[Apologies, this has been ready since last March, I have no clue why I didn't post it right away. Uni has taken its toll on me quite remarkably this semester I guess.. Anyhow, continue reading!]
...Has been suspended from the House of Dior due to "using anti-Semitic insults in a Paris bar".
Now let me get this straight, you're firing the top designer of Dior because of an 'insult' he made? This man has been with Dior since 1996. He racks in 700 million Euros annually. Was that a strong enough reason to suspend him entirely?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning talking about any race or religion in an inappropriate manner.. But come to think of it:
1- He's his own free person, and isn't freedom of speech the number one sought after right anywhere in the world? Whenever someone CAN'T say something the world roars about how deprived that person is and how freedom of speech is a must.
2- Assuming that his slur was regarding any another religion, would the Dior House have reacted in the same manner they did here? I highly doubt so. Like, really highly doubt so. And I say this with proof..
Exhibit A:
The Dutch Cartoon Controversy of 2005.
As many may remember, a Dutch newspaper had put out an announcement for a contest to who could draw the best "Muhammad" cartoon. On 30 September 2005 they said:
"the Jyllands-Posten daily newspaper ("The Jutland Post") published an article entitled "Muhammeds ansigt" ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of 12 cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:
"They [Muslims] demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where one must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him."
After the cartoons had been published, protests in Muslim countries had sparked. The backlash prompted the newspaper to apologise, but the Danish government defended its right to freedom of expression.
Going back to Mr. Galliano's case, I'll re-quote what I need here: "It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech" Wasn't Galliano expressing his freedom of speech? Why was he condemned for it? Is it not what the world demands? Shouldn't semitism be "ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule"? Or is it "insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings"?
IRONICALLY
Exhibit B:
A group of Muslims had drawn a cartoon themselves. The cartoon shows two men, beneath an 'Auschwitz' sign. The Arab European League published the cartoon on their website. What do you think happened then? Denmark went nuts, fined the Muslim cartoonists 2500 euros (3200$), and quite frankly I don’t know what else. The Dutch court indicated that the cartoons were "unnecessarily hurtful" and pointed out that "the European Court of Human Rights, which considers freedom of speech of paramount importance and defends it thoroughly, makes an exception for the denial or trivialization of the Holocaust"
Why?
Here’s the excerpt I need, excuse the repetition if any:
“They [Muslims] demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where one must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule.”
Um, excuse me? The “Muslims” demand special position and consideration? This is clearly not the case. Its been proved over and over again that any anti-semitic comments aren’t tolerated whatsoever and the people behind them are prosecuted, fined, jailed, and kicked out of their jobs as in Mr. Galliano’s case.
Not to mention the Mel Gibson anti-Semitism case back in ’06, and Charlie Sheen a little while back was told he was "borderline anti-Semitic" too after an interview with Chuck Lorre -his producer. These people are dragged to the ground and stripped of any titles or positions they held. They're ridiculed and stigmatized. All for expressing their simplest right, their freedom of speech.
That's not the part that irks me though, it's how inconsistent the world is in its reaction towards these religious/racial slurs.
I rest my case, I'll leave the rest for you to decide.
Again, I want to make my point clear, I do not condone ANY insensitive, rude, derogatory, or belittling comments towards people from any ethnicity or religious background, and I do not condone what Galliano said, but I deeply condemn the hypocrisy around this issue as the major movers and shakers of the world have proved to me time and time again how biased they are towards who they want.
June 2011 update:
According to the Financial Times, "if found guilty, Galliano could face up to six months in prison and a fine of €22,500 (US$31,187)." A Paris court had ordered he stand trial on charges of "public insults based on the origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity" against three people. The trial commenced on 22 June 2011.
^Note they've turned into three people now [A third lady popped up saying she faced the same situation from John last October, before this whole incident began.] They're actually making the man go into trial over a remark he made at a bar. Court trial. And I'd bet my entire savings account that if those insults were made towards a Muslim -especially- or a person of any other religion on that matter, not a leaf would've been turned in their defense. Yet its the Muslims who ask for special consideration, eh?
M A D W O R L D.
I'm sick of it.
