Paris shooting. 17 dead

[Guest sibon]

My view is that publishing cartoons ridiculing some fictional "God" is no different to the four lions ridiculing Islamic Terrorists.

 

Your view is very wrong.

 

But neither action justifies violence of any kind.

 

They could both provoke discussion. That would be a good thing.

[cardoor 10]

Your view is very wrong.

 

But neither action justifies violence of any kind.

 

They could both provoke discussion. That would be a good thing.

 

IMO Your view is very wrong. That's why free speech must be protected at all costs. Free-speech is non-negotiable.

[Guest sibon]

IMO Your view is very wrong. That's why free speech must be protected at all costs. Free-speech is non-negotiable.

 

Then my view is absolutely correct. Try reading all of the posts in the run up to mine. Get the context. Think for a minute.

[Obelix 11]

Free-speech is non-negotiable.

 

It's eminently negotiable. You don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded building for example, unless there is actually a fire of course...

[Manchild 10]

My view is that publishing cartoons ridiculing some fictional "God" is no different to the four lions ridiculing Islamic Terrorists.

 

At least islamic terrorists are real though.

[cardoor 10]

Then my view is absolutely correct. Try reading all of the posts in the run up to mine. Get the context. Think for a minute.

 

In your opinion it is correct. You can't put limitations on free-speech, coz then it ain't free-speech. Think for a minute.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2015 at 04:59 ----------

 

It's eminently negotiable. You don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded building for example, unless there is actually a fire of course...

 

Threats and false alarms are obviously not opinions. Free-speech isn't negotiable, it can't be. That's what Free-speech is all about. The point of free speech is that its for EVERYONE. Even the stuff thats offensive, close to the mark, over the line and unbalanced.

Edited January 10, 2015 by cardoor

[Mr Bloom 10]

People found placards calling british soldiors "baby killers" and what not offensive as well as the poppy burning incident yet you expect the prophet Of Islam to be ridiculed without any repercussions?

Where was the poppy burners right to offend?

Where was the Luton soldiers homecoming protestors right to offend?

Bloody hypocrites if you ask me........

 

I expect in a democratic European country, people to be able to mock any religion they choose in a cartoon, and not live under the threat of death for it. Do you think I expect too much? What level of repercussions do you expect for people who, to borrow your words, 'ridicule the prophet of Islam' by drawing a cartoon?

[anfisa 10]

Then my view is absolutely correct. Try reading all of the posts in the run up to mine. Get the context. Think for a minute.

 

Not just me then that has their posts taken out of context.

[Baz1 29]

I'm not sure they are drawn to offend. But they are drawn as satire to highlight the social issues and offensive attitudes and behaviour of those who represent religion.

 

Which had a deep focus on Muslims- Charlie Hebro only showed its racist,bigot attitude.

 

If they believed so much in free speech- where was the mockery on Jews..why was one of their employees sacked for making what was seen as an anti-semite remark.

 

Double standards my friend.

 

I want to share some extracts from a very good view taken from Medium.com- it rings some home truths.

 

Even before the real facts were confirmed, politicians and the public were quick to tell the story of how “foreigners” were attacking “French Freedoms”. It’s not a new story, but now with the Charlie Hebdo killings, it’s has reared its head again

 

Before we look at the reaction to the incident, there needs to be something made clear about the Charlie Hebdo magazine. The way Charlie Hebdo portrays Muslims is not just an attack on the religion itself, nor is it in any way logical or reasonable. Its crass nature is not just anti-religion, but also racist against Arabs, as well as posses a deep and irrational hate of Muslims

.

 

If you were to replace the same level of insult, bigotry & crass stereotypes with women or black people, would the magazine not be in breach of the law? If you can’t draw black people with big lips, big noses with a negative sentiment, why is it allowed for Arabs or Muslims? Sure, the cartoonists did not deserve to be killed, but they certainly deserved to be arrested and prosecuted for inciting racial or religious hatred.

 

Did France do anything about this? No.

 

Instead, the reaction we got from Europeans on social media is one of the usual ideological and cultural fever. The press largely assumed that the gunmen had links to al-qaeda or ISIS, despite that this is something yet to be confirmed. Vocal parts of the white European public went a step further and connected them to Muslims as a whole; you know, those barbaric cultural infidels that follow the backward religion called Islam.

 

How dare these Muslims attack the cartoonist of Charlie Hebdo, those great supporters of “Freedom of Speech”, liberty and promotion of social harmony. Why should the white European therefore tolerate such undemocratic and uncivilised behavior like the killing of innocent commentators and journalists? Maybe when Israel does it perhaps? Or maybe only when white journalists are killed by ISIS, but not Muslim or coloured journalists?

 

The problem with the people mourning and raving for revenge of this tragedy, is not just that they only become moral paladins when white Europeans are killed and give quick dismissals of any “other” that suffer the exact same fate, it is also because they are the ones that are actively calling for the “clash of civilisations”.

 

Infact, contrary to popular belief, there are far more white Europeans calling for this than anyone else and that is indicative by the rise of fascism in Europe.

 

Contrast the white European reaction to Anders Brevik. For starters, the Western press immediately assumed that he was a Muslim. The far right, Christian Islamophobic extremist, went to bomb and gun 77 innocent people dead. At no point were we made to think that we have to hate or blame or demand allegiance from white European men and women. Nor was there any demand to hold them and their cultural ideology personally accountable. Miracles of miracles, he was not even called an ideologically driven terrorist.

 

I will leave that as the last quote- think some of you on here need to look at yourselves a bit closer...and ponder.

[Guest sibon]

In your opinion it is correct. You can't put limitations on free-speech, coz then it ain't free-speech. Think for a minute.

 

I haven't suggested putting limitations on free speech. I suggested that the cartoons and the Four Lions film were different. They are different. They provoke different reactions.

 

Neither are wrong though.

 

I suggest that you brush up on the concept of freedom of speech as soon as you possibly can. You seem confused by the idea.

[Zamo 10]

Which had a deep focus on Muslims- Charlie Hebro only showed its racist,bigot attitude.

 

If they believed so much in free speech- where was the mockery on Jews..why was one of their employees sacked for making what was seen as an anti-semite remark.

 

Double standards my friend.

 

I want to share some extracts from a very good view taken from Medium.com- it rings some home truths.

 

Did France do anything about this? No.

 

I will leave that as the last quote- think some of you on here need to look at yourselves a bit closer...and ponder.

 

I think you have a very bitter and twisted outlook that is borderline dangerous. You are pathetic.

[onenerveleft 10]

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam) among the people of the book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Quran 9:29)

 

The religion of peace.

 

 

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property � either as a child, a wife, or a concubine � must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.� - Churchill