Shootings in Paris

[Chris in London]

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"

And yet you lock your door (I assume) when you leave your house to reduce the risk of being burgled.

It is an interesting, if perhaps dispiriting, argument as to how far we allow our principles and freedoms to be eroded in the name of pragmatism - that is to say, how far we allow the precautions we take to ensure we do not become victims of any sort of crime to start shaping our lives at the expense of our liberties.

What is I think important to remember is that this is a continuum - there is no magic tipping point at which our rights and liberties become more important than the precautions we take to protect our persons and property. Not leaving valuables on display when you park your car is obviously at the other end of the spectrum from self-censorship for fear of reprisals from extremist bigots, but they are both examples of exactly the same thing - living your life to a greater or lesser extent in a way that makes becoming the victim of a crime less likely. How far you allow your personal freedoms to be eroded in order to achieve a quiet life, before you say 'No, I'm taking a stand about this', is a rather personal thing - almost all of us accept that at least to some degree it is necessary to modify your behaviour to reduce the risk of becoming the victim of a crime in some way or other.


I'm not sure that saying 'not wanting to antagonise muslim fanatics is a form of cowardice' is any more valid than saying 'having a password on your internet banking ap is a form of cowardice'.

So my response to the threat of burglary should be "Give me a weapon, and allow me the right to defend my home brandishing the level of justice I wish"

Is that the sort of society you want? Well those days are past us, and we rely on the law to persecute and prosecute those who wish to harm us and satisfy the demands the law utilises to keep us all safe. What you're advocating is that when someone is aggrieved to the point they kill others we should listen to their concerns and then, without better judgement, simply appease them. We all live by the same laws, others choose not to, and in that choice they become subject to prosecution of the laws as decided upon by society.

You can become enraged, offended and downright disgusted at many aspects of society but the crux of the discussion is this; YOU CANNOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. If i am burgled and I kill the perpetrator I am committing a crime, regardless of the provocation or cause. Just because you may be offended by something does not mean everyone else will. WHEN everyone is offended, that is when society chooses to amend their laws. Criticism of religion is not considered offensive to everyone. Prejudice and discrimination against someone's religious beliefs is, and that is the difference to the debate.

I could choose to become Christian tomorrow and then the day after choose not to be. But in those brief 24 hours where I could announce my anger at the offensive depictions British media depicts Jesus Christ and that they should outlaw any publications of him under pain of death, are you suggesting that this is the way a progressive society operates? Homosexuality was outlawed, then British society realised it was ludicrous to punish people over something they had no control over, no say in becoming nor have any realistic ways of changing, so the law was abolished.

It comes down to two viewpoints; those who feel that religion should be protected from ridicule and placed under the protection of the law, and those who feel religious belief is a choice, one which can be altered instantly and is not based on any factual merit, therefore it is open to ridicule from those who do not share what the doctrine teaches or have a critical viewpoint of the religion as a whole. What is considered 'offensive' is a point of view, and society has already determined what is and what is not accepted as 'ridicule'. If you have a problem with that, then there are over 200 nations and societies around the world for which you can choose to belong.

What absolute drivel, I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that every single one of us makes our own judgments about how far we allow the threat of crime to go before we modify our own behaviour. The fact that someone chooses not to put themselves at risk (or greater risk) of a violent attack does not make them a coward.


I love your last sentence, by the way. "We're tolerant, and anyone who isn't can fuck right off."

 

[Metal Biker]

And yet you lock your door (I assume) when you leave your house to reduce the risk of being burgled.

It is an interesting, if perhaps dispiriting, argument as to how far we allow our principles and freedoms to be eroded in the name of pragmatism - that is to say, how far we allow the precautions we take to ensure we do not become victims of any sort of crime to start shaping our lives at the expense of our liberties.

What is I think important to remember is that this is a continuum - there is no magic tipping point at which our rights and liberties become more important than the precautions we take to protect our persons and property. Not leaving valuables on display when you park your car is obviously at the other end of the spectrum from self-censorship for fear of reprisals from extremist bigots, but they are both examples of exactly the same thing - living your life to a greater or lesser extent in a way that makes becoming the victim of a crime less likely. How far you allow your personal freedoms to be eroded in order to achieve a quiet life, before you say 'No, I'm taking a stand about this', is a rather personal thing - almost all of us accept that at least to some degree it is necessary to modify your behaviour to reduce the risk of becoming the victim of a crime in some way or other.


I'm not sure that saying 'not wanting to antagonise muslim fanatics is a form of cowardice' is any more valid than saying 'having a password on your internet banking ap is a form of cowardice'.

So my response to the threat of burglary should be "Give me a weapon, and allow me the right to defend my home brandishing the level of justice I wish"

Is that the sort of society you want? Well those days are past us, and we rely on the law to persecute and prosecute those who wish to harm us and satisfy the demands the law utilises to keep us all safe. What you're advocating is that when someone is aggrieved to the point they kill others we should listen to their concerns and then, without better judgement, simply appease them. We all live by the same laws, others choose not to, and in that choice they become subject to prosecution of the laws as decided upon by society.

You can become enraged, offended and downright disgusted at many aspects of society but the crux of the discussion is this; YOU CANNOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. If i am burgled and I kill the perpetrator I am committing a crime, regardless of the provocation or cause. Just because you may be offended by something does not mean everyone else will. WHEN everyone is offended, that is when society chooses to amend their laws. Criticism of religion is not considered offensive to everyone. Prejudice and discrimination against someone's religious beliefs is, and that is the difference to the debate.

I could choose to become Christian tomorrow and then the day after choose not to be. But in those brief 24 hours where I could announce my anger at the offensive depictions British media depicts Jesus Christ and that they should outlaw any publications of him under pain of death, are you suggesting that this is the way a progressive society operates? Homosexuality was outlawed, then British society realised it was ludicrous to punish people over something they had no control over, no say in becoming nor have any realistic ways of changing, so the law was abolished.

It comes down to two viewpoints; those who feel that religion should be protected from ridicule and placed under the protection of the law, and those who feel religious belief is a choice, one which can be altered instantly and is not based on any factual merit, therefore it is open to ridicule from those who do not share what the doctrine teaches or have a critical viewpoint of the religion as a whole. What is considered 'offensive' is a point of view, and society has already determined what is and what is not accepted as 'ridicule'. If you have a problem with that, then there are over 200 nations and societies around the world for which you can choose to belong.

What absolute drivel, I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that every single one of us makes our own judgments about how far we allow the threat of crime to go before we modify our own behaviour. The fact that someone chooses not to put themselves at risk (or greater risk) of a violent attack does not make them a coward.


I love your last sentence, by the way. "We're tolerant, and anyone who isn't can fuck right off."

I think you're reading things the way you want to read them, so I'll try again.

It is a form of cowardice to appease the bully rather than challenge the views of the bully himself.

Nobody is talking about individuals who do not wish to take an 'active' role in combating terrorism as being cowards, but the belief that the issue regarding 'offence' rests at the feet of how western society endorses its freedom of expression against those who feel that there should be some things which are exempt.

What they don't realise is that some things ARE scrutinised as being against the values of what freedom of expression is supposed to give and that when that is breached the law steps in and takes the necessary action required. Criticising religion being one of them, but discriminating against someone for holding their beliefs is not. Even though you can still do it, the law will take a dim view and punish accordingly if they feel an offence has been committed, as outlined to the standards of acceptability in accordance to societies laws which were decided by the collective majority.

One final note, you've pretty much hit what western society is, despite your attempt to be condescending.
This is how our society is, if you can't handle that, find one that appeals to you.

Freedom of choice
Freedom of speech
Freedom of expression - the core basis of our democratic society, ain't it marvellous.

 

[bumbleblue]

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.

Being black, or gay, or Jewish or Pakistani is not a choice.

Choosing to follow any one of a thousand or more (still practised) religions is, by its very nature, whichever way you try and rationalise it.

Ideas are there to be ridiculed. Islam is no worse than Christianity in this regard to its sensitivity, it is just half a millenia behind Christianity is all. 500 years ago, blasphemy was a sin punishable by death in many European countries also.

True but ..No one expects the Spanish Inquisition

 

[johnmc]

Metal Biker is hitting nails on heads left right and centre.

WHat is the (pbub) thing that people are putting after Jesus or Mohommed though?

 

[Metal Biker]

Metal Biker is hitting nails on heads left right and centre.

WHat is the (pbub) thing that people are putting after Jesus or Mohommed though?

Peace be upon him, said as a term of respect for the prophet mostly prominent in Islam.
They use it for Muhammad more, but often say it in respect to Jesus Christ as they consider him a prophet of the word of Allah, although Islam teaches that is was Muhammed who received the "definitive" version of God's Law.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Agreed, excellent posts Metal.

 

[vmsuhail]

Metal Biker is hitting nails on heads left right and centre.

WHat is the (pbub) thing that people are putting after Jesus or Mohommed though?

Peace be upon him, said as a term of respect for the prophet mostly prominent in Islam.
They use it for Muhammad more, but often say it in respect to Jesus Christ as they consider him a prophet of the word of Allah, although Islam teaches that is was Muhammed who received the "definitive" version of God's Law.

Just the final version of God's Law. Islamic prophetic line starts from Adam(as).

Quran - [002]
Say: We believe in God and that which had been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction (Arabic: Nufarriqu) between any of them, and to Him do we submit.

 

[vmsuhail]

Being black, or gay, or Jewish or Pakistani is not a choice.

Choosing to follow any one of a thousand or more (still practised) religions is, by its very nature, whichever way you try and rationalise it.

Ideas are there to be ridiculed. Islam is no worse than Christianity in this regard to its sensitivity, it is just half a millenia behind Christianity is all. 500 years ago, blasphemy was a sin punishable by death in many European countries also.

Ideas can be contested and should be. There is nothing wrong with writing an article on "how heaven/hell is absurd" or "why Quran cannot be divine" or "question the actions of Muhammad(pbuh)". But, does it have to be in the way it was portrayed in "innocence of Muslims". Couldn't it be done in a better way that does not enrage the other side so much ?

Yes it can, that's freedom of expression.

If you are offended you can complain about it to the local authorities. If they feel an offence against the law has been committed they will investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice. If not, as in accordance to what is acceptable in the laws of that society, then you have to accept that your offence at something is not shared by others. You can boycott it, campaign against it even encourage others not to endorse it. But the moment you commit murder against those who made the viewpoint you disagreed with you have proven that you are incapable of dealing with an opposing view, no matter how offensive you, personally, may find it.

This is how moronic it is; two blokes in a pub, one guy spills the others pint and he kills him for it. Society then asks why the pint was spilt and how can we prevent further pints from being spilt to prevent other instances.

I am in no way supporting the Muslim violent response to the events. It is wrong to take law into one's hands universally and Islamically as well. I was trying to understand how far the freedom of speech and expression can go. In India, the law itself prohibits deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any one. So, one can approach the law without a problem. Would like to know if there is any similar laws in England.

 

[malg]

OK, I'm beginning to get offended now. The next **** who puts Muhammad, and doesn't put PBUH after it, is in trouble. Show some respect you fuckers. I'll get your IP address.........

 

[Chris in London]

So my response to the threat of burglary should be "Give me a weapon, and allow me the right to defend my home brandishing the level of justice I wish"

Is that the sort of society you want? Well those days are past us, and we rely on the law to persecute and prosecute those who wish to harm us and satisfy the demands the law utilises to keep us all safe. What you're advocating is that when someone is aggrieved to the point they kill others we should listen to their concerns and then, without better judgement, simply appease them. We all live by the same laws, others choose not to, and in that choice they become subject to prosecution of the laws as decided upon by society.

You can become enraged, offended and downright disgusted at many aspects of society but the crux of the discussion is this; YOU CANNOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. If i am burgled and I kill the perpetrator I am committing a crime, regardless of the provocation or cause. Just because you may be offended by something does not mean everyone else will. WHEN everyone is offended, that is when society chooses to amend their laws. Criticism of religion is not considered offensive to everyone. Prejudice and discrimination against someone's religious beliefs is, and that is the difference to the debate.

I could choose to become Christian tomorrow and then the day after choose not to be. But in those brief 24 hours where I could announce my anger at the offensive depictions British media depicts Jesus Christ and that they should outlaw any publications of him under pain of death, are you suggesting that this is the way a progressive society operates? Homosexuality was outlawed, then British society realised it was ludicrous to punish people over something they had no control over, no say in becoming nor have any realistic ways of changing, so the law was abolished.

It comes down to two viewpoints; those who feel that religion should be protected from ridicule and placed under the protection of the law, and those who feel religious belief is a choice, one which can be altered instantly and is not based on any factual merit, therefore it is open to ridicule from those who do not share what the doctrine teaches or have a critical viewpoint of the religion as a whole. What is considered 'offensive' is a point of view, and society has already determined what is and what is not accepted as 'ridicule'. If you have a problem with that, then there are over 200 nations and societies around the world for which you can choose to belong.

What absolute drivel, I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that every single one of us makes our own judgments about how far we allow the threat of crime to go before we modify our own behaviour. The fact that someone chooses not to put themselves at risk (or greater risk) of a violent attack does not make them a coward.


I love your last sentence, by the way. "We're tolerant, and anyone who isn't can fuck right off."

I think you're reading things the way you want to read them, so I'll try again.

It is a form of cowardice to appease the bully rather than challenge the views of the bully himself.

Nobody is talking about individuals who do not wish to take an 'active' role in combating terrorism as being cowards, but the belief that the issue regarding 'offence' rests at the feet of how western society endorses its freedom of expression against those who feel that there should be some things which are exempt.

What they don't realise is that some things ARE scrutinised as being against the values of what freedom of expression is supposed to give and that when that is breached the law steps in and takes the necessary action required. Criticising religion being one of them, but discriminating against someone for holding their beliefs is not. Even though you can still do it, the law will take a dim view and punish accordingly if they feel an offence has been committed, as outlined to the standards of acceptability in accordance to societies laws which were decided by the collective majority.

One final note, you've pretty much hit what western society is, despite your attempt to be condescending.
This is how our society is, if you can't handle that, find one that appeals to you.

Freedom of choice
Freedom of speech
Freedom of expression - the core basis of our democratic society, ain't it marvellous.

You still seem to be struggling with the point I made in my first post, which you appear to have decided to disagree with even though your subsequent posts indicate that you didn't necessarily understand it. I will try again.

A common response made in western society by both individuals, and by state and law enforcement agencies, to increasing crime levels is to undertake measures that infringe upon other areas of our private and personal lives. The example I gave in my first post is that you lock the door when you go out at night. As a society we encourage our members to take this individual responsibility, and as individuals we act in a way that reduces the threat of crime to society as a whole: because if the police suggest that we lock our doors at night, and we all do, burglars have a more difficult task than if everyone leaves them unlocked all the time.

But it is important to appreciate that when we do this, we act in a way which erodes our own personal freedom. It should be nobody's business but my own whether I lock my door. I should have the right, and should be free to exercise the right, to leave my door not only unlocked but wide open all night if I so choose.

So it is as valid and principled a stance to say 'down with those who encourage us to fit burglar alarms, and lock upper floor windows, and fasten bolts' as it is to say 'down with those who cower in the face of islamic fundamentalism and who would limit our right to make fun of Islam's central character'. The first set of activities flies in the face of the fundamental tenet of western society that ownership of personal property is sacrosanct, and that everybody is entitled to enjoy quiet possession of their homes and their contents within the law, without them being ransacked by those who have no respect for values of personal property. The second flies in the face of the fundamental tenet of western society that freedom of expression is sacrosanct and that everybody is entitled to express their views in whatever way and on whatever subject, within the law, they choose to without being exposed to the risk that they will be attacked by those who have no respect for values of freedom of expression.

However, even though it is a principle of almost all western societies that you can do whatever you want provided it isn't unlawful, we are nonetheless encouraged to exercise those freedoms in a circumscribed way in order to avoid the risk of crime. Here are some examples.

'If you are a young female, don't go out on your own in poorly lit areas'. Why on earth shouldn't they? Young females have every right to go wherever they like whenever they like.

'Don't leave valuables on display in your car'. Why on earth not? I have an absolute right to do what I want with my own property in my own car. Why should I pander to those who cannot understand that the contents of my car are not theirs to pilfer just because the fancy takes them?

How western society endorses its right to respect for personal safety and property and whether advice along the above lines is no more and no less pandering to the criminals who threaten our liberties as western society endorsing its right to free speech by asking those exercising that freedom to exercise that freedom in a responsible way. Both involve an encroachment upon our general liberties, and it is wrong to characterise as cowardice a response which, in other contexts, as the above examples demonstrate, is treated generally as nothing more than applied common sense.

We all get your point - a freedom which cannot be exercised in an irresponsible way is no freedom at all. But there is nothing cowardly in considering either as individuals or as a society whether a degree of circumspection is appropriate. That is simply pragmatism.