo was foolish for poking a deranged lion with a stick (pen). The fact that they poked their stick at every deranged lion does not make it less nonsensical.
-Freedom of speech if an important part of our legal make up and integral to our free society.
-Judaism does not allow the freedom of speech that insults and hurts others.

Now I will sit back and wait to be told what an illiterate-Chabad-loving-idiot I am... :)

[ah-pee-chorus]

The rabbi and the pope are dead wrong. And I used the word "dead" purposely. Since there's no way i could do it justice, here's the brilliant quote from Salman Rushdie in regards to the paris murders.

"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."

He knows as well as anyone still alive how dangerous it is when muslims and their claimed right to prohibit others from speaking their minds, are countenanced. The right to freedom of speech only needs to be invoked when that speech is bothersome to others.
The issue isn't whether or not YOU would have said it or drawn it or even whether you share the cartoonist's views. It is that the mere fact we all know that there are those who would kill you for doing it. That ideology needs to be confronted, lampooned, satirized and defeated.
People of all religions have to deal with the fact that they're entitled to their views but they're not entitled to compel others to share or respect those views. Just to respect their right. as they must accord the same respect to people who find their rules and laws objectionable enough and tyrannical enough to satirize.

[Shmarya]

Robert K – yup, that's exactly what you are. And a troll, as well.

[JACK]

He never justified their murders,but he stated the obvious that what Charlie Hedbo has been doing for years is wrong and disgusting and sinful,making fun and denigrating and making fun of anybodies religion is sinful and just plain wrong.
But of course Shmaryah would disagree,after all for years now he has been doing the exact same thing to his own religion

[dh]

Hi Jimmy, interesting, huh?

Anyway, Shmarya, "In France, offensive speech is legal." It is so not. It blew me away to learn quite the opposite. Compared to the US, you can barely say anything there. We'd choke to death.

If you deny the holocaust, they throw you in the slammer. In public or private you can't even insult someone's ethnicity, race, religion, gender and way more and it is a crime. Look at what is a Hate Crime in France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

So be careful, Shmarya, if anyone wants to give you a trip to Francais, and you're about to disembark, listen to me when I say "Go back! Go back!! It's a con job!!" Because you wouldn't last long.

[Shmarya]

APC –

The Rushdie quote is spot on. And that's what these haredi and Chabad trolls miss, and what the Pope missed.

And what's really sad is that many of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are not anti-Islam. All they did 'wrong' was a draw a cartoon and say it represents Mohammed.

[Shmarya]

dh -

You're wrong. Satire and the like is 100% legal in France. Whatever you learned is mistaken.

JACK –

The really nice thing is that if I want, I take a few hours off and let you and your buddies post without comment. You bring such disgrace to haredi Judaism including Chabad, that I very often don't have to write anything.

[JACK]

And frankly...I don't appreciate it either. I don't see what is gained- and how society is improved- by mocking, ridiculing and degrading things are held sacred by other people.

For what it's worth......

Posted by: Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law | January 21, 2015 at 08:46 PM.
=================================================
Very well said,and agree with you 100%
But then if you really meant what you just wrote,
then how the hell do you support and tolerate our resident hater Scotty Rosenberg,who for years now has been doing nothing else but mocking ridiculing and degrading Judaism and the Jews who practice it.

[Rebitzman]

Charlie Hedbo and its cartoons are often anti-religion - period. They just as often mocked Jews and Xtians as they did Islam or the Prophet. They did so in a tone that can only be described as base, tasteless and offensive.

But to lay any blame on them for their violent deaths - by a Chabad rabbi or the Pope - is simply ignorant.

[Shmarya]

Rebitzman – agreed.

[dh]

Shmarya, no, I'm not wrong. You didn't read what I said. I didn't say "satire" and neither did you. You said "speech" and I responded to the word you used, "speech". Now you are using the word "Satire" and that is not at all what you were talking about and what I was addressing. What I learned is not mistaken. You were, on the contrary, mistaken as to what you said.

And finally, nanner, nanner, naaaaanner

[Shmarya]

JACK –

No, moron. What I've done primarily is report the truth – truth you desperately want to hide.

[dh]

Robert K, can you repeat that?

[Shmarya Rosenberg]

dh –

Actually, I’m not.

[dh]

You are. How can you possibly say that?!

[Shmarya Rosenberg]

dh –

Because I’ve listened to French journalists and politicians a lot over the past two weeks talk about it.

[dh]

Yeah, right, a lot of us have. that's not a good enough answer.

@ 9:09 you said "In the US offensive speech is legal. In France, offensive speech is legal." and I give you their law as to the criminality, not just civil defamation, of offensive speech (which is considered free speech here). To that you counter with the noun "Satire" and then say I'm wrong because you listened to the same stuff I listened to.

I want my award to have a silver star with blue around the edges and long blue ribbon. But I want the writing to be in red - bright red: "dh won over Shmarya". Italics. and I'm gonna stand right here til I get it. Arms crossed, tapping my foot.

[JamesMadison]

Actually APC it's not ridiculous. It's common sense. Why don't you try my Harlem experiment, and come back tell me how that went...

To be clear, no one is saying it's right. Violence is a terrible thing and is never "right". But sometimes you bring it on yourself.

[dh]

Okay. I understand. You're embarrassed and you probably don't have a lot of arts and crafts stuff laying around. I get it. I won't mention your painful defeat again. Friends? Good.

Hey? Wanna go to France?

[Shmarya]

dh –

Sigh. The French law is clear. Use your public platform to call someone a gimp who is disabled or a kike who is Jewish, and you've violated it.

But saying a particular religious belief or behavior is wrong or stupid does not.

So if Charlie Hebdo lampoons the idea of a second coming, for example, or of Islam's bizarre reaction to even innocent cartoon or drawings of their prophet, it hasn't broken law.

[jimmy]

dh,
I admit to not reading your link from wikipedia, so I don't know who is right,but i"d be surprised that you are indeed right, you"ll see Scott admitting to it.i"ve been on the blog for a very long time and have never seen him admit a mistake, unless it"s some kind of typo

[ah-pee-chorus]

JamesMadison-

There's no analogy to the N word. For many reasons. By calling someone that you're choosing a word meant to degrade when there are other words with no negative connotation. And what would one be saying by using it? That the reason you dislike them is that they were born with genes for darker skin which is in no way threatening to you.
When satirizing, or outright insulting the beliefs of a religion -many of which directly threaten all of us- you're holding people responsible for their chosen beliefs. There's no comparison. Anyone is free to change those beliefs they find immoral or otherwise objectionable . No one can change their skin color.

[dh]

You are talking about two different things again. You are talking about satire - expression. That is NOT what you were talking about, nor is it what I was responding to. So stop doing that and stop with the sighing already.

Sexual orientation is behavior. I'm not talking about gender. In France saying a certain sexual orientation is wrong, is hate speech. Simple enough? You can do it in a letter to the government or you can do it by sky-writing or you can do it from the comedic stage or in a conversation in a bar - it's hate speech. It is not hate speech in the US. We have freedom of speech here but we would not look at the freedom of speech laws in France and describe them as such. Our free words are their hate words and they are forbidden.

None of this has anything to do with satire, because you WERE NOT talking about satire. You are using that to wiggle free. If you had been listening you would have heard the distinct and discrete differentiation between satire and speech. Expression through the arts and speech.

Don't cut yourself with the scissors.

[Allan]

@JamesMadison -If someone screams nigger in Harlem they will get hurt, even if they "only meant it as satire".

What a comparison of apples and oranges!

Is Harlem bent on world domination like Islam? Do Harlem residents go around flying airplanes into buildings like radical Muslims do? Do they go around beheading people like radical Muslims? Do they subjugate their women and force them to cover their whole bodies on the streets? Do they want to impose “Harlem law” by force on the whole world?

There would have been death and destruction even without a single Hebdo cartoon. Islam makes sure there's killing every day no matter how politely we all behave. They will not stop until all us infidels either convert or die. They admit it openly!

The Jewish shoppers at the Hyper Cacher market had nothing to do with the cartoons. That didn’t earn them any mercy from the murderous radical Muslims.

[Shmarya]

dh –

What we're talking about here is political satire. The Wikipedia page you linked to clearly says that Charlie Hebdo's Mohammed cartoons did not violate the law. Why? Because they were not anti-Islam, just anti-fundamentalists and terrorists who are Islamic.

That France limits some speech – as you know, speech also means the written word, art, TV, films, etc., in this context – is not news. Almost every country in the world does, save the US.

The laws are far more draconian in Great Britain and especially in Australia than they are in France, which defines satire very broadly. (You'll note that most of the cases mentioned in your linked article are advertising posters for films and the like, and pretty much none of them were banned. But these were not satire. If they had been satire, there essentially would not have been a case to bring. That's why one of those courts ruled that a particular film could be shown as long as it and its advertising carried a warning that it was not based on or faithful to the bible.)

[dh]

I'm not ready to subjugate anyone to the extent that going into their neighborhood and yelling anything is going to cause them to chase me down and murder me, least of all in this country. You people need to get out in the fresh air more often. How the heck do you know someone wouldn't be just as likely to open their door and grab me inside to care for me?

********************************************

Oh. You're right jimmy. I can see him in my mind's eye, sitting there twisting his evil mustache (does he have a mustache) laughing at me.

Sh*t.

[dh]

Shmarya! You are torturing me. We weren't talking about satire! We agree on Charlie. Okay?

You were talking about speech. And not about Great Britain or Australia. You said we have free speech and so does France. I disagree. All of a sudden you made this into satire and now a world hx course. The fact of the matter is, there is no comparison between this country and France. That you can make that statement in the same breath, with no caveat to the contrary and still fail to give me an award for being right is startling in every respect.

I am fodder for your evil game.

I gave you a Wiki article? I meant to give you something else.

[Justice]

Let's all get real. Satirizing and mocking other people is nasty. CH was basically martyred. Now everyone runs around, "I am CH." It doesn't change the fact that CH stands for nothing positive. However, this is the wrong time to blame the victim. The problem of the day is Islamic terror. The CH incident was all about Islamic terror and violence. The fact that it was tied to an incident in a kosher store proves that.
So yes, CH, being nasty and provocative, has little positive to offer. However, the issue we need to focus on is the cancer of Islamic terror. This rabbi did noone a favor by focusing on the iniquities of the victim. As if these victims are the only targets of Islamic terror. The terrorists are already coming for him and everyone he cares about. He should be focusing on that

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

Take a look at these covers:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/charlie-hebdo-front-covers#.niwlzyE46

They're clever, sometimes brilliant. Love the takeoff on the Untouchables movie. Are these covers not telling truths that everyone else is afraid to say? But hey, who likes getting murdered for speaking their mind? Best to stay quiet and let the Moslems do as they please.

You frumma trolls always complained that you hate political correctness. You should love how CH is so anti-PC. But wait, suddenly the frumma are on the receiving end of some of these cartoons. CH must be stopped, because they also insult the frumma.

[Just read the paper]

Just read the piece in full and Shmarya you are being dishonest when you say Shochet implies that what the terrorist did is natural or acceptable. Here is what he wrote:

Freedom of speech has to be offset against responsible speech. There is an inherent paradox between the legality of ‘freedom of speech’ and the illegality of ‘incitement toward religious hatred.’ Freedom of speech should never be unbridled. There has to be an element of restraint. Otherwise we can have one freedom or the other but not both.
Any sensitive human being who cares about the rights of another will find those cartoons abhorrent. All the more so as a Jew, who knows well the sting of Antisemitism and discrimination, I find the cartoons more than merely insensitive, but a breach of fundamental values that form the stability of any civilized society. Judaism says that putting someone to shame is like bloodshed and in that respect the magazine in question has committed a sin against society.
To be sure, lest this be misconstrued, the murderers are nothing less than rabid killers who take life indiscriminately in the name of their faith and then take the cowardly way out by having themselves killed as well. There is no place or room in this world for radicalism in any shape or form. But our response to radicalism should not be by fanning further flames of animosity. Publishing more cartoons, causing gratuitous offence, makes no sense. Sure, it may be somewhat necessary to demonstrate that we will not yield to terror. But by the same token it is not welcoming to observe people, who lack a sustained reading of what shapes social forces, choosing to fight the causes of radicalization by using a language or actions that in themselves only compounds the problem.

I would like to hear what you Shmarya have to say about that now.

[Barry]

Justice - Satirizing and mocking other people is not nasty if it is deserved. It is wrong to mock the victims of a 'bad idea' but it is necessary and important to mock those who impose bad ideas. That is why it is wrong to mock the holocaust but right to mock Hitler (and Stalin and Kim etc). Both the current and former British prime ministers lost children to illnesses and any cartoonist who seeks to satirize their loss would be condemned however at the same time, their personal bereavements does not mean they cannot be mocked for their political positions which are seem as harmful or damaging.

Charlie Hebdo did not go about mocking their victims gratuitously. They mocked their victims because they believed they deserved that mockery. That is why they were not hypocritical in sacking a cartoonist who mocked Sarkozy's son for marrying a Jewess. Sarkozy's son was not deserving of mockery for that

Charlie Hebdo sees religion as just another example of reactionary and dangerous politics which victimizes innocent people and as such why should it not be mocked? The response to the Muslim argument that mocking Mohammed is as bad as mocking the holocaust because both are 'innocent' is that mocking Mohammed is no worse than mocking Hitler because both are 'guilty'. People should be free to mock religion.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

Barry, excellent, agreed. CH does not insult just to insult. They insult those who use their religion or position to gain undeserved power or influence. The insults they shell out are clever and multilayered. The simple minds of frum Judaism, frum Islam, and frum Catholicism go apoplectic when criticized. There is no ''tasteful" or "appropriate" way to criticize them.
You must be labeled an antisemite or self-hating Jewnif you dare to criticize. Moslems and Christians pull the same shit.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Norman Finkelstein also blamed the Charlie Hebdo victims.

[Yochanan Lavie]

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2015/01/19/norman-finkelstein-charlie-hebdo-is-sadism-not-satire/

[Bas Melech]

Shochet's blaming the victim follows the frum tradition. Frum rabbis blamed the women in Had Not for the tragic murders there. The rabbis always blame women for tragedies. (A discussion for another time.)

The point is that many rabbis blame the victim for inciting an inviting tragedies that occur to them.

Even if what Shochet said was true (not), he should not have stated so close to the time of the tragedy, showing extreme insensitivity.

A question he should have asked himself too was would they have been targeted if they wrote polite, well-researched dissertations against Islam and their prophet?

[Bas Melech]

According to Shochet's reasoning, a non-Jew would be justified for murdering Chabadniks for their pictorial betrayal of gentiles.

[surprised]

Blaming is the only way this - irresponsible - people can feel some superiority.

Blame CH for speaking their minds
Blame women who didn't buy the 4 inch ruler for the wars in Israel
Blame cellphones for the global warming
Blame the IDF for all the problems of the modern world...

It's an infinite list.

The first one to blames finds a way of not taking any social or moral responsibility for the case.

He has no doubts, no conflicts, no sense of self criticism.

Blaming others is the safest position (of the weak).

[Justice]

Barry, you make good points. But, mocking the founder of a religion is a right which is still wrong. All it accomplishes is radicalization of the contingent, albeit small, which is not already radicalized.
I disagree with Obama when he says that Islam is not the issue. However, there are a number of Moslims who are not out to destroy the West, and we don't need to alienate them by blasting their Prophet.

[jancsibacsi]

I for one would not publish the cartoons because i know with whom we are dealing,we are dealing with absolute beasts, monsters and i value my life too much to take a risk in publishing it,they took the risk and paid with their lifes,the muslim religions was invented by a monster mohammed who beheaded and subjugated others so its a no brainer we are dealing with a religion that took birth from others deaths.

[Allan]

@Justice - “there are a number of Moslims who are not out to destroy the West”

Right. The moderate ones will leave the West alone for now and settle for wiping Israel off the map and driving the Jews into the sea. As long as a Muslim is an Israel hater (and the vast majority are) he’s no “moderate” in my eyes.

A moderate is someone willing to compromise. Who will say “We have so many Muslim countries – you Jews are welcome to your one tiny country to alongside us in peace.” But of course they won’t. Even the few who feel that way know it would be worth their lives to declare it openly.

@Jancsi – Good for you for speaking the truth about that monster Mohammed. This evil “prophet” should be denounced at every opportunity as well as all the monsters who kill to defend his honor – as if he had any.

[Yosef ben Matitya]

H | January 21, 2015 at 05:45 PM

1- He's a very uncompromising man -very provocative and opinionated.

thanks G-d he was not elected to chief rabbi of the u.k.

He tends to see things in Black and White (most unlike lubavitchers I've known), and is certainly no hypocrite.

actually, 'all' lubavitchers see things in B&W. they are just trained to keep their opinions to themselves, lest they lose support. r' shoychet says it outright, as they usually do among ana'sh.

He has a point, but since when do we allow other religions to pin their values onto us?

actually the chief rabbi of iran recently declared also that the Charlie Hebdo people are 'chayav meeso'. (probably for his own reasons).

That is the central argument in my view, and offending someone or their beliefs is no defence to murder.

of course not.

[Yosef ben Matitya]

H | January 21, 2015 at 05:45 PM
2- http://news.walla.co.il/item/2821909?obref=obinsite
הרב הראשי של איראן: העלבת הנביא מוחמד – דינה מוות

דבריו של הרב גולסתאני-נז'אד מיוחסים לפיגוע במערכת העיתון "שרלי הבדו". לדבריו, "מי שפוגע בנביא האל – חייב בארבע מיתות בית דין". אמש הוענקה אזרחות צרפתית למוסלמי שהציל יהודים במרכול הכשר בפריז

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

Justice 8:34,
If you think viewing the CH magazine covers changes a normal moderate Moslem into a radical killing Moslem, then you are very naive.

Millions of people throughout the world have recently discovered CH and the fact that it says what needs to be said and the rest of us are too afraid to say. There's nothing wrong with keeping quiet because you're afraid of getting killed. Just admit that that's the reason you're not agreeing with CH.

A few weeks ago all the phonies of the USA were in an uproar about the North Koreans hacking Sony in response to that stupid movie about a plot to kill their leader. All the Hollywood types took umbrage and said they won't compromise their freedom of speech. Now let's see them make a similar movie about any Moslem leader.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jan/21/my-charlie-hebdo/

[barry]

Justice - If what you said that ALL such mockery accomplishes is radicalization, then these radicals would not attempt to silence such mockery with violence. The fact is that why some are radicalized, more are de-radicalized so that the overall effect is to weaken the religions power.

[Allan]

I found these comments very useful in defining who the TRUE lovers and defenders of free speech are - as opposed to those who are only “ fair weather friends” - i.e those who claim to like free speech but are still ready to throw it under the bus, as soon as the going gets tough. This latter group usually gives themselves away with the qualifier “but”

I’m all for free speech – “but” we should not mock religion (it’s OK for religion to mock atheism though)

I’m all for free speech – “but” we should not offend Muslims (of course they get to offend all the rest of us by calling us “infidels” and burning our flags).

I’m all for free speech – “but” we should not insult revered religious figures like Mohammed or the Pope or the Rebbe (but it’s OK for religion to insult revered scientists like Charles Darwin).

[Yosef ben Matitya]

Allan | January 22, 2015 at 12:41 PM

very, very well put, ...

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/opinion/chechnya-and-charlie-hebdo.html?referrer=&_r=0

[Alter Kocker]

If we are not prepared, as a free society to accept literature or depictions that will make us uncomfortable or will find objectionable, then we are not prepared to live in a democracy as free people.

If we are to censor, then where does that slippery slope begin and end. The good rabbi does so much to further our enemies' agenda.

[Shmarya Rosenberg]

dh –

There certainly are similarities between France and the US. If you check, you’ll see many other countries have much more draconian laws limiting speech than France does. Israel, for example. France is much closer to the US on this issue than Israel is.