Saturday: Hili dialogue

January 17, 2015 • 4:21 am

Professor Ceiling Cat gets a STEAK today, thanks to a kindly reader who has offered to buy him lunch in a fancy Chicago steakhouse! (I ate almost no meat while in India.) Sadly, Hili doesn’t get one: as she’s on a diet, her concerns are more mundane. The last line in the English dialogue doesn’t appear in Polish because, although Andrzej wanted to add it to the Polish version, there’s no Polish equivalent for that English phrase.

Hili: I’m wondering…
Cyrus: What about?
Hili: Whether your peeing on the plants might possibly harm them.
Cyrus: Piss off!

P1020212 (1)

In Polish:
Hili: Tak się zastanawiam…
Cyrus: Nad czym?
Hili: Czy to twoje obsikiwanie roślin nie może im przypadkiem szkodzić?

 

In D*g We Trust!

January 16, 2015 • 3:30 pm

Another elebenty gazillion readers sent me links to this story, which just begs to be told. As both CNN and the BBC report, there was a big error made when a Florida sheriff ordered carpeting for his office. From CNN:

A Florida sheriff’s office is sending back some official rugs after an embarrassing typo in them put the rug company in the doghouse.

The large green rugs with the black and yellow Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office logo included the phrase “In Dog We Trust” within one of its crests.

It was supposed to read “In God We Trust.” A deputy standing in the lobby spotted the error on Wednesday,according to CNN affiliate WFTS.

The Sheriff’s Office told WFTS that rug manufacturer, American Floor Mats, made the “In Dog We Trust” error. The company will replace them.

Here’s what the flubbed carpet looked like:

150115014036-florida-dog-we-trust-super-169

150114210519-sheriffs-carpet-in-dog-we-trust-large-169

This, of course, is quadruply offensive.  It shows a religious slogan in a public office (probably not illegal given that the phrase, with G*d, is the official motto of the United States), it is an egregious error that would anger the faithful, and it’s a waste of public money to order such a custom carpet. Regular readers can figure out the fourth problem.

h/t: JSP

Are the French hate-speech laws hypocritical?

January 16, 2015 • 1:20 pm

Short answer: yes.  It’s forbidden in France to engage in “hate speech,” which includes anti-Semitic remarks. Denial of the Holocaust is a crime across much of Europe, including France and Germany. This week the odious French comedian Dieudonné was arrested for saying that he felt not like Charlie Hebdo, but like “Charlie Coulibaly,” a reference to jihadist gunman Amédy Coulibaly who killed four people in a kosher grocery store. Dieudonné is a notorious anti-Semite, who performs a kind of Nazi salute during his performances and whose shows have been banned by the French government.

Should he have been arrested or censored? Nope. It’s hypocritical to prohibit making fun of some religionists but allowing some (as did Charlie Hebdo) to make fun of others. Yes, anti-Semitism, which is a criticism not of Judaism but of Jews, differs from simple criticism of Islam (the goal of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons), but too bad. It’s too hard to make that distinction when it comes to “hate speech,” for criticism of religion is often taken as criticism of believers. And, as Christopher Hitchens once said, denial of the Holocaust forces us to re-examine precisely what the hard evidence for the Holocaust is, and so even if it’s seen as anti-Semitic it should not be banned. I respect the hurt feelings of Jews no more than I respect the hurt feelings of Muslims.

I am a hard-liner when it comes to free speech: I think that no speech should be banned or criminalized save speech meant to incite imminent violence.  And I think Europe needs to truly embrace its democratic aspirations by decriminalizing “hate speech.” Yes, I’m aware that those laws come from a traumatic past and a sensitivity to newly-arriving cultural minorities. But it’s time to deep-six the hypocrisy that pervades the speech laws of Europe.

I am saying this because, though I thought my views were obvious, I’ve received several snarky emails this week from people who tell me that I’m a hypocrite because, as a secular Jew, I must surely agree with the French laws against anti-Semitic speech and yet defend the right to criticize Islam. One person, for example, sent me this cartoon:

jLkgar

And I also got this email, requesting that I “comment” but actually implicitly calling me out for hypocrisy:

Hi Prof Coyne

Thank you for reading this email. Can you comment on this article, in light of the recent discussions on free speech?
Thank you.
[name redacted]
I don’t know where these people are coming from, but they surely aren’t regulars at this site, and they’re making unwarranted assumptions that all Jews will defend “hate speech laws” protecting Jews.  I’m not one of those. Let the neo-Nazis have their marches and anger the Jews; let the anti-Semites call me—as they did in junior high school—a “dirty Jew.” Let the media mock Jews and Judaism all they want. I will respond, when necessary, with words—a weapon far more effective than the muzzle.

My New Republic piece on Charlie Hebdo, the Pope, and free speech

January 16, 2015 • 11:40 am

I’ve extensively rewritten and also lengthened the short piece I wrote the other day on Pope Francis’s dumb claim that mocking religion doesn’t count as free speech; it’s essentially a new piece, and has just been published in The New Republic as “Pope Francis is wrong about Charlie Hebdo. We have a right to make fun of religion.

If you feel so inclined, go read the new piece and give the journal, which has just been revamped, a few clicks. It’s a small price to pay for all my free content!