You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of democracy, social justice and the equality of mankind in your own native soil. [Mohammed Ali Jinnah]

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The French Government's hypocrisy, Islam and Holocaust revisionism

A nice article revealing France's double standards. Here's an excerpt:

"..........Clearly, as the cases of Redeker and Faurisson show, one has the right to attack and violate the sacred beliefs of Muslims, but one has no right whatsoever to question and repudiate the Holocaust doctrine, one of the most sacred beliefs of Jewish-Zionism. The sacred belief and taboo of the Jewish people is enshrined in law in France. If you contest the Holocaust, you are prosecuted and persecuted.

However, the sacred beliefs of Muslims are not enshrined in law. If you attack Muslim beliefs, this is depicted as an expression of "freedom of speech." Once again, this is evidence of a hypocritical double
standard. I have come across another case which further bolsters my point........"
junyDada: The French Government's hypocrisy, Islam and Holocaust revisionism

Blogged with Flock

3 comments:

XB said...

There are differences in the cases. One is disputing historical accounts. Other is questioning faith.

It is true that the freedom of speech should extend to line of questioning that most people would despicable. so work questioning the holocaust should have been published and the public would have ignored it.

In the same way, no faith can be immune from attacks or questions. You can find a wealth trove of literature on christian faith, that are as spirited in their attacks.

If as Muslem or Non Moslem, if people strongly about it, they should find a way to make their displeasure heard and voices counted. In a truly free society, it is a chorus of many and voices of reason drown the voices of hatred and vitriol.

French governments change, different courts on appeal come to different conclusions. So it is not easy to blame a society always because it didn't work at its finest in a particular instance.

Katchukuma said...

First of all, I think the author did not at all point out the French nation, instead, the current government; and thanks to the word democracy, it does imply that French government, to some extent represents the French nation at large. So the two are not entirely mutually exclusive in a lot of senses.

Secondly, nothing in this "scientific" world of today is to be held as a sacred cow, even if it's a historical event such as holocaust, which btw has a lot of controversies surrounding even its exact dates or wreckage and causes. So why close the doors of research on it, and let it be a holy cow for Zionist to make it the justification for everything that happened after it. For god's sake, look at what is happening to Palestinians today due to Israel. They are the ones who are being made to pay for what happened to jews in holocaust, according to jewish belief system. All that the poor revisionists are asking is to question the authenticity and extent of that event.

The article just shows the contrast in French Government's attitude in handling the instigators against two different belief systems.

And by the way, in the case of revisionists of holocaust, they are doing actual serious scientific research, but in the case of cartoonist, they are actually just making a mock of religion Islam. Only an intellectually dishonest and emotionally insensitive person would consider the two acts same!!

Zeeshan Ali Rana said...

Xb said: "In a truly free society, it is a chorus of many and voices of reason drown the voices of hatred and vitriol."

Wht if voices of reason are not allowed to be raised or such voices r suppressed b4 they could rise??? In such a case voices of hatred will down the suppressed voices of reason. As in the case of french law mentioned in the article, a person trying to reason on the concept of holocaust has been punished, whereas another person showing disrespect to a religious belief has been provided protection... is this how u define a 'free society'?

XB said:
"One is disputing historical accounts. Other is questioning faith."

I believe faith is more sacred than historical accounts. So when french law permits attacks on a faith, then why doesn't it allow the same on historical accounts? Even if it is not sacred, the law should allow attacks on either both or none.