Shootings in Paris

[foxy]

Precisely. I'm struggling to see how some of the more intelligent posters on here are missing the point you're making.

Because it's not an accurate analogy. Drawing a picture and mocking a hard c**t are not the same thing.

And these twats are not hard c**ts.

True, but the analogy is accurate in the sense that both acts could result in violent repercussions.

One is personal abuse in a confrontational and provocative manner inviting violent repercussions..... the other is a cartoon of an ancient Prophet poking fun at a belief not an individual person.........

 

[M18CTID]

Because it's not an accurate analogy. Drawing a picture and mocking a hard c**t are not the same thing.

And these twats are not hard c**ts.

True, but the analogy is accurate in the sense that both acts could result in violent repercussions.

One is personal abuse in a confrontational and provocative manner inviting violent repercussions..... the other is a cartoon of an ancient Prophet poking fun at a belief not an individual person.........

Yes, yes, yes, we all know what the difference is and thanks for constantly reminding us. We're simply pointing out that both actions are likely to invite trouble. Seeing as though Sam had the decency to answer the question, I'll put it to you - if you were a cartoonist would you be as bullish as you are on here and be prepared to produce a cartoon poking fun at the prophet, knowing that while it isn't having a pop at someone in person it would still create uproar amongst certain Muslim factions? Put simply, would you be prepared to put your life at risk for the sake of drawing a picture or would you exercise a bit of tact and decide against it?

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

Because it's not an accurate analogy. Drawing a picture and mocking a hard c**t are not the same thing.

And these twats are not hard c**ts.

True, but the analogy is accurate in the sense that both acts could result in violent repercussions.

One is personal abuse in a confrontational and provocative manner inviting violent repercussions..... the other is a cartoon of an ancient Prophet poking fun at a belief not an individual person.........

it is a personal issue for us because of how Muslims love him and in how much highest regard he is held in the faith of islam

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexandra-chaloux/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6442684.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_807473549288153_807515995950575_807515995950575#f27b60f22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexand ... #f27b60f22</a>

(may be this explains a little )


Charlie Hebdo: The Rallying Cry for Free Speech Is Noble, but Hypocritical

I would invite those who are invoking the sanctity of free speech and freedom of self expression in response to the shootings in Paris to consider a few things.

In France, if you are a Muslim female teenager and you decide to express your identity by wearing a headscarf - not covering the face, just a headscarf - you will be kicked out of school. Permanently - until you agree not to wear it again. If a grown woman decides to wear the Niqab, French law renders her a prisoner of her own home, subject to arrest and hefty fines for simply walking down the street. If you thought it was oppressive to only see a woman's eyes, imagine her vanishing completely because she isn't free to leave her house. If a different woman does not want to wear the niqab but does choose a headscarf, she's not allowed to become a teacher - for fear her Islamic identity might some how damage the children she works with.

This past summer, when hundreds upon hundreds of Muslim civilians were slaughtered in Gaza by American weapons in the hands of Israeli troops, we protested the massacre in the streets. Lucky us. In France, they banned pro-Palestinian protest entirely. You weren't allowed to tell your government that sitting on the fence while Israel pulverises a Muslim population that is mostly children is unacceptable. The message from the French authority was loud and clear: the loss of Muslim life is not an outrage. Even here in the UK, the media played down the protests as much as they could. The BBC all but blacked it out entirely. In the following months, legislation was introduced that makes any large-scale protest anywhere near Parliament Square practically impossible.

And we talk of free speech. The truth is, you are free to express your identity as long as it's *our* identity. As long as you aren't one of *them*. We don't want *them*. We don't care when *they* die. We don't like their religion or their culture, and when it tries to sit beside ours, fear-mongering newspapers burst into flames of indignation. When they commit crimes, we call them 'terrorist', because there are laws to protect criminals, but you can do anything you like to a terrorist. The recent CIA torture report made that crystal clear. Cherif Kouachi, one of the Paris shooters, told authorities when he was imprisoned for terrorist activity in 2008 that he joined to protest the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. And we all know what we did to those prisoners.

These shootings were horrific murders and should be treated as such, but any self-righteous Voltaire quotation about 'our' defence of free speech, and 'their' despicable culture of censorship is deeply, deeply hypocritical.

Unlike so many people around me, I am not Charlie Hebdo. I love to draw, but I wouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed, because when I learned about Islam, I learned that it is considered deeply offensive to do so. It's not just offensive to 'crazy' extremists, but to normal Muslims. It's the same reason why I wouldn't go in to a Catholic cathedral in a bikini because I have 'a right to'. And, although I love to swear, I would do my best not to in front of your granny, or small child. I am not censored, I am acting with respect. When you draw a political cartoon satirising someone in power, your attack is specific to an individual that you have decided deserves it. When your drawing is of something that offends not one powerful individual but an entire religion, which is already suffering from ignorant vilification in the West, you're no hero of free speech to me. I am reading, right now in fact, a graphic novel which depicts historic political relations between Judaism and Islam, and the story of the prophet Mohammed, all without drawing him. In fact, it's far more creative for doing so.

It is enough to say that murder is a terrible crime for which the perpetrators should be punished. We needn't whip ourselves into a self-righteous fury we haven't earned. I have a feeling that some people on high horses ought to look down and be sure they aren't riding an ass.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexandra-chaloux/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6442684.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_807473549288153_807515995950575_807515995950575#f27b60f22

(may be this explains a little )


Charlie Hebdo: The Rallying Cry for Free Speech Is Noble, but Hypocritical

I would invite those who are invoking the sanctity of free speech and freedom of self expression in response to the shootings in Paris to consider a few things.

In France, if you are a Muslim female teenager and you decide to express your identity by wearing a headscarf - not covering the face, just a headscarf - you will be kicked out of school. Permanently - until you agree not to wear it again. If a grown woman decides to wear the Niqab, French law renders her a prisoner of her own home, subject to arrest and hefty fines for simply walking down the street. If you thought it was oppressive to only see a woman's eyes, imagine her vanishing completely because she isn't free to leave her house. If a different woman does not want to wear the niqab but does choose a headscarf, she's not allowed to become a teacher - for fear her Islamic identity might some how damage the children she works with.

This past summer, when hundreds upon hundreds of Muslim civilians were slaughtered in Gaza by American weapons in the hands of Israeli troops, we protested the massacre in the streets. Lucky us. In France, they banned pro-Palestinian protest entirely. You weren't allowed to tell your government that sitting on the fence while Israel pulverises a Muslim population that is mostly children is unacceptable. The message from the French authority was loud and clear: the loss of Muslim life is not an outrage. Even here in the UK, the media played down the protests as much as they could. The BBC all but blacked it out entirely. In the following months, legislation was introduced that makes any large-scale protest anywhere near Parliament Square practically impossible.

And we talk of free speech. The truth is, you are free to express your identity as long as it's *our* identity. As long as you aren't one of *them*. We don't want *them*. We don't care when *they* die. We don't like their religion or their culture, and when it tries to sit beside ours, fear-mongering newspapers burst into flames of indignation. When they commit crimes, we call them 'terrorist', because there are laws to protect criminals, but you can do anything you like to a terrorist. The recent CIA torture report made that crystal clear. Cherif Kouachi, one of the Paris shooters, told authorities when he was imprisoned for terrorist activity in 2008 that he joined to protest the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. And we all know what we did to those prisoners.

These shootings were horrific murders and should be treated as such, but any self-righteous Voltaire quotation about 'our' defence of free speech, and 'their' despicable culture of censorship is deeply, deeply hypocritical.

Unlike so many people around me, I am not Charlie Hebdo. I love to draw, but I wouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed, because when I learned about Islam, I learned that it is considered deeply offensive to do so. It's not just offensive to 'crazy' extremists, but to normal Muslims. It's the same reason why I wouldn't go in to a Catholic cathedral in a bikini because I have 'a right to'. And, although I love to swear, I would do my best not to in front of your granny, or small child. I am not censored, I am acting with respect. When you draw a political cartoon satirising someone in power, your attack is specific to an individual that you have decided deserves it. When your drawing is of something that offends not one powerful individual but an entire religion, which is already suffering from ignorant vilification in the West, you're no hero of free speech to me. I am reading, right now in fact, a graphic novel which depicts historic political relations between Judaism and Islam, and the story of the prophet Mohammed, all without drawing him. In fact, it's far more creative for doing so.

It is enough to say that murder is a terrible crime for which the perpetrators should be punished. We needn't whip ourselves into a self-righteous fury we haven't earned. I have a feeling that some people on high horses ought to look down and be sure they aren't riding an ass.

Bravo.

 

[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.

The publication has been in the news for some time.

Did you mean you hadn't heard of it until this had happened?.

Spot on..............

 

[Rascal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexandra-chaloux/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6442684.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_807473549288153_807515995950575_807515995950575#f27b60f22

(may be this explains a little )


Charlie Hebdo: The Rallying Cry for Free Speech Is Noble, but Hypocritical

I would invite those who are invoking the sanctity of free speech and freedom of self expression in response to the shootings in Paris to consider a few things.

In France, if you are a Muslim female teenager and you decide to express your identity by wearing a headscarf - not covering the face, just a headscarf - you will be kicked out of school. Permanently - until you agree not to wear it again. If a grown woman decides to wear the Niqab, French law renders her a prisoner of her own home, subject to arrest and hefty fines for simply walking down the street. If you thought it was oppressive to only see a woman's eyes, imagine her vanishing completely because she isn't free to leave her house. If a different woman does not want to wear the niqab but does choose a headscarf, she's not allowed to become a teacher - for fear her Islamic identity might some how damage the children she works with.

This past summer, when hundreds upon hundreds of Muslim civilians were slaughtered in Gaza by American weapons in the hands of Israeli troops, we protested the massacre in the streets. Lucky us. In France, they banned pro-Palestinian protest entirely. You weren't allowed to tell your government that sitting on the fence while Israel pulverises a Muslim population that is mostly children is unacceptable. The message from the French authority was loud and clear: the loss of Muslim life is not an outrage. Even here in the UK, the media played down the protests as much as they could. The BBC all but blacked it out entirely. In the following months, legislation was introduced that makes any large-scale protest anywhere near Parliament Square practically impossible.

And we talk of free speech. The truth is, you are free to express your identity as long as it's *our* identity. As long as you aren't one of *them*. We don't want *them*. We don't care when *they* die. We don't like their religion or their culture, and when it tries to sit beside ours, fear-mongering newspapers burst into flames of indignation. When they commit crimes, we call them 'terrorist', because there are laws to protect criminals, but you can do anything you like to a terrorist. The recent CIA torture report made that crystal clear. Cherif Kouachi, one of the Paris shooters, told authorities when he was imprisoned for terrorist activity in 2008 that he joined to protest the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. And we all know what we did to those prisoners.

These shootings were horrific murders and should be treated as such, but any self-righteous Voltaire quotation about 'our' defence of free speech, and 'their' despicable culture of censorship is deeply, deeply hypocritical.

Unlike so many people around me, I am not Charlie Hebdo. I love to draw, but I wouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed, because when I learned about Islam, I learned that it is considered deeply offensive to do so. It's not just offensive to 'crazy' extremists, but to normal Muslims. It's the same reason why I wouldn't go in to a Catholic cathedral in a bikini because I have 'a right to'. And, although I love to swear, I would do my best not to in front of your granny, or small child. I am not censored, I am acting with respect. When you draw a political cartoon satirising someone in power, your attack is specific to an individual that you have decided deserves it. When your drawing is of something that offends not one powerful individual but an entire religion, which is already suffering from ignorant vilification in the West, you're no hero of free speech to me. I am reading, right now in fact, a graphic novel which depicts historic political relations between Judaism and Islam, and the story of the prophet Mohammed, all without drawing him. In fact, it's far more creative for doing so.

It is enough to say that murder is a terrible crime for which the perpetrators should be punished. We needn't whip ourselves into a self-righteous fury we haven't earned. I have a feeling that some people on high horses ought to look down and be sure they aren't riding an ass.

Post of the thread

 

[foxy]

True, but the analogy is accurate in the sense that both acts could result in violent repercussions.

One is personal abuse in a confrontational and provocative manner inviting violent repercussions..... the other is a cartoon of an ancient Prophet poking fun at a belief not an individual person.........

Yes, yes, yes, we all know what the difference is and thanks for constantly reminding us. We're simply pointing out that both actions are likely to invite trouble. Seeing as though Sam had the decency to answer the question, I'll put it to you - if you were a cartoonist would you be as bullish as you are on here and be prepared to produce a cartoon poking fun at the prophet, knowing that while it isn't having a pop at someone in person it would still create uproar amongst certain Muslim factions? Put simply, would you be prepared to put your life at risk for the sake of drawing a picture or would you exercise a bit of tact and decide against it?

I wouldn't say I'm bullish, I'd say it's just my opinion and I'm standing up for what's reasonable in modern society. We poke fun, criticize and mock each other about different beliefs and at different levels, we shouldn't make exceptions.

Put simply, would you be prepared to put your life at risk

There lies the problem which I'm trying to address.. It's stupid that it does invite trouble. Why should there be threat in the air, why should my life be at risk for exercising my right to mock or criticize Muslim's beliefs in a cartoon? Why should other innocent people be at risk as well? Perhaps that angry threat needs addressing. We live in a civil society open to freedom or speech and expression. If Muslims are offended then I'm sorry, we didn't go through over a century of evolution of democracy to make exceptions for a minority that believe in fairy tails because they are offended by a cartoon.

It sounds like you want to give in to a minority who belong back in the dark ages.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Well I think they've won and put their point across quite well...................no one will do it again if they've got any sense.


Most of us write a letter to complain................not murder loads of random people.

 

[Never Mind The Pollocks]

I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with your view Sam. But as I said above, the law is just part of the whole picture. I wouldn't go into some pub in a dodgy part of Salford and mock the local hard-man, even though there's nothing illegal about it. If said hard-man beat me to a pulp, then the law is very much on my side but you would certainly question the wisdom of my action.

Talking shite imo. Mocking an individual to their face is not the same as drawing a cartoon.

I can hardly mock Mohammed to his face now can I? And the point is that Muslims do take it personally if Mohammed is seen to be mocked and a number of posters have pointed this out.

That's their problem.