Voices
in
Japan

poll

Following the murderous attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, “Je suis Charlie” — I am Charlie -- has gone viral around the world as a show of support for free speech. However, there is a

57 Comments

Following the murderous attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, “Je suis Charlie” — I am Charlie -- has gone viral around the world as a show of support for free speech. However, there is also a growing number of “Je ne suis pas Charlie” — I am not Charlie — messages online, triggering a debate about free speech and its limits. Where do you stand?

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

I wonder about the people that would openly say "Je ne suis pas Charlie". Most likely they are from Russia or China and so have no respect for democracy either. Anyone have the stones to admit that?

-8 ( +8 / -15 )

Je ne suis pas Charlie mais je suis Ahmed.

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

The problem with this argument is, free speech is fine until you either a) make a depiction of Muhammed or b) openly poke fun at the religion of Islam. Change has to come within - If 'moderate' Muslims are just that, then they need to learn about the fundamentals of free speech. We are required to abide by Sharia law in areas where it's exercised, so why should we have to appease believers in our hard-earned democracies? They have the choice to choose not to read the likes of Charlie Hebdo.

17 ( +18 / -1 )

The problem with this argument is, free speech is fine until you either a) make a depiction of Muhammed or b) openly poke fun at the religion of Islam.

You left out c) look hard for the button marked "disaster" and push it to just to enjoy the fireworks.

Consider this: If I suggested that we all have the freedom of speech, 100 percent, unfettered, then that means we are free to make death threats. Suddenly all the free speech advocates start having reservations.

Now lets ask a Muslim citizen in a western nation: Which do you prefer we crack down on? Death threats or extremely offensive cartoons of Mohammad? What if they say they can live with the death threats but not these horrible depictions of Mohammad? What do we say? Hey, shut up and bow down to the tyranny of the majority!!

-15 ( +4 / -17 )

Seems like the killings were Jewish linked too. 4 of Charlies gunned down were Jews. Those in the Kosher store were too.

So the killers were crossing two ines at the same time.

Tollerance for humor is just as for region iw a given.

Move out of the country if you do not like tis freedoms. I am sure lots of Muslim countries would welcome back these animals.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Move out of the country if you do not like tis freedoms.

I don't remember any of them yelling anything about freedoms.

They yelled that they were avenging the prophet Mohammad.

For all we know, the might have been extremely happy France is so free because it gave them an excuse. For all we know, the attackers may not want anything to change.

I don't even remember moderates screaming for an actual change in law. I think they were just demanding respect, which is something we all show our friends.

Consider this: We have the freedom to tell our friends what we think of their girlfriend's or wife's body. We could well go into extreme detail about her boobs and her butt and ask all sorts of questions about what they are like. But we generally don't. Why? Because the only purpose it would serve is to make enemies of our friends. But there are people like that. They work at Charlie Hebdo.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Three million will turn out to support them, but only 60,000 were buying the mag.

I do care, but I do not want to be forced into a choice of je suis or je ne suis pas Charlie, so I will refrain from voting thank you.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I voted Option 3 as I don't think it matters either way in the long run.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The herding tendencies of the crowd is always amusing. I chose option 3. Stating that I would support this mag because I'm against terrorism would be hypocrisy since I think the mag is bad taste.

1 ( +8 / -8 )

@netminder I'm willing to tolerate the death threats. Just a lot of my countrymen in the US won't go so far. As for respect, it has to be earned, not given automatically. Not living with 7th century beliefs would be a start.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

all very laudable and probabaly the right thing to do, but you can just hear the fanatics and jihadists laughing at this - unfortunately peaceful demos are as nothing to them. if these carry on you can almost guarantee some awful bombing or shooting being carried out.....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As long as free speech maintains a level of respect and human dignity, then I'm all for it. On the other hand, there are A LOT of idiots out there.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@netminder I'm willing to tolerate the death threats. Just a lot of my countrymen in the US won't go so far.

Exactly. Pretty much everybody wants limits on the freedom of speech, just as long its the ones that suit them.

As for respect, it has to be earned, not given automatically.

So do you begin a conversation with rude gestures and insults? No, I think you begin with respect and remove it as necessary.

Not living with 7th century beliefs would be a start.

I think you should give people who have been brainwashed since birth something of a break. And I mean that for all religions.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I believe in free speech. I do not believe in silly things like these campaigns. Nobody else really do either, since they always move on to the next slacktivist flavor of the month nonsense like #kony2012, or #bringbackourgirls.

Just stop.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

No, I think you begin with respect and remove it as necessary.

Fine then. Respect has been removed from Wahabists. Islamic terrorism was around long before the cartoons of Muhammad, fyi.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Every country has restrictions on free speech. Hasn't the recent discussion in Japan been about how deplorable it is that Japan does not have anti-hate speech laws?

It's not so easy as printing a bumper sticker saying "I support free speech", there's a lot of genuinely nasty speech out there that is very difficult to support. France and most of Europe has laws criminalizing Holocaust denial, in Ireland blasphemy is a crime, in other countries defamation laws are quite strict, satire can be very restricted.

I think very few people who say "I support free speech" support truly FREE speech. Everyone wants some restrictions.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Pandabelle NOT me.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I believe in free speech, but as we all learn at a young age, your free speech may have repercussions.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Did they also satire Jesus and God?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Gokai.

Yes, they did as well as Jewish people, received complaints.

Satire is supposed to make you think with a good in cheek thrown in.

Many people are not fond of their brand of humour.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

"@Pandabelle NOT me"

So you were OK with the hate speech outside Korean schools in Kyoto? I wonder how OK you'd have been if it was your child attending such a school. Free speech absolutism is not the answer either.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Charlie is planning a Mohammed cartoon for the cover of the next issue. How much staff do they have, 60000 issues is not that big for a weekly.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@jcapan Wasn't be the first hate speech outside a school and won't be the last. Locking up the nutters only makes them crazier as we are seeing in Europe. At least it was just a speech and not terrorists with kalashnikovs...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I say this much, the changing demographics in Europe speak louder than any bomb in that sooner or later these muslims will be able to dominate not with bombs but with votes,the islamists will just use our own democratic laws & principles against the west.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Je ne suis pas et ne serai jamais Charlie!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@scipantheist

@Pandabelle NOT me.

Incitements to violence? Defamation? There are no limits whatsoever that are appropriate to you?

People should be allowed to say anything, anywhere, at anytime? Keep in mind speech is also cartoons, photos, etc. No restrictions on those at all in any case?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Consider this: We have the freedom to tell our friends what we think of their girlfriend's or wife's body. We could well go into extreme detail about her boobs and her butt and ask all sorts of questions about what they are like. But we generally don't.

If my girlfriend thought people should be killed for their satirical views, I'd want to know about it.

Stating that I would support this mag because I'm against terrorism would be hypocrisy since I think the mag is bad taste.

Then you're missing the point. Supporting free speech means supporting speech you don't agree with, including speech that you think is in bad taste.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I'm sure I haven't seen all the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo, but from the ones I have seen, the low circulation figures do not surprise me; as satire and humour, it's pretty low-level, low class. So in the sense of Do I feel a connection with Charlie Hebdo's sense of humour, then Non, je ne suis pas Charlie.

But, to paraphrase Voltaire, while I do not approve of what CH had/has to say, I absolutely agree with their right to say what they want to say, in the way they want to say it. If there is no free speech or freedom of expression for CH, there is no free speech or freedom of expression for me. In that sense, then very emphatically, Oui, je suis Charlie.

I listened yesterday on the BBC to an interview with somebody from the magazine, ridiculing the people joining in the Je suis Charlie march - these people, he said, were hypocrites, because they did not buy the magazine and thus did not really support Charlie Hebdo. I got the feeling that this person really did not get what Je suis Charlie means. I was also disappointed that the BBC interviewer did not take the opportunity to point out that you can defend someone's right to say something without necessarily agreeing with what they say.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@Pandabelle No one ever died from cartoons or photos.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It's hard to distinguish between those who are actually 100% behind free speech; and those who are only against people saying things they agree with being okay.

I've seen many people say "Je suis Charlie", who have:

1- called people racist just because they took the side of what the facts say in the Mike Brown case etc...

2- for what happened with Paula Deen saying the "n-word" 30 years ago and getting her fired.

3- getting Don Imus fired for a dumb joke.

4- anyone who says that they don't agree with gay marriage= disgusting homophobe.

I could go on and on.

So, yeah. Since everyone seems to be all for "free speech", I guess we'll see no more of these witch hunts, and forced apologies anymore.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

I see I'm among the 64% who stand with Je suis Charlie.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I hope secularism doesn't become just another blind dogma.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Cleo, of course, the two examples are not on the same level but there are commenters on here saying freedom of speech is an absolute and my point is if the targets of such speech are closer to home, then such principled stands would collapse in an instant. Sure, free speech is wonderful privilege yet it should be administered and calibrated according to societal norms, ever evolving.

Close up genzai right this minute is about hate speech, the human excrement trolling Tsuruhashi in Osaka, spewing filth to the Korean population there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Netminder - Mohammed was a human being who actually existed, as have many others before or after. If we want to draw him, it is fair. Where does the prohibition come on drawing him (other than other people saying that it is prohibted?).

You may be offended by drawings of Mohammed, but being offensive was not the purpose of these pictures and nor are they abusive of him. They are policitcal cartoons.

We recognise that there are limits somewhere to free speech, but the right not to be offended by something that you are not required to look at is not one of them. If the writer set out specifically to cause offense or insight violence, it would be another matter.

In the event that God/Allah actually exists and Mohammed had some special communication with him, then I am sure that the pair of them are big enough to look after themselves, and do not need overgrown adolescents with guns to sort out their insult.

To me, this is about childlike men killing adults about something that almost certainly does not exist over perceived offense that cannot be articulated. Imagine meeting an alien tomorrow and tryng to explain that. They would get back on their space ship and keep away from earth.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Free speech is one thing but to ridicule anothers religious beliefs and incite hatred, knowing that it could result in the deaths of innocent people, is is just pure irresponsibility and stupidity.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

"Courage always looks like stupidity to cowards." -Salman Rushdie

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I'm with nandakandamanda

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I am sure the peanut gallery supports free speech until your pet chickens such as neo-nazi feminism, affirmative action, and gay rights are lightly mocked.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How short-sighted to see “Je suis Charlie” as only about freedom of expression. It's a symbol against intolerance, religious fanatism and terrorism. It's all about freedom, democracy and respect to the victims and their ideas of "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité". So, I have absolutely no reservations to say “Je suis Charlie”. I wonder what those who agree with J-M Le Pen and say "Je ne suis pas Charlie" are for. And how about JT? Will we ever hear if JT is "Charlie"?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Probie, In the examples you mentioned, those people are free to make racist comments all they want, but I and others are perfectly free to denounce and ridicule them in response. As for being fired, I think companies also have the right to choose the people they want to represent them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Probie, In the examples you mentioned, those people are free to make racist comments all they want, but I and others are perfectly free to denounce and ridicule them in response. As for being fired, I think companies also have the right to choose the people they want to represent them.

First: There is a difference between making racist comments, and actually being a racist.

Second: Free speech is free speech.

People are free to be angry about what people say, I get that. My point is that all of the media that usually denounce people as being racist- usually taking what they said out of context and blowing it up for click-bait (Take a look at the Anthony Cumia case as a perfect example of this)- are now championing "free speech". That, is hypocritical.

Which all leads to the point I made:

It's hard to distinguish between those who are actually 100% behind free speech; and those who are only against people saying things they agree with being okay.

Most of the people I have seen saying "Je suis Charlie" were the first to jump on peoples' right for free speech when that person said something they didn't like; and they'll do it again.

Either really stand up for free speech, or move on to the next slacktivist cause, because you're full of crap. (Not you. I'm talking about the hypocrites and the click-bait media of today.)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

My name is not Charlie. I am, however, somebody that believes in freedom of expression, something that certain religions seem keen to stop for reasons of their own. In that respect, Charlie Hebdo was trying to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, much as magazines of this type do in a number of places. I applaud that work and, though my name is not Charlie, I gladly accept the spirit of what the phrase "Je suis Charlie" actually means. If that offends you, then tough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One religion should not have the power to censor the views of the entire human race. That is dangerous. Of the non-Islamic counrtries that criticized the magazine's latest publication both China and Russia were quick to vote it down. Freedom of expression (excluding calls to violence and hate crimes) is always a terrifying prospect to those who know they are on shaky ideological ground.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There are a few problems with what's going on. It's not just black and white.

So, you can support free speech in general but not support the manner or subjects Charlie Hebdo chose to satire.

The real problem here is the Muslim community needs to get very vocal and aggressive with these groups.

As is, the impression I get is very passive: Bad thing happens -> Extremist group claims responsibility -> Muslim community expresses shock and says "We're not all like that". Rather they should be expressing unanimously that "No, they are not Muslims at all".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am curious....How many Muslims attended the "March" in Paris? If they truly want people to believe that they are not all alike then that would have been a great opportunity. Maybe there were some there I do not know....if I were a believer...I would have gathered as many Muslims as I could and stated to the media that "We would like to march with you...if you will have us" and then denounced the attacks.

I read that some Muslims are scared to speak out due to the fact that they may be labeled a traitor and there for....killed. However many believe to say nothing or do nothing is to condone said acts of violence, which in turn leads some to believe that because of your group affiliation you are inherently bad.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wherep's the gray zone? I am and I am not Charlie? I do support freedom of expression, but not the way Hebdo did. And I know tens of people who think the same.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

People are starting to find out about the way Charlie also criticized (that is too polite a term) Christianity. Do a google image of "Charlie Jesus". Some of their pictures of Jesus are obscene. And I'm not a Christian by the way.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Mohammed was a human being who actually existed, as have many others before or after. If we want to draw him, it is fair.

Historicity has no relevance. The rules should be the same for historical figures like Muhammad as for fictional figures like Bilbo Baggins, Yahweh and Allah.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sciapantheist. Cowardice is expressing yourself with a cartoon knowing it may well result in innocent people dying. I see nothing courageous about that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

John Constantine, from the TV coverage it would seem that there were many Muslims in the crowds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From Probie... I've seen many people say "Je suis Charlie", who have:

1- called people racist just because they took the side of what the facts say in the Mike Brown case etc...

2- for what happened with Paula Deen saying the "n-word" 30 years ago and getting her fired.

3- getting Don Imus fired for a dumb joke.

The Facts in Mike Brown? What consistent facts? Prosecuters across the US criticized the prosecuter in the Mike Brown case for manipulating the "facts". We don't know all the facts at all because of misinformation. With so many witnesses and stories and even different autopsy specialists and physics professors challenging the "facts" we were given...It's like trying to say who and how Kennedy was shot. The facts aren't all "FACTS".

Paula Deen was said to have used the N-word more recently. Only "she" said it was 30 years ago. Of course! She is the accused! It was more about fostering an environment where people were made to feel inferior due to race or creed etc, not because they sucked at their job. Her son also was involved. So if this person represented your brand it is up to you to decide if your brand is worth that person. And the public has a say when they do the buying. The price you pay for being fake to get people's money when they lose faith in you.

A dumb joke from Don Imus. Yeah its free speech to say that a group of mostly black women are nappy headed hos huh? Don Imus is old school and grew up in the days where saying blacks were nappy headed as a way to show they were inferior to straight haired whites was common. Talk to many who grew up in the 40s and 50's. For women that is hurtful more than most guys. We go bald. Women link some of their beauty to hair. (For many not all) its hurtful and personal. He called them hos. A street vernacular for whores. I never heard him say "those hos are fine" to describe a pretty group of women he liked? Have you? If your daughter was among the targeted you would at least want an apology right. Young college age women. An age where we all are discovering ourselves and learning to deal with how the world sees us.

These things you say were witch hunts but I say proper reactions to free speech that insults or hurts for many people to come out against them. Killing someone over it is a bit too far. Free speech is important but teaching your young children from an early age the golden rule of treating others how you yourself would want to be treated is more important. Maybe humor shouldn't be censored, but many use it as an excuse to hide their predjudices behind. I am sure there were many like that at Charlie Hebdo. But they deserved their free speech and they deserved whatever ridicule that was thrown at them as a result. But they also deserved to live

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Steve Crichton;

" Free speech is one thing but to ridicule anothers religious beliefs and incite hatred, knowing that it could result in the deaths of innocent people, is is just pure irresponsibility and stupidity. "

So you are saying that when a group of people enforces their feelings of being offended with death threats and murder, THEN we should shut up and respect them. No?

That for me is the issue. Everybody can feel offended, and there ways to respond to that. But demanding submission enforced by death threats is an entirely different ballgame. In that case, we have to stress that yes, we do have freedom of speech and that includes the freedom to offend. If we went to protect our modern civilization, that is.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Je ne suis pas Charlie. Je ne suis pas "anti-religious bigot" I mourn for the people who died, including the cartoonists, and abhore those murderers who gunned them down. However, fond of satire though I may be, there are some lines that should not be crossed. Accordingly, there is no way in hell I'll call myself Charlie when they mock what I believe in.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Accordingly, there is no way in hell I'll call myself Charlie when they mock what I believe in.

They can mock my beliefs all they want and I will still support them. The line that they crossed was an important one. If people take themselves too seriously, they should be mocked. An irrational taboo on the depiction of Mohammed is one of them. Could either of those killers articulate the reason for this taboo? I doubt it and quite frankly, Charlie Hebdo is not going to lead to people committing the sin of idolatry.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/15/393255/Charlie-Hebdo-lying-about-free-speech

I support freedom of speech but I don't support double standard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every anime/manga artist in Japan is Charlie.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Désormais 7th Janvier sera Mock Islam Jour.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites