Discuss and explain religious discrimination law in France.

Write write an op-ed on a current event, issue, film, exhibition, or demonstration where you discuss its relevance to

biopolitics (1500 words).

I have written the op-ed but I would like yo to apply it to biopolitics.

This is the op-ed. I will attach reading from the. syllabus

Freedom of Speech � Sommes-nous Charlie?

French Law dictates:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.”

Religious discrimination Law in France

“France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap.”

To begin with, this short essay is not in any way justifying murder as a fitting punishment to a ill-guided anti-religious expression; it only serves as a counter debate to the “Je Suis Charlie” campaign, which in theory represents freedom of speech and does not pay any attention to the “defamatory and insulting” message that resulted in the horrific death of a cartoonist.

Charlie Hebdo, previously named Hara-Kiri first gained attention when the magazine�s vulgarity against politics and religion between 1961 and 1966 inevitably resulted in its temporary ban by the French government for mocking the death of Charles de Gaulle. In 1979 the magazine was resurrected, and renamed Charlie Hebdo.

In the religion of Islam it is widely believed not only that the prophet Mohammed should not be visually illustrated, but any prophet for that matter. Religious movies and TV shows in the Arabic culture portray prophets in a “light” it is not an image of anything it only indicates the presence of the prophet. In Islam, unlike in Christianity, it is believed that God “Allah” is the all mighty and has no children; and all the prophets are his messengers; the final messenger being Mohammed who delivers the message of Islam.

Mohammed is a messenger and a prophet. He is a very large part of the Islamic religion and a weekly cartoon dedicated to insult politicians is one thing but attacking a representation of religion is inflammatory racism.

Though I’m not quite sure why there is a weekly cartoon dedicated to insulting politics and religion, I do agree that every man and woman should have the freedom to express themselves and their opinion. However the cartoons are not opinions. And an opinion is not fact. For a person to draw a cartoon of a religious figure supposedly overlaying a message, of a religion they do not believe in (which translates to them not believing what followers believe) is inflammatory, insulting and racist to say the least.

The problem with the Je Suis Charlie campaign is that it contradicts a law while fighting for another. Yes we do believe in freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. We also believe in protecting people against hate speech, which is exactly what the cartoons represent.

A liberal mind is not a mind that either supports freedom of sexual choice (i.e. homosexuality) or accepts religious members of society. A liberal mind recognizes that in today’s world, a religious man and a gay man can sit together without fear of discrimination and or physical or verbal attacks. Thus, while trying to fight for freedom of speech are we also fighting against racial discrimination laws? The cartoon blatantly ignores all Islamic beliefs about a particular issue, which may seem minor compared to the horrific acts of a terrorist, but is still an ongoing issue.

Portraying Mohammed is a direct assault against a religion and according to Time magazine 47% of French People were opposed to the cartoon. The cartoon was not a funny spiff — it portrayed a male religious figure kissing another man wearing a Charlie Hebdo shirt. Gay marriage may be modernly legalized in America. But how does this give a cartoonist the right to use a Prophet to advertise same sex relationships? We may not need a prophet, a church or a rabbi to prove our beliefs. Religion is a spiritual aspect and not an outward entity. However this issue has risen time and time again in the media. And something needs to be done to separate freedom and blatant attacks on religion. So if we allow the attacks then we are promoting freedom but what does it say when we allow people to belittle religion? It is no joke to imply homosexuality in a religious figure; it is defamatory to say the least. Like a Muslim man is not in a place to tell a homosexual man to believe in same-sex marriage, a homosexual does not have the right to imply that Prophets were or supported homosexuality.

The sad thing is people use Islam as an excuse to fight, to be violent, and to murder. Painting one of the worlds largest and most widespread religions in an inaccurate and racist view. The Islamic religious constitution teaches tolerance to others’ belief and religions. Now more than ever, in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and other religions people need to create a boundary of respect between the believers and non- believers of a particular religion. I resent the term ‘extremist’ ‘jihadist’ and other terms used to describe crimes of people who claim they follow a particular religion, in this case, Islam. The criminal act against humanity needn�t bee associated with people’s religion. I do not believe that people who murder a man for a racist cartoon believe the lessons of any religion, let alone Islam. Therefore, like a man of society who is prosecuted for a crime they ought to be looked at objectively and anonymously. This also needs to exist in a judicial system to make for a fair trial. Not to say that people who commit such unspeakable crimes have earned their right for a fair trial, but in order to uphold society, we need to apply a law unbiased to a man’s race or actions. That said, the point of reprimanding criminals is justice and theoretically rehabilitation. Also, if they are not looked at as fighting for a cause or religion and mere immoral terrorists, it will take away from their will to commit such acts.

Had people not murdered Charlie, the real message could have been delivered in the right way. Maybe in the past the issue was not dealt with correctly. But, in today’s world the right person would have done something about it.

The issue is, we sadly still live in a world where people commit unspeakable crimes against humanity and hide behind larger constitutions. Some people hide behind ‘patriotism’, some hide behind ‘justice’, some hide behind ‘religion’. Truth is, the person who fights against the human rights we were taught by our country, our legal system, our religion or even our social environment is the least patriotic, just or religious. Because in conclusion, no matter what ethnicity, race or religion you were brought up in, they all have one thing in common: they do not encourage murder or hate crimes. Islamic law in basic terms suggests ‘an eye for an eye’. Thus in no terms may a terrorist justify killing a man for a cartoon.

Martin Luther King said it best “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” So we must simultaneously fight for freedom and protection. Somewhere along the way we will find a middle ground of speaking freely and respecting others� beliefs.


Last Completed Projects

# topic title discipline academic level pages delivered
6
Writer's choice
Business
University
2
1 hour 32 min
7
Wise Approach to
Philosophy
College
2
2 hours 19 min
8
1980's and 1990
History
College
3
2 hours 20 min
9
pick the best topic
Finance
School
2
2 hours 27 min
10
finance for leisure
Finance
University
12
2 hours 36 min