Shootings in Paris

[Metal Biker]

Okay, you've established that you believe Charlie Hebdo were irresponsible in publishing those pictures. You've said that enough times.

What you're failing to accept is that that sort of viewpoint gives the impression that those murdered at the Charlie Hebdo offices were in some small part responsible for their own deaths at the hands of extremists as they should have known it would eventually result in someone unstable taking great offence and acting upon it. Your belief that they must have known that it would anger some extremist nutters and the moment it was published they effectively signed their own death warrants.

That is a view I and others find abhorrent. They are completely blameless for what happened, and none of your opinionated, misguided drivel is going to change mine or many others opinion that "they had it coming and should have known better".

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm arguing against the belief some hold that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is 'understandable' due to the provocation of the drawings and that they themselves were responsible for what happened to them so that the solution in tackling extremism and the prevention of future attacks, should be focussed solely on restricting the actions of what Charlie Hebdo rather than tackling the evil intent of the murderers themselves. As previously stated it's like saying that rape incidents are ''understandable'' as women are aware that some men "are just like that" and dressing in an alluring fashion has been proven to attract the attentions of men who won't take no for an answer, so that when a horrific attack occurs, the victim has to accept in part some of the blame. Therefore in order to tackle rape we should encourage women to dress modestly.

It's ludicrous and deeply disrespectful. It means people are being forced to live in fear and are prevented from expressing themselves and their views freely because of the "fact that we all know" that there are a few oddballs living in the world. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility, we're all aware of this, but whenever that privilege is abused it is NOT the responsibility of any individual to take the law into their own hands. If you believe your rights and sensitivities have been breached or disrespected then you inform the authorities. If they come back and tell you that no crime has been committed, and therefore you feel that the society in which you reside is not protecting or considering your rights, you have the freedom to move to a place which does share your sensibilities, not pick up an assault rifle and commit acts of murder to place fear into the society unless it changes its acceptance of your views and what you find offensive.

I am against the suggestion that combating terrorism means having to alter OUR way of life to accommodate THEIR warped views on respect. I am not a muslim, I am under no legal obligation to appreciate, respect or consider anything about that or any other religion. I use my own sense of moral decency not to go around insulting, victimising or being antagonistic to anyone who is on the basis that I hold respect for the laws which allow freedom of expression. Without wishing to insult you, your view seems to suggest one of cowardice, that the best way of reducing the effect of terrorist acts is to show 'empathy' to their complaints, adjust society to something they would find acceptable to their views, as that is the best way to prevent more attacks on peaceful civilians. But if you "give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk"

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Okay, you've established that you believe Charlie Hebdo were irresponsible in publishing those pictures. You've said that enough times.

What you're failing to accept is that that sort of viewpoint gives the impression that those murdered at the Charlie Hebdo offices were in some small part responsible for their own deaths at the hands of extremists as they should have known it would eventually result in someone unstable taking great offence and acting upon it. Your belief that they must have known that it would anger some extremist nutters and the moment it was published they effectively signed their own death warrants.

That is a view I and others find abhorrent. They are completely blameless for what happened, and none of your opinionated, misguided drivel is going to change mine or many others opinion that "they had it coming and should have known better".

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm arguing against the belief some hold that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is 'understandable' due to the provocation of the drawings and that they themselves were responsible for what happened to them so that the solution in tackling extremism and the prevention of future attacks, should be focussed solely on restricting the actions of what Charlie Hebdo rather than tackling the evil intent of the murderers themselves. As previously stated it's like saying that rape incidents are ''understandable'' as women are aware that some men "are just like that" and dressing in an alluring fashion has been proven to attract the attentions of men who won't take no for an answer, so that when a horrific attack occurs, the victim has to accept in part some of the blame. Therefore in order to tackle rape we should encourage women to dress modestly.

It's ludicrous and deeply disrespectful. It means people are being forced to live in fear and are prevented from expressing themselves and their views freely because of the "fact that we all know" that there are a few oddballs living in the world. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility, we're all aware of this, but whenever that privilege is abused it is NOT the responsibility of any individual to take the law into their own hands. If you believe your rights and sensitivities have been breached or disrespected then you inform the authorities. If they come back and tell you that no crime has been committed, and therefore you feel that the society in which you reside is not protecting or considering your rights, you have the freedom to move to a place which does share your sensibilities, not pick up an assault rifle and commit acts of murder to place fear into the society unless it changes its acceptance of your views and what you find offensive.

I am against the suggestion that combating terrorism means having to alter OUR way of life to accommodate THEIR warped views on respect. I am not a muslim, I am under no legal obligation to appreciate, respect or consider anything about that or any other religion. I use my own sense of moral decency not to go around insulting, victimising or being antagonistic to anyone who is on the basis that I hold respect for the laws which allow freedom of expression. Without wishing to insult you, your view seems to suggest one of cowardice, that the best way of reducing the effect of terrorist acts is to show 'empathy' to their complaints, adjust society to something they would find acceptable to their views, as that is the best way to prevent more attacks on peaceful civilians. But if you "give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk"

Well said. It appears that there are a few people who believe that appeasing fundamentalist fruitcakes such as the murdering scum responsible for this atrocity, is the best way of avoiding their murderous rage. We have also heard that the 'vast majority' of muslims
abhor these acts and would never condone or justify such acts, something that I wholeheartedly agree with.
With this in mind, and knowing that this enormous majority is with us, and have no intention of blasting us with Kalashnikovs if we happen
to draw a picture of a religious icon, why then are some trying to say that drawing pictures is provocative and we mustn't do it as it stokes the ire of a few murderous nutters?
This is craven appeasement and pandering to the men of violence, and essentially saying that we can lampoon and ridicule any religion or political structure apart from islam; well, for me, that is just plain wrong and manna to the likes of the ranting hate mongers and radicalised
inadequates that, regrettably are amongst us in some numbers.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Okay, you've established that you believe Charlie Hebdo were irresponsible in publishing those pictures. You've said that enough times.

What you're failing to accept is that that sort of viewpoint gives the impression that those murdered at the Charlie Hebdo offices were in some small part responsible for their own deaths at the hands of extremists as they should have known it would eventually result in someone unstable taking great offence and acting upon it. Your belief that they must have known that it would anger some extremist nutters and the moment it was published they effectively signed their own death warrants.

That is a view I and others find abhorrent. They are completely blameless for what happened, and none of your opinionated, misguided drivel is going to change mine or many others opinion that "they had it coming and should have known better".

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm arguing against the belief some hold that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is 'understandable' due to the provocation of the drawings and that they themselves were responsible for what happened to them so that the solution in tackling extremism and the prevention of future attacks, should be focussed solely on restricting the actions of what Charlie Hebdo rather than tackling the evil intent of the murderers themselves. As previously stated it's like saying that rape incidents are ''understandable'' as women are aware that some men "are just like that" and dressing in an alluring fashion has been proven to attract the attentions of men who won't take no for an answer, so that when a horrific attack occurs, the victim has to accept in part some of the blame. Therefore in order to tackle rape we should encourage women to dress modestly.

It's ludicrous and deeply disrespectful. It means people are being forced to live in fear and are prevented from expressing themselves and their views freely because of the "fact that we all know" that there are a few oddballs living in the world. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility, we're all aware of this, but whenever that privilege is abused it is NOT the responsibility of any individual to take the law into their own hands. If you believe your rights and sensitivities have been breached or disrespected then you inform the authorities. If they come back and tell you that no crime has been committed, and therefore you feel that the society in which you reside is not protecting or considering your rights, you have the freedom to move to a place which does share your sensibilities, not pick up an assault rifle and commit acts of murder to place fear into the society unless it changes its acceptance of your views and what you find offensive.

I am against the suggestion that combating terrorism means having to alter OUR way of life to accommodate THEIR warped views on respect. I am not a muslim, I am under no legal obligation to appreciate, respect or consider anything about that or any other religion. I use my own sense of moral decency not to go around insulting, victimising or being antagonistic to anyone who is on the basis that I hold respect for the laws which allow freedom of expression. Without wishing to insult you, your view seems to suggest one of cowardice, that the best way of reducing the effect of terrorist acts is to show 'empathy' to their complaints, adjust society to something they would find acceptable to their views, as that is the best way to prevent more attacks on peaceful civilians. But if you "give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk"

You've completely twisted what's been said to suit your agenda. No one, and certainly not me, has used the word "understandable" in relation to these attacks. There is certainly no justification for something so extreme but there was a serious risk of it happening. You talk about your own sense of moral decency and that's what I'm talking about as well. Had the magazine not published cartoons that most Muslims found offensive, then the events of Friday might well not have occurred. Would society have been worse off if they hadn't published them?

And there's another issue. Everyone is condemning the attack on the magazine (and rightly so) but there is at least some element of causation, however tenuous. Very few seem to have felt the same moral outrage over the murder of Jews, simply for the "crime" of being Jewish.

Perhaps a better example of what I'm saying is the argument advanced by people that there is a line between freedom of speech and inciting people to commit illegal acts. In other words, we can say what we like as long as it's not illegal to say it. Yet not that long ago, it wasn't illegal (and it wasn't considered to be that exceptional) to abuse black football players. We now realise, as a society, that it IS offensive to do these things and now it is illegal to do so. I don't want us pandering to the extreme views of fundamentalists but perhaps in a few years we might realise as a society that our free speech is seen by someone else as offensive, and act accordingly.

 

[vmsuhail]

Because religion is an idea, not a thing. You cannot hurt the feelings of "a thing".

It is also bollocks (though that is by the by), or would you refuse to deny Thor or Odin?

I din't get it completely. Heaven or hell or predestination or karma may be an idea. Muhammad (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) is not an idea by the way. Most practicing Muslims do love Muhammad (pbuh)

more than their parents

. So how is it that the feelings are not hurt.

Then they have my sympathies.

Had they been born in India, they would have those feeling perhaps for Ghanesh.
Had they been born in Alabama, they would perhaps have them for Jesus.
Had they been born in Sweden, 1,000 years ago, perhaps for Thor.
That they feel that way Mohammed is a quirk of fate, of their timing and place of birth and their indoctrination, nothing more. His, is just one of 7,000 or so recorded religions in human history and just as likely/unlikely as all of the others.

Religion is just an idea, an idea based on no evidence nor rationalism, hence defaming it is not the same as racism or anti-semitism, which was your question.

There lies the difference. To people outside religion, it is just an idea. To practicing followers of the religion, it is life itself and a meaning to their existence. As someone has mentioned, religion has its own rational, be it prophets, holy book, hell, heaven, resurrection whatever...

I got your point though, but I find it awkward when:
a) a monkey chant at Toure is against free speech and racist
b) a movie or a cartoon hurts a billion people and is totally fine and the value of free speech upheld, according to the law.

I am not against criticizing religion. It can be done in a civilized way without character assassination to the extreme levels. In my state (Kerala, South India) , public inter-faith debates and theist-atheist debates are common without provoking any riot/murderous consequences.

 

[Rascal]

Just seen this but the Hamburger Morgenpost HQ was fire bombed for reposting images from Charlie Hebdo.

Many on here will turn a blind eye and sympathise with the arsonists. Not that I agree with their principles or actions but if it was EDL or anti muslim protesters attacking a mosque then the same people will be strongly condemning it.

Who exactly on here would sympathise and turn a blind eye to such a crminal act?

 

[squirtyflower]

Of course they didn't deserve to die but Muslims take great exception to anything they see as disrespect towards Mohammed. Whether you think that's right or not is neither here nor there. The fact is that they do and there is a minority that is prepared to kill over it.

And they are murderous scum and if people changed what they said, drew or printed so as not to offend them, then they win with bully boy tactics.

It's not a case of winning or losing.
We tend to desist from knowingly offending people just because we feel we can do because we happen to be in a position of strength. It's called magnanimity. Also we usually tend to desist from needlessly offending people when we know there might be consequences. It's called discretion.
As responsible members of society we all modify our speech and behaviour depending on who we are talking to, so as not to knowingly offend people. We do it all day, every day, often without thinking, to facilitate the smooth running of society. If we went ahead and always said what we thought, we would have no friends, family, job and not be able to progress in life. We'd turn into thoroughly unpleasant people who nobody would want to know.

or a totalitarian state in which no-one wishes to live in

 

[Metal Biker]

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm arguing against the belief some hold that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is 'understandable' due to the provocation of the drawings and that they themselves were responsible for what happened to them so that the solution in tackling extremism and the prevention of future attacks, should be focussed solely on restricting the actions of what Charlie Hebdo rather than tackling the evil intent of the murderers themselves. As previously stated it's like saying that rape incidents are ''understandable'' as women are aware that some men "are just like that" and dressing in an alluring fashion has been proven to attract the attentions of men who won't take no for an answer, so that when a horrific attack occurs, the victim has to accept in part some of the blame. Therefore in order to tackle rape we should encourage women to dress modestly.

It's ludicrous and deeply disrespectful. It means people are being forced to live in fear and are prevented from expressing themselves and their views freely because of the "fact that we all know" that there are a few oddballs living in the world. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility, we're all aware of this, but whenever that privilege is abused it is NOT the responsibility of any individual to take the law into their own hands. If you believe your rights and sensitivities have been breached or disrespected then you inform the authorities. If they come back and tell you that no crime has been committed, and therefore you feel that the society in which you reside is not protecting or considering your rights, you have the freedom to move to a place which does share your sensibilities, not pick up an assault rifle and commit acts of murder to place fear into the society unless it changes its acceptance of your views and what you find offensive.

I am against the suggestion that combating terrorism means having to alter OUR way of life to accommodate THEIR warped views on respect. I am not a muslim, I am under no legal obligation to appreciate, respect or consider anything about that or any other religion. I use my own sense of moral decency not to go around insulting, victimising or being antagonistic to anyone who is on the basis that I hold respect for the laws which allow freedom of expression. Without wishing to insult you, your view seems to suggest one of cowardice, that the best way of reducing the effect of terrorist acts is to show 'empathy' to their complaints, adjust society to something they would find acceptable to their views, as that is the best way to prevent more attacks on peaceful civilians. But if you "give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk"

You've completely twisted what's been said to suit your agenda. No one, and certainly not me, has used the word "understandable" in relation to these attacks. There is certainly no justification for something so extreme but there was a serious risk of it happening. You talk about your own sense of moral decency and that's what I'm talking about as well. Had the magazine not published cartoons that most Muslims found offensive, then the events of Friday might well not have occurred. Would society have been worse off if they hadn't published them?

And there's another issue. Everyone is condemning the attack on the magazine (and rightly so) but there is at least some element of causation, however tenuous. Very few seem to have felt the same moral outrage over the murder of Jews, simply for the "crime" of being Jewish.

Perhaps a better example of what I'm saying is the argument advanced by people that there is a line between freedom of speech and inciting people to commit illegal acts. In other words, we can say what we like as long as it's not illegal to say it. Yet not that long ago, it wasn't illegal (and it wasn't considered to be that exceptional) to abuse black football players. We now realise, as a society, that it IS offensive to do these things and now it is illegal to do so. I don't want us pandering to the extreme views of fundamentalists but perhaps in a few years we might realise as a society that our free speech is seen by someone else as offensive, and act accordingly.

I don't have an "agenda", so don't come that with me.

That's suggesting i'm part of some movement or am associated with a larger group whenever you use the term "agenda". I've not twisted what YOU'VE said, i've commented on what OTHERS have been saying about appeasement to terrorism to avoid terrorism. If you've interpreted it that i've been twisting your words then that's your prerogative, it certainly wasn't my intention to make out that you didn't have a grasp on the whole incident. Without stroking your ego yours is an opinion I happen to agree with 99% of the the time and one I respect. On this occasion I was helping you understand the point I was making as I felt you may have misunderstood it. If you haven't, and you did understand completely and I have misunderstood you, then I apologise, but I personally don't think I have and still stand by the points I raised.

But enough of that, the claim about society being better off as a result of these pictures is not the point. I don't doubt for one minute that society as a whole has benefited from the doodles made by other cartoonists; maybe it has to some people, I don't know but again that is besides the point.

The point is that they are allowed to, and no amount of anger, vitriol or claims of being offended should prohibit someone expressing themselves in any which way they choose. If a 'line' has been breached that requires the authorities to get involved there are methods to do just that. Grabbing a gun and shooting is NOT one of those methods which is accepted. I am in total agreement about your views on the persecution of Jews in the world also.

Only today the resident population of Israel was referred to on Sky News by one of the correspondents as "Jews" rather that Israelis, highlighting to me the viewpoint some in society hold that anyone who is Jewish is an Israeli and therefore anything the Israeli government does which angers or offends others means its open season on anyone who is Jewish via guilt through association (not my personal views either and one I abhor, but something i've observed and heard in my own social circles).

I totally agree with you that time past many things we consider taboo were not. Who knows maybe in the future insulting prophets will be considered offensive to the point of legal prosecution and all depictions of God, Jesus, Mohammed, Allah, Jehovah and Moses etc, must be done tastefully. But in order to get to that point (whether I agree with that stance or not) should not come through acts of appeasing terrorism but the collective agreement of society as a whole. Some may view limiting what can be ridiculed as liberal regression, whilst others would see it as social progression.

But whatever happens, anger should not change society for the benefit of a select few who cannot control their emotions and resort to violence to get their own way. That is a view being shared on here, that offence, when pushed to the point of murder, shows that society must change it's ways. This is NOT an opinion or view I hold and place in contempt anyone who does think that way.

 

[Chancy Termites]

I din't get it completely. Heaven or hell or predestination or karma may be an idea. Muhammad (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) is not an idea by the way. Most practicing Muslims do love Muhammad (pbuh) . So how is it that the feelings are not hurt.

Then they have my sympathies.

Had they been born in India, they would have those feeling perhaps for Ghanesh.
Had they been born in Alabama, they would perhaps have them for Jesus.
Had they been born in Sweden, 1,000 years ago, perhaps for Thor.
That they feel that way Mohammed is a quirk of fate, of their timing and place of birth and their indoctrination, nothing more. His, is just one of 7,000 or so recorded religions in human history and just as likely/unlikely as all of the others.

Religion is just an idea, an idea based on no evidence nor rationalism, hence defaming it is not the same as racism or anti-semitism, which was your question.

There lies the difference. To people outside religion, it is just an idea. To practicing followers of the religion, it is life itself and a meaning to their existence. As someone has mentioned, religion has its own rational, be it prophets, holy book, hell, heaven, resurrection whatever...

I got your point though, but I find it awkward when:
a) a monkey chant at Toure is against free speech and racist
b) a movie or a cartoon hurts a billion people and is totally fine and the value of free speech upheld, according to the law.

I am not against criticizing religion. It can be done in a civilized way without character assassination to the extreme levels. In my state (Kerala, South India) , public inter-faith debates and theist-atheist debates are common without provoking any riot/murderous consequences.

Race, gender and sexuality are all genetically predisposed. Religions are points of view, ideas or opinions.

That makes a massive difference in my, and many others', minds.

 

[Damocles]

To be fair though you had previously stated your opinion about freedom of speech vs drawing a cartoon, which most people here I'd imagine, would have found ridiculous. I'm all for learning and looking at things in different ways. One of my favourite quotes is Asimov.

“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”

If you start sentences like "Freedom of speech is ok but..." that's where a lot of people will switch off. Once you start that, things go downhill. We in the west, as you call it, have a choice to insult and offend. It does not protect us from the consequences, and it shouldn't, but that choice is infinitely better than having no choice at all.

Funny thing is, if you exclude the whole element of fundamentalist religion people's opinion would be spun 180 degrees.

Do you support free speech that for example will cost British soldiers lives in the form of an intelligence leak? illegal

Do you support free speech that will incite a race war? illegal

Do you support free speech that will provoke the killing of the disabled? illegal

He is right, and many people would agree with him if he wasn't a Muslim from Pakistan. Free speech in this country absolutely has limits. This isn't even an argument, it's legislation.

The same people who are saying that they should "get over it" that Mohammed was disrespected are the same people who are saying that we should lock up a cleric for preaching hate towards the UK.

Drawing a picture of a half millenia dead fella isn't illegal and if you choose to live in the UK, then you have to abide by its rules.

A bit like I don't drink on the streets in Qatar or walk my dog on the Corniche.

None of those things are illegal. The illegality comes from the intention and not the consequence. Not sure if you've misunderstood the post or aren't clear on the laws.

 

[BrianW]

300-400 years ago in England, if you had said, written or published something the authorities deemed a blasphemy against the Christian God, you would have been severely punished. Perhaps not actually executed, but certainly it would have cost a flogging through the street, a branding, or the cutting off of your ears.

We have moved on from that. Partly because the majority are agnostic at best, if not actually atheist. Partly because the rest of us us have figured out that God is a big boy who can take care of himself. Indeed, given that he has infinite powers (assuming he exists) it is highly presumptuous for humans to act on his behalf. Who knows, He may even have a sense of humour.

The bottom line is this - if you are offended by a cartoon or a piece of writing to the point where you think you must go out and murder someone, then you have no place among us. Either change your attitude, or get out. This is an advanced, largely secular and liberal civilisation governed by the rule of law, and you only have the right to take life only in a very few, carefully defined situations - most of which will land you in front of a judge with some potential of long imprisonment if you made the wrong choice.

No one has a right to be 'not offended'. I am offended practically every day by something or someone, and if I committed murder every time half the population of Greater Manchester would be dead by now.