Shootings in Paris

[Prestwich_Blue]

This thread seems to just go back and forth like so many often do. I can see both sides of this free speech argument. The above point by Chris is valid in that freedom is there but sometimes bad people do bad things when given the opportunity, or in the Paris case, an 'excuse'. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed should be allowed and I agree we should be free to do that if we wish. The fact is the office had been attacked before and lives had been threatened. This is obviously wrong, nobody can dispute that. To continue doing something that's seen you threatened is all well and good because you are 'exercising your freedoms', but it's no use when you're six feet under.

If I call someone in the pub a c**t and he hits me, he'll be dealt with by the law. In future I won't go out of my way to call that person a c**t again, because I don't want to be smacked, even though I know the law is on my side. My main priority is self preservation. I have a family to look after.

Let me spell this out - I don't condone the reaction to the cartoon.

That's a very reasonable stance but for the sentence highlighted. You're saying it should be allowed because it doesn't offend you. But it does offend lots of other people. This is what people don't get and are applying their sensibilities to a situation where these aren't the only arbiter of what is offensive or not.

Once again, I'll use the situation where 30 years ago we used words like "coon", "paki" etc. and made monkey noises at black football players. People would have said at the time that we should be able to do this and that people who didn't like it should grow a thicker skin or go somewhere else. But now we know it's wrong and don't do it.

As an example,Ken Morley has been expelled from the Celebrity Big Brother house for using the word "negro", which was in common use less than 40 years ago. As a society, we become more civilised and sensitive to the feelings of others. Dealing with Muslim sensibilities is relatively new to us though and while no one is suggesting surrendering to bullies or suggesting that a violent reaction is justifiable, we will need to learn to have respect for their genuine feelings. Similarly of course, they will need to learn to adapt to a society where someone's faith is less of a sacred cow.

Once more you fail to differentiate between hurting someones beliefs and attacking someone for who they are, whether they be black, gay, Asian or otherwise.

They law makes that distinction.

You fail to understand that their beliefs ARE who they are. I've no problem with criticising religion as a concept or some of the individual practices of religions but when that crosses the line and becomes gratuitous or personal then, whatever my views on religion, I don't support that.

You didn't answer my question the other day so I'll ask again. What would happen if you walked around Qatar handing out leaflets saying Mohammed was a fairy-tale character and Islam is a load of bollocks?

 

[mancityvstoke]

Everyone is to easily offended nowadays, you fucking jizz rags :-D

Did you just call me a fucking Jizz rag? eh eh

RIGHT...................where's my RPG gone

 

[SWP's back]

That's a very reasonable stance but for the sentence highlighted. You're saying it should be allowed because it doesn't offend you. But it does offend lots of other people. This is what people don't get and are applying their sensibilities to a situation where these aren't the only arbiter of what is offensive or not.

Once again, I'll use the situation where 30 years ago we used words like "coon", "paki" etc. and made monkey noises at black football players. People would have said at the time that we should be able to do this and that people who didn't like it should grow a thicker skin or go somewhere else. But now we know it's wrong and don't do it.

As an example,Ken Morley has been expelled from the Celebrity Big Brother house for using the word "negro", which was in common use less than 40 years ago. As a society, we become more civilised and sensitive to the feelings of others. Dealing with Muslim sensibilities is relatively new to us though and while no one is suggesting surrendering to bullies or suggesting that a violent reaction is justifiable, we will need to learn to have respect for their genuine feelings. Similarly of course, they will need to learn to adapt to a society where someone's faith is less of a sacred cow.

Once more you fail to differentiate between hurting someones beliefs and attacking someone for who they are, whether they be black, gay, Asian or otherwise.

They law makes that distinction.

You fail to understand that their beliefs ARE who they are. I've no problem with criticising religion as a concept or some of the individual practices of religions but when that crosses the line and becomes gratuitous or personal then, whatever my views on religion, I don't support that.

You didn't answer my question the other day so I'll ask again. What would happen if you walked around Qatar handing out leaflets saying Mohammed was a fairy-tale character and Islam is a load of bollocks?

I did answer Colin, you obviously missed it, so I shall accept your apology in lieu of it. I would be arrested as that is against the law in Qatar. There is no freedom of speech in Qatar. I am aware of that, even if I don't agree with it. I make the choice to stay as I take home much more than I did in the UK, and that is the sole reason. It is a pain in the arse. When it rains out here, the national press praise the Emir for praying to Allah for it, no word of a lie.

And people's beliefs are not who they are at all. If I attacked someone personally (assuming I am back in the UK for a moment) for being a Muslim, I would have no defence in law. But there is no law to protect someone's beliefs, and rightly so. There is zero reason, luckily, for walking around on egg shells to protect someone's non-rational beliefs. A belief that, along with all other Abrahamic beliefs can be categorised as group psychosis.

 

[mancityvstoke]

If you are offended by something written or drawn ...don't read it or look at it.


End of offence. It cannot harm you.

Sticks and stones.

It's madness to murder anyone for this...............I don't get it.

No one had heard of Charlie Hebdo until this.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

That's NOT the argument though. We all pretty well agree, I think, that we have no intention of going back to the days of condemning people to death for blasphemy. The argument is about whether one person's right to say what they want doesn't over-ride the responsibility to ensure it doesn't cause genuine offence to others. And that they recognise there might be an element of risk in saying it.

Well, some people have hardly been convincing on the issue of retaliatory measures....

plus, there's a difference between calling people deliberately offensive names to their face about things they have no control over, and publishing a cartoon about something you might believe in.

In terms of religion, it's a very slippery slope in terms of being seen to prefer/condone 1 religion over another in a political sense, plus, beliefs are not a direct attack on anything a person cannot do about (i.e. physical characteristics), so again it's a different level and issue entirely.

If you can't accept people poking fun at your beliefs, then rather than getting moody and murdering people you should perhaps seriously question and analyse what they really are and what they mean, and thus understand and accept why people can poke them.

You choose to believe in things, therefore you should be prepared to defend them, prepared to debate them, prepared to accept other people don't agree, think you're stupid and would like to poke fun at them.

I don't think any Muslim would care less if it was the religion of Islam that was attacked or had fun poked at it. You only have to go on Youtube to prove this.
The thing that any Muslim of any sect or denomination is not prepared to accept is the defamation of the name or character of Mohammad. There is a huge difference in the eyes of a Muslim between attacking Islam and besmirching the name of Mohammad. By all means criticise Islam but leave Mohammad alone.
It is something that for them is beyond sacrosanct. It is the thing, as Prestwich Blue has pointed out previously, that they will defend with their lives.

As has already been stated, they have defended their stance by taking someone else's lives, but this apparently is ok with you.
You state that no Muslim is prepared to accept besmirching the name of Mohammad, fair enough if you live in Saudi Arabia or another brutal theocracy, as they have laws that prohibit the belief in anything but your chosen religion, so if you drew pictures there you could say that you brought the resultant execution upon yourself, as it is the law there. The difference here, and it is a difference that the fundamentalist nutters, and apologists for murder are arrogantly ignoring, is that these cartoons were produced in France, a liberal democracy with no laws prohibiting what you want, namely, a special dispensation against lampooning your chosen belief. This is not going to happen in France, The UK, Germany, the US, or any of the western democracies anytime soon, so if you'd prefer laws that forbid satire, it might be better to place yourself amongst like-minded people and reside in a muslim theocracy.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

(Some wise guy once said "it doesnt matter who is saying it ,what matters is what are they saying " so before you label it once i saw who wrote it etc do read it.

Every Muslim finds it offensive, apparently world's 23.20 % population but the explanation we have been given is its freedom of speech ,no body said jesuischarlie when the same magazine fired a journalist for anti Semitic article or when balotelli or nichlos anelka got banned or how snoop dog is facing a suit for homophobic image and the fact that bbc journalist had to apologize for saying that Palestinians have been suffering at the hands of Israelis and calls are being made for his resignation ,, same week where the world leaders marched for unity , peace and freedom of expression along with nethanyahou who killed over 2200 men women and children in his last exercise in gaza (almost a 1000 thousand children )

What is anti semitism ?basically something negative about the jews,hatred or saying something that they may find offensive,fair enough no one should be allowed to hurt some one feelings ,

But here is world population stats according to religion .

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations</a>

The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)

If you say something against the world (0.22) population (remember not their beliefs ) its a crime and if you knowingly mock the most central figure of World's 23.20 population and know they will be offended ,its freedom of speech ,we are not talking about the hate thats spilled for us (which would come in anti semitic category for jews) ,weve gotten used to it,were just talking about mocking the beliefs and central figure of of islam here ,Does the word Hypocrisy sounds familiar ?

This was not the work of so called islamic terrorist,its just another false flag setup very brilliantly ,knowingly the fact that muslims have protested and found such content offensive in the past ,some of you still might think its the first time such images were drawn, but its not ,it have happened in the past and muslims protested which they were quiet entiltled to but not even one media report suggested oh this happened in the past,there was no one killed then?why now ?

I mentioned about operation northwoods before and operation mocking bird (which was apparent with fox news stunt,its a blessing in disguise theve been caught lying ) and listed links here which are geniuine question but was labeled as a conspiracy theorist

There are so many questions on the whole charlie hebdo attack but if you dont wana question it the choice is yours and apparently the chief investigating officer committed suicide after meeting victims? seriously ?condolence to his family and the family of the victims
but if you still cant get it than i cant say anything

 

[Dubai Blue]

This was not the work of so called islamic terrorist,its just another false flag setup very brilliantly ,knowingly the fact that muslims have protested and found such content offensive in the past ,some of you still might think its the first time such images were drawn, but its not ,it have happened in the past and muslims protested which they were quiet entiltled to but not even one media report suggested oh this happened in the past,there was no one killed then?why now ?

No one was killed then? That's certainly not how I remember the events of 2005-2006.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Once more you fail to differentiate between hurting someones beliefs and attacking someone for who they are, whether they be black, gay, Asian or otherwise.

They law makes that distinction.

You fail to understand that their beliefs ARE who they are. I've no problem with criticising religion as a concept or some of the individual practices of religions but when that crosses the line and becomes gratuitous or personal then, whatever my views on religion, I don't support that.

You didn't answer rmy question the other day so I'll ask again. What would happen if you walked around Qatar handing out leaflets saying Mohammed was a fairy-tale character and Islam is a load of bollocks?

I did answer Colin, you obviously missed it, so I shall accept your apology in lieu of it. I would be arrested as that is against the law in Qatar. There is no freedom of speech in Qatar. I am aware of that, even if I don't agree with it. I make the choice to stay as I take home about 5 times what I did in the UK, and that is the sole reason. It is a pain in the arse. When it rains out here, the national press praise the Emir for praying to Allah for it, no word of a lie.

And people's beliefs are not who they are at all. If I attacked someone personally (assuming I am back in the UK for a moment) for being a Muslim, I would have no defence in law. But there is no law to protect someone's beliefs, and rightly so. There is zero reason, luckily, for walking around on egg shells to protect someone's non-rational beliefs. A belief that, along with all other Abrahamic beliefs can be categorised as group psychosis.

Sorry Sam, didn't see it first time round. Yes blasphemy is against the law in most if not all Muslim states as it's seen as an attack on their core beliefs and they protect those beliefs very zealously and that's the culture they're used to. You can't expect them to switch off from that when they leave for an environment that is predominantly non-Muslim. In the same way, you live in a strictly Muslim environment but still don't believe in religion. Even if there weren't blasphemy laws, you're a sensible guy and wouldn't deliberately seek to offend your hosts I'd assume.

Here, we do things differently but there are still laws covering incitement to religious hatred. The CPS sum up the situation as follows:

It is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able robustly to exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, we have to balance the rights of the individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.

It's a grey area however and the CPS say you can be offensive without it being considered (in the eyes of the law) insulting. But that doesn't mean it's not insulting to the person involved and you can't force them not to be insulted. It's just that the law won't protect them.

France also has similar laws and Charlie Hebdo has been prosecuted in the past over what were perceived to be anti-Muslim cartoons. On that occasion they were acquitted on the grounds that the cartoons targeted terrorists/fundamentalists, rather than Muslims per se. However Brigitte Bardot has been convicted of making statements that were seen as anti-Muslim generally. So even France, which consciously decouples state and religion, has limits on what you can say or do.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Yes blasphemy is against the law in most if not all Muslim states as it's seen as an attack on their core beliefs and they protect those beliefs very zealously and that's the culture they're used to. You can't expect them to switch off from that when they leave for an environment that is predominantly non-Muslim.

Why not? There are numerous cultural norms that we 'switch off' when we move to the Middle East; it's what decent people do.

 

[Chris in London]

Well, some people have hardly been convincing on the issue of retaliatory measures....

plus, there's a difference between calling people deliberately offensive names to their face about things they have no control over, and publishing a cartoon about something you might believe in.

In terms of religion, it's a very slippery slope in terms of being seen to prefer/condone 1 religion over another in a political sense, plus, beliefs are not a direct attack on anything a person cannot do about (i.e. physical characteristics), so again it's a different level and issue entirely.

If you can't accept people poking fun at your beliefs, then rather than getting moody and murdering people you should perhaps seriously question and analyse what they really are and what they mean, and thus understand and accept why people can poke them.

You choose to believe in things, therefore you should be prepared to defend them, prepared to debate them, prepared to accept other people don't agree, think you're stupid and would like to poke fun at them.

I don't think any Muslim would care less if it was the religion of Islam that was attacked or had fun poked at it. You only have to go on Youtube to prove this.
The thing that any Muslim of any sect or denomination is not prepared to accept is the defamation of the name or character of Mohammad. There is a huge difference in the eyes of a Muslim between attacking Islam and besmirching the name of Mohammad. By all means criticise Islam but leave Mohammad alone.
It is something that for them is beyond sacrosanct. It is the thing, as Prestwich Blue has pointed out previously, that they will defend with their lives.

As has already been stated, they have defended their stance by taking someone else's lives, but this apparently is ok with you.
You state that no Muslim is prepared to accept besmirching the name of Mohammad, fair enough if you live in Saudi Arabia or another brutal theocracy, as they have laws that prohibit the belief in anything but your chosen religion, so if you drew pictures there you could say that you brought the resultant execution upon yourself, as it is the law there. The difference here, and it is a difference that the fundamentalist nutters, and apologists for murder are arrogantly ignoring, is that these cartoons were produced in France, a liberal democracy with no laws prohibiting what you want, namely, a special dispensation against lampooning your chosen belief. This is not going to happen in France, The UK, Germany, the US, or any of the western democracies anytime soon, so if you'd prefer laws that forbid satire, it might be better to place yourself amongst like-minded people and reside in a muslim theocracy.

I don't see any of the contributions as being apologist in relation to the murders of the Charlie Ebdo staff or anyone else killed in Paris. I see a lot of people saying that the cartoonists have every right to produce something scurrilous about Mohammed, but it is not very sensible for them to exercise that right.

The principled stance that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and we should not give way to gun-toting terrorists who would deny western societies the liberties millions died to protect is a stance it is easy to understand and noble to support.

However we appear to be content as a society to allow our liberties to be eroded in other spheres. I mentioned upthread the fact that we all lock our doors when we go out at night, we have passwords on our computers and PIN numbers for our bank cards, we don't leave valuables on display in our cars and we take care when we go out at night not to stray into dimly lit areas. Our security services have been given far greater powers than ever before to keep us under scrutiny, all in the name of public safety.

To give perhaps an example that is a little closer to the current issue, in Northern Ireland the Queen's subjects have an absolute right to walk where they will, to celebrate their protestantism (if that is their religion) by wearing orange sashes and so forth, and to sing unionist songs. They can not be violent, but provided they parade peaceably there is no reason in principle why they should not be entitled to walk where they will. And they have an absolute right to do so on any of the Queen's highways in that part or any other part of the United Kingdom - including the Falls Road.

However unionist parade routes are routinely routed through areas in which the celebration of their protestantism is likely to be regarded as being less provocative. It is no longer even suggested that Protestant parades should proceed through the heart of the nationalist and catholic areas.

Why do we as a society allow this restriction on the lawful exercise our liberties? Why do we tolerate a limitation on our freedom that has no justification other than that bad people will do unlawful things if we exercise it? Why, in other words, is freedom of movement and freedom of assembly viewed as less less important than freedom of speech?

The answer is that it isn't, but there is, in a civilised society, a balance to be struck between on the one hand the entitlement of the people to exercise their rights and freedoms, and on the other hand the need to ensure that the rights and liberties of others are not duly impinged. For instance, the police in Northern Ireland are entitled to take into account the threat to public safety and order if protestant parades are allowed through predominantly catholic areas.

By the same yardstick, there is undoubtedly a balance to be struck between the right to express oneself freely, which includes offensively, and on the other hand the need to ensure that the exercise of one individual's liberties does not impact upon the freedoms of another. There is, it seems to me, no magic formula to the question where exactly should that balance be struck.

Freedom of speech is undoubtedly a precious thing, and we are all exercising that freedom, fought for and died for by our forefathers, simply by contributing to this thread. But it does not exist in a vacuum. If it is not exercised responsibly, bad consequences follow. They shouldn't, but they do. And in other areas of life we recognise that bad consequence will follow from the exercise in a certain way of certain other liberties that we enjoy - e.g. the right to go out at night without locking your door, and the right to walk at night alone in an unlit area. There is no real difference of principle between these situations, it is simply a different liberty is being exercised, or not exercised in the name of caution. But those seeing this issue in absolute black and white terms seems to me to be missing something quite important, and that is that self-imposed limitations on our freedoms and liberties are an inevitable fact of life. Quite how far we should allow that self-censorship to go is a very difficult question, and nowhere near as easy and straightforward as some would appear to believe.

Seeing the issue as slightly more nuanced than others, and more as shades of grey rather than in absolute black and white terms does not make somebody an apologist for murder.