[Closed] Charlie Hebdo at it again....

Just that the OP is talking about a situation where he thinks a certain sector of the population will take offense...

exactly my point....there will be a certain sector of the population that will take offence...even if they get the point the cartoon is trying to make. they knew this after the last time...11 people lost their lives and a further 11 were injured...producing more cartoons that is going to incite the same amount of anger is only going to lead to the potential repeat of that incident

exactly my point....there will be a certain sector of the population that will take offence...even if they get the point the cartoon is trying to make. they knew this after the last time...11 people lost their lives and a further 11 were injured...producing more cartoons that is going to incite the same amount of anger is only going to lead to the potential repeat of that incident

You reaslise that CH have been producing magazines and pictures the entire time since the 'first time' (that you presumably heard about them) and had been doing that for quite a while before someone decided to take offence?

if you insult someone, you're likely to get punched in the face

I know it's the usual reaction but it's a bit, y'know, childish and all. Sticks and stones etc.

If someone called me a **** I'd have to agree with them TBH...

Yes.. it should be known that mocking a silly religion should result in murder.
I'm guessing you're a believer in silly made up stories and you can understand how people decided to murder those people.. am I right?

and what if i am...what is your point here? what if i wasnt and i was christian, jewish or hindu and i had made the same comment?

I don't GAS what made-up book you read.. I find your original post very very offensive. Sympathising with extremists of what ever BS religion is not a sensible position to take.
The 11 were murdered by nutjobs and I find it very offensive to imply otherwise.

How about 'you' help stop the nutjobs not the drawing of cartoons. You actually believe those people sort of deserved it don't you??

I think they sort of had it coming yes..

Shame on you then chap!

even before they drew the cartoons, they knew it was forbidden to draw them

[quote=teasel opined]Junkyard whined » we insult those who disagree with us
It's weird you take umbrage at that...

but not that you took umbrage at what i said

at which, ironically, you seem determined to take offense. It doesn't say everyone who doesn't get the Cartoons is any of those things

And the analogy of going upto someone in the street and telling them they were fat was a poor one.

What if i turn up at a wedding and shout the bride is a fat slag
I am able to do this legally but it is unlikely that the people will react well to this

Whether i care about a picture of the prophet [ I dont] it is clearly haram in Islam and one of the most offensive things you can do to a Muslim. to do this and show him as suicide bomber is almost definitely going to lead to the reaction it got in the same way as insulting anyone , enough, can lead to violence. In this case those insulted are nutters and I dont wish to defend them but its naive to not forse the reaction be it CB or the wedding guests.

We need to work on stopping people from punching people in the face when words or pictures or thoughts upset them, and get them to respone with words, with cartoons, with arguments. We shouldn't cave to their sensitivities, or yours.

One of those your behaviour can elicit violence in much the same way as my every posts elicits teasels respect and admiration 😉

It really depends you cannot have you can do anything and its all free speech. Even if we do certain reactions will likely befall those who choose to test their right to say whatever and argue that its the offended persons fault.
We need to decide on a case by case basis IMHO- alomst everyone agrees with "censorship" we just debate where the line is
Charlie are usually over the line IMHO

I find your original post very very offensive. Sympathising with extremists of what ever BS religion is not a sensible position to take.
The 11 were murdered by nutjobs and I find it very offensive to imply otherwise.

How about 'you' help stop the nutjobs not the drawing of cartoons. You actually believe those people sort of deserved it don't you??

why dont you show me where in my posts i sympathised with the actions of the extremists who killed those people and that i said that they deserved it?

you should try reading what is written properly...or do you want me to draw you a cartoon of it?

why dont you show me where in my posts i sympathised with the actions of the extremists who killed those people and that i said that they deserved it?

like it or not, it's the way "I'm sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this..." comes across. Maybe you communicated your point badly but I have to admit my first thought was that it was an idiotic thing to say.

why dont you show me where in my posts i sympathised with the actions of the extremists who killed those people and that i said that they deserved it?

I'm sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this.

but not that you took umbrage at what i said

I didn't, petal, hence the emoticon use.

like it or not, it's the way "I'm sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this..." comes across.

how does that imply that i said that they deserve to be killed?
if the response is for someone to throw rotten eggs at the cartoonists in retaliation to the drawings i would still say they only have themselves to blame for it.

Junkyard makes good points. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Regardless of whether the drowned boy is not the one being mocked, its still crass in the extreme. Did the cartoonist feel it appropriate to draw images of their murdered colleagues lying in a pool of blood and riddled with bullets, all in the name of satire*, or is it only ok when its someone they don't know?

*(to be fair they may have known how tasteless they are)

Honeypot operation on the part of the french security services.
CH get the blessing to say something controversial and they use them to flush out the next batch of snack bar lunatics.

how does that imply that i said that they deserve to be killed?

It absolves the shooters of any blame.

[b]tpbiker[/b] Good points, but I'd argue that single image has already become totemic in a way similar to the girl running from napalm, the monk on fire etc from Vietnam days. But what we have had is partly a death-of-Diana type mass hand-wringing, which may only last a few weeks before business and apathy as usual, and I think work like the CH cartoon might encourage a deeper look at our own values and attitudes. And to get that across needed a certain shock value.

We have dozens of religions and political ideas in the world with conflicting views and rules. They should all be accorded equal lack of respect. The correct response to a cartoon is not a mass murder, and the OP still doesn't get how the "they've got it coming" is a cowardly self-censoring stance.

For those of you who are getting very emotional about that pic / cartoon whatever ...

Yes, it is sad that a kid died due to the parents taking risks but why go into emotional overdrive?

Remember this ...
[b]
Children die all over the world everyday in all forms.

Yes, they do! Children do die everyday. Fact![/b]

What's the big deal?

You want to see pics of child's death? Google it there are plenty.

Also you may find one idiot actually eating foetus (more like several weeks old baby/ foetus apparently ... I mean I could not believe what I saw ... told you human are all ZMs ... Remember, I told you so!)

But what we have had is partly a death-of-Diana type mass hand-wringing, which may only last a few weeks before business and apathy as usual,

and I think work like the CH cartoon might encourage a deeper look at our own values and attitudes. And to get that across needed a certain shock value.

It absolves the shooters of any blame.

taken from my second and fifth post on this thread...

I'm not wishing anyone to be gunned down...but going off the last time they insulted the muslim world...some nutcases decided to do just that. All I'm saying is that you would have thought they would have learnt from the last time that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed even if it is supposed to be satirical...if they havent learnt and decide that they need to further insult the muslim world and the family of that popr boy...then they inly have themselves to blame if some other nutcases come and carry out a repeat of last time
I dont agree with what happened last time but neither do i agree with insulting racial and religious hatred being spouted by such publications whilst hiding behind a thin excuse that its satire...

I never said they deserved to be gunned down
I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this...if the reaction is a violent ine the yes it should be condemned

my support for the killers is overwhelming(!)

 

[img] [/img]
The deadliest weapon in the world, every time I will stand with people who provoke, think and question ahead of those who can only react with guns and swords.

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this

Did you post similar in the rape thread the other day?

Charlie Hebdo - what a load of shite. Being controversial just for the sake of it without being witty, funny or clever.

Well, sadly, that's a decent portion of their output. You'd probably never have heard of them if it wasn't for some of their more blatant works and a few nutters with automatic weapons. Other than the issue after the attack, Hebdo has vanished into the back of most newspaper racks in Francophone countries.

In this case those insulted are nutters and I dont wish to defend them but its naive to not forse the reaction be it CB or the wedding guests.

The staff of Charlie Hebdo DID foresee the potential for violent response. In 2012 Charb said that he would rather die than live like a rat (I think) and they continued down their dangerous path, doing what they believed in (and what those living still believe in). Whilst I can guarantee I wouldn't be that brave, voices that constantly challenge "accepted wisdom" or push the buttons of people who don't like their buttons pushed and respond with violence against those they disagree with should be applauded.

Back to these cartoons, when I first saw them I could understand why people might find it offensive if they glanced at it and moved on but if you spend more than a second looking at it, it's clear it's not mocking a dead kid. Their goal, however, like those people who published the original photo is to get a reaction to what is obviously just one tiny part of a humanitarian tragedy. By the amount of press it's getting, it may have had that result but I am sure they'd prefer that the crisis was the focus not the cartoonists.

taken from my second and fifth post on this thread...

So you communicated badly. You don't think they have only themselves to blame if they're killed, you just wouldn't be surprised if it happens. Good to know.

mikewsmith - Member
The deadliest weapon in the world, every time I will stand with people who provoke, think and question ahead of those who can only react with guns and swords.

^^^ This. 😛

on the going up to people and abusing them and calling the bride fat analogy , it does not really work. Charlie Hebro is and was a limited circulation magazine in France only popular with a small section of the community nobody was forced to read it and any one who did probably had an idea what they were letting themselves in for . As I remember the original Mo cartoons passed without much comment but were dredged up a year later when some islamist nutter clerics went on a world tour with them trying successfully to fan some anti western outrage. Short point, if you don't like satire don't read a satirical magazine, the cartoonists were not walking up to muslims in the street or mosque saying "look at this what I drew."

We have dozens of religions and political ideas in the world with conflicting views and rules. They should all be accorded equal lack of respect. The correct response to a cartoon is not a mass murder, and the OP still doesn't get how the "they've got it coming" is a cowardly self-censoring stance.

They should be accorded a lack of intellectual respect and held to account for their stupid views and challenged.
it does not mean I should turn up at Mecca for the Haj with cartoons of Mohammed as a suicide bomber.

Whilst I can guarantee I wouldn't be that brave, voices that constantly challenge "accepted wisdom" or push the buttons of people who don't like their buttons pushed and respond with violence against those they disagree with should be applauded.

Its still a balance some of what you say is legitimate and some of it is just abuse.

on the going up to people and abusing them and calling the bride fat analogy , it does not really work.

CH is often the later IMHO

the cartoonists were not walking up to muslims in the street or mosque saying "look at this what I drew.

IMHO publishing it is worse than doing it privately as clearly you mean for many to see it and not just a few.

Charlie Ebdo being sold in Paris today, pretty sure the cartoon on the front page is as per the link. I don't see how any of us who don't really understand French culture and the language can say we are capable of judging the cartoons with any integrity.

@gonzy the family where close to their dream in terms of being just a few miles from Greece. One great tragedy is the family where safe in Turkey and their aunt in Canada sent the money to pay the smugglers after Canada rejected their asylum appeal sponsored by year aunt (I believe as Syrian Kurds are not on the UN's list of "approved refugees")

The magazine is fiercely anti religion and very left wing. There was a comment above about France and Christianity, France is absolutely secular in terms of government and administration and has Europe's largest Muslim population. It prides itself on pushing the boundaries and on causing offence. I would wager the magazine's stance is very pro refugee.

being just a few miles from Greece

his body washed up on the beach in Bodrum Turkey, the Greek mainland is nearly 500km away...hardly a few miles is it?

I don't see how any of us who don't really understand French culture and the language can say we are capable of judging the cartoons with any integrity.

The magazine is fiercely anti religion and very left wing. There was a comment above about France and Christianity, France is absolutely secular in terms of government and administration and has Europe's largest Muslim population. It prides itself on pushing the boundaries and on causing offence. I would wager the magazine's stance is very pro refugee.

@jambalaya i totally understand where you;re coming from with this and agree that those who dont understand the culture wont fully understand the message portrayed...but given the recent events surrounding CH, they now have a larger audience and there will be people who will see the cartoons and not understand them and will be offended. then it only takes one nutcase or a group of them to take matters into their own hands.
if as a result one of the cartoonists is assaulted in the street then they have only themselves to blame for it. in a more extreme case we could see a repeat of last time...if this was to happen i'm not going to stand there and say they deserved it...no-one deserves to die (apart for ISIS and their ilk)
any act of violence in response should be rightly condemned but whatever the response is CH have to accept responsibility that what they published may cause offence and the backlash could be a repeat of last time.
if you look at the initial visual impact of the 2 cartoons..the first one uses Aylan's body...whatever the message is, to use his image for satirical purposes is in very poor taste and show IMO arrogance, insensitivity and a lack of respect for that boy and his family.
the second shows Jesus walking on water and again the drowned body of a child (possibly a depiction of Aylan) and the captions translate as Christians walk on water and muslim kids sink...to anyone who doesnt understand the culture will see this as offensive.
if they are left wing and pro-refugee this isnt the way they should have demonstrated it.

Hang on, you're saying that if you draw a cartoon and [b]somebody misunderstands it[/b] and then assaults you it's your fault?

I have a lot of sympathy for your reaction and think the cartoon is in appalling taste but you are wrong.

Pendantic point: they were headed for Lesbos - a few miles from the Turkish coast.

Hang on, you're saying that if you draw a cartoon and somebody misunderstands it and then assaults you it's your fault?

When the Satanic Verses (another dreadful piece of work) was published, a couple of imams left Scandinavia and spent months and months going round the Muslim world trying to stir up anger and outrage. Eventually their efforts led to a good bit of book burning (often by illiterate people) and a few murders and for internal political reasons, a fatwa was declared by Iran. We need to be measured in our response to people being 'offended' etc, there is always a hidden agenda.

Personally I'm offended by people who demand that women should be covered or even shaved head-to-toe when women in this country fought for the right to be free to wear 'rational dress' (on bicycles, incidentally) in the 1890s. However I don't go round killing them and claiming that they're to blame for my violence.

Edited: not an appropriate example.

The world's just not that simple Gonzy and you know it.

JY producing or displaying an image of the Phophet is forbidden in Saudi, as is having a picture of a bottle of booze. I've been travelling to Saudi for 30 years and Western newspapers are censored, each and every copy and that's fine as its their law. That's the point here. These things are not illegal in France or the UK so the magazine is perfectly entitled to do so if it wishes. The fact that you or I may not do such a thing is irrelevant, it's perfectly legal not least as blasphemy laws where abolished years ago. We live in a society which has made an explicit decision to allow such things. This extends to same sex relationships and even marriage which is regarded as abhorrent in most Muslim countries as cause for a violent response. I'm quite clear that if you wish to live in the UK or France you accept the laws of the country, one issue with Islam is that the Koran says the opposite, that it's law overrides that of the country. The Old Testament by the way explicitly states Christains (and Jews) should abide by the laws of the host country. The Austrians actually passed an explicit law around this which impacts only Muslims.

Gonzy there is no reason for these cartoons to incite an aggressive response, if they do its not because of the cartoon but IMO as the reader has a predetermined desire for a violent response. The divisions and violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims is often put down to Shia producing images which Sunni regard as unacceptable, to the extent Sunnis are prepared to murder Shia by suicide bombing markets and mosques. We have secular bloggers being hacked to death in Bangladesh even though what they are posting is entirely legal there even under the laws of.a Muslim country Like it or not UK and European law allows images to be made and displayed of the Phrophet and this cartoon is supportive of the refugees in any case. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees are seeking to live in Europe a region which allows images of the Prophet so I would imagine they are doing so on the basis they accept the laws and customs of those societies.

[b]gonzy[/b] They are taking a risk for sure, but it is a risk we [i]need [/i]people to take. People need to speak out and challenge this stuff. Society benefits and you should be supporting their right to do this, even if, once you've actually understood their point, you disagree with them.

They are taking a risk for sure, but it is a risk we need people to take. People need to speak out and challenge this stuff. Society benefits and you should be supporting their right to do this, even if, once you've actually understood their point, you disagree with them.

Yeah, what we really need is for people to be gratuitously offensive unfunny dicks. That's the way to a better society.

gratuitously offensive unfunny dicks

That charge could be laid against anything. You recommending yourself as the arbiter of good taste?

Nope, and I'm not suggesting banning Charlie Hebdo. I don't however think they should be held up as some kind of noble bastion of liberty.

That's the point, they are not a noble bastion of liberty. Liberty and democracy can be very messy, that's not to say you shouldn't defend them.

Like the drunk calling the bride a fat slag at her wedding? Its accepted wisdom you don't do that

But calling someone a fat slag isn't challenging the concept of acceptance of fat slags, it's just abuse. If you rightly or wrongly think you're highlighting a problem on a public platform it's a little different. It's a small difference but I think removes it from abuse into satire or at least that's the intent. How people perceive it is different.

That said, I get what you mean. Once you head down a route of offending people for a living, it's likely to provoke response and you'd be stupid to be surprised when the response comes. As I said before CH had been warned but it isn't in the makeup of the staff to be cowed by threats from nutters so they carried on.

given the recent events surrounding CH, they now have a larger audience

Yes and no. They have a larger audience now without a doubt but I can't imagine that even 1% of the people expressing shock have bought the paper or even looked at the CH website regularly. They do have a load more subs and direct sales but I don't think it's those people complaining for the most part.

Free speech means hearing and seeing things you don't agree with, like or find tasteful.

If someone is lying, defaming, inciting hatred or public panic there should be sanctions on that person.

Just because you think a cartoon, speech or article is tasteless, tacky, offensive or poor quality doesn't mean that you [i]shouldn't[/i] defend the right of people to publish it.

The success of democracy and freedom is tested by the way it deals with hard cases, not easy things on which all can agree.

[quote=gonzy ]if as a result one of the cartoonists is assaulted in the street then they have only themselves to blame for it.

Well there you go again.

[quote=grum ]Yeah, what we really need is for people to be gratuitously offensive unfunny dicks. That's the way to a better society.

I tend to agree that it's a bad idea to be gratuitously offensive. We appear to have a difference of opinions on whether those cartoons are gratuitously offensive (despite you claiming you understand them). If I give you the benefit of the doubt on understanding the cartoons, then presumably we actually have a difference of opinion on what gratuitous offence is - I don't think the normal definition includes things which aren't intended to be offensive and aren't offensive if you understand them.

its not about whether i get the cartoons or not. its about whether other audiences get them. when they dont they get offended and thats what happened last time...some nutcases took it too far and 11 people paid for it with their lives.
prior to that incident they must have been aware of the potential for someone feeling insulted from what happened in Denmark when cartoons of Mohammed were drawn in a derogatory way and death threats were made against the magazine...that does not however justify what happened with regards to the shootings.
doing it the first time was a risk and they weren't to know what it would lead to...but this time they should be more aware that publishing more material that can in a similar way be misunderstood potentially lead to a repeat of the first incident...
whatever the response to this is, CH have to be held accountable for their part as would the responder for their actions...right or wrong

doing it the first time was a risk and they weren't to know what it would lead to...but this time they should be more aware that publishing more material that can in a similar way be misunderstood potentially lead to a repeat of the first incident...
whatever the response to this is, CH have to be held accountable for their part as would the responder for their actions...right or wrong

Again, the way you comment suggests you think CH have only produced 2 magazines. Your comments ignore the fact they were and are producing stuff constantly, all of which (as is there style) is 'offensive' to someone when they choose to not understand context. Are you saying it should be illegal to be offensive?

Its not always about context is it some things are just offensive

if this was not the case it would literally be impossible for me to be deliberately rude to anyone ever.

These things are not illegal in France or the UK so the magazine is perfectly entitled to do so if it wishes

Fascinating but I never argued it was illegale Anything to say on what is being discussed?

I don't think the normal definition includes things which aren't intended to be offensive and aren't offensive if you understand them.

The only person to be blamed for the child death is that German woman Angela whoever that encourages the use of babies and children to gain entry into Europe.

Look at the migrants now the moment they see the TV cameras the first thing they do is to put their children in front of it. They even put the children in front of the riot police as shield ... they learn very quickly that they can use their own children to force sympathy.

Children don't know why they have been put at risk by the parents but the parents know all too well that they are responsible yet the parents go for it ...

No one in this world is to be blamed apart from the parents directly. No we did Not started a war in Syria ... they started that themselves. 🙄

Oh ya ... the drawing/sketch of the death child on the beach has just illustrated the stupidity of risk taken by the parents.

gonzy,
Can't work out if trolling or actually serious?
If troll ... good work,
If not, wow...

junkyard and gonzy,
"If liberty means anything at all it is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell

What if I turn JYs analogy on its head and say this:

A woman walked into a bar wearing what the majority of people would consider to be sexy clothing. Later she was attacked.

She did something perfectly legal and was physically attacked. So, should any woman be free to engage in the same behaviour again?

You (both) seem to think that legal, peaceful behaviours that can lead to violence from others should be discouraged, so does everyone agree that women should censor their appearance to avoid inflaming lust, even if they differ on the degree of inflammation?

More importantly gonzy. Would a second woman who puts herself in a similar situation (having been prewarned) be at least partially responsible for what happens?

Do you agree?

Or is it only people with ideas who need to censor themselves in case of violence?

Religites don't want "respect" they want "obedience" to the proscriptions of their particular cult.

Anyone who cant see the difference between
"I don't do X because I don't want to for special personal reasons"
and
"Therefore neither should you" needs to grow up, whether X is gay marriage or drawing prophets.

I look forward to Gonzys next campaign, that cyclists shouldn't ride on the roads because our presence upsets and offends car drivers so much that they are forced to run us over.

The complex synergy between the concepts of blame and cause is a level of discussion wasted on quite few on both sides of the argument judging by a quick scan of the thread.

I look forward to Gonzys next campaign, that cyclists shouldn't ride on the roads because our presence upsets and offends car drivers so much that they are forced to run us over.

i place no value on the comments of someone who supports the actions of a terrorist government that illegally steals land, and kills its occupants after it has subjected them to inhumane treatment and dehumanisation.

I don't think the normal definition includes things which aren't intended to be offensive and aren't offensive if you understand them.

Ah so 'offensive' isn't subjective and you have been appointed as an official arbiter of whether these cartoons are offensive or not due to your level of understanding. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.

The French showed how much they really value freedom of speech when just after the CH attacks they locked up Dieudonne for saying "As for me, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly".

Strangely enough it seems like freedom of speech does have it's limits and isn't an absolute right to be protected whether you agree with what is being said or not.

@gonzy as I asked before are Sunnis entitled to attack Shia as insulting their version of the religion ? A new Charlie Ebdo is just out with another "Arab" cartoon on the front cover, I think it's mocking lack of women's rights. I will ask. I assume you saw the coverage of the topless feminist protestors who interrupted an Islamic Preachers event in Paris. Twitter reaction included recommending they where stoned or collectively raped.

Suggesting Charlie Ebdo refrain from doing something perfectly legal is the wrong solution. They where well aware they where a target which is why they had an armed police guard. Paris now has armed soldiers protecting Jewish schools and businesses. (Even secular schools have barriers outside to protect against car bombs) That's the correct response to terrorism rather than shutting down the schools

Do you think the prophet picture was not intended to be offensive?

I was referring to the current cartoons, though no, I don't think the prophet picture was intended to be offensive - they just didn't care whether it was offensive.

Ah so 'offensive' isn't subjective and you have been appointed as an official arbiter of whether these cartoons are offensive or not due to your level of understanding. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.

Well of course you are free to be offended by whatever you like. Clearly I should have added "to a reasonable person" to cover that possibility - given I was discussing being "gratuitously offensive", which is to a large extent an objective thing.

The French showed how much they really value freedom of speech when just after the CH attacks they locked up Dieudonne for saying "As for me, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly".

You do realise that "freedom of speech" doesn't actually mean you can say whatever you like - don't go around hurling racist abuse either.

are Sunnis entitled to attack Shia as insulting their version of the religion ?

you mean in the same way Protestants and Catholics do? even if they do they dont use images of the prophet as all Muslims, Shia and Sunni know it is prohibited to do so.
just because i can insult you and say its free speaach doenst mean that doing so would be appropriate. i could say that i did it as a joke but if you didnt find it funny and got offended by it then i would rightly expect a response. i would be responsible for my actions that lead to that response, but you would be responsible for your actions against me in response to my insult.
everyone is accountable for their actions be it good or bad

I was discussing being "gratuitously offensive", which is to a large extent an objective thing.

Really - where do I find the definitive interpretation of this objective standard? 😆

You do realise that "freedom of speech" doesn't actually mean you can say whatever you like - don't go around hurling racist abuse either.

Um... yes that's exactly the point I was making. Are you being deliberately obtuse? But basically it's ok to be really offensive about Muslims and not give a shit about using the image of a dead child to score a cheap point/stoke up controversy. It appears to be fine to openly express support for an illegal war like Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed, but express mild sympathy for a terrorist in a fairly abstract way and go straight to jail.

What if I turn JYs analogy on its head and say this:

You (both) seem to think that legal, peaceful behaviours that can lead to violence from others should be discouraged, so does everyone agree that women should censor their appearance to avoid inflaming lust, even if they differ on the degree of inflammation?

Or is it only people with ideas who need to censor themselves in case of violence?

I don't think the prophet picture was intended to be offensive

So drawing the prophet [ which is forbidden] and doing him as suicide bomber was not intended to be offensive to Muslims. I dont see how anyone can argue that its JHJ levels

Clearly I should have added "to a reasonable person" to cover that possibility

nobody deservers to be physically attacked for expressing an opinion , no matter how personally offensive you may find it. We are lucky in the west that for the most part this holds true. What ever your world view attack the idea not the person , whether you think CH did this well or poorly , IMO that is what they are trying to do.

I think it is different in the abusing someone to their face scenario , as a verbal attack may be a prelude to violence, only you can know this if you are in that situation , i would suggest that if you hit someone for only saying something offensive to you ,with no extra threat of violence you wouldn't get away with it in law.

Junkyard » So drawing the prophet [ which is forbidden]

Surely it's only forbidden of you're a Muslim or recognise their faith?

All religions have the piss ripped out of them by someone at some time or another - it's just the way it is.

Also, slightly OT, this bit you wrote...

Obviously if I object to some of what CH does I am clearly saying that women who get raped deserved it Well done
Is this risible analogy day ? Shakes head...

I reckon the reason you get riled by stuff like that is because of this...

Junkyard » These "debates" are the cyclist equivalent of going well dressed like that and having been drunk well what did she expect.

Junkyard » In that incident she did nothing wrong in the same way as a drunk woman walking him in a small dress did nothing wrong.

Both taken from the same thread a few weeks back.

What's that little saying...

[i]We teach best that which we most need to learn[/i]

...or something.

💡

🙂

All religions have the piss ripped out of them by someone at some time or another - it's just the way it is.

Indeed, imagine if someone shot the Monty Python team for life of Brian, or blew up the South Park Studios because of 'trapped in the closet'

Would they have been 'asking for it'?

Would anyone really suggest they should not have been made because they were offensive to some peoples religion?

That's some top stalking right there. ^^^

EDIT: @teasel's post.

Would anyone really suggest they should not have been made because

Are you saying there was no fuss kicked up about them?

It's not stalking, fella. I remembered Junkyard making a similar ludicrous comparison on a thread in the not too distant past. It took seconds to find the thread from my own posting history and I found the quoted material from there.

But, as usual, you pop up just to defend your old buddy, eh. Again, from memory, you made a very similar comment the last time I made a similar post criticising Junkyard's character flaws, only that time you implied a man crush or something.

You might have a point; I've heard he's quite the gent...

The thread...

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/another-cyclist-assaulted-update

Three weeks old. That's definitely stalking, that. I mean, why would anyone remember anything from three weeks ago...

Edit : I remember it clearly because he wrote almost the same thing twice in order to get a rise and no one took a bite, at which I chuckled. I also remember a similar troll on a meat orientated thread with some classic veggie speak trolling but I really can't remember when that was. Well, I probably could if I tried (because that's what I'm good at) but I really can't be arsed.

Jesus, JY is far from my old buddy - he knows I think he's a muppet - but fair dues, you have a good memory for stuff - especially stuff JY says. 😆

EDIT: I do wonder what it is that burns inside you that you feel the need to point out his character flaws (you do after all, admit to doing it quite a bit). It just seems, a bit, I dunno...I don't really want to say.

Some days I can't help myself

Yes. I can see that. This place must also mean quite a bit to you, bless your [insert material of choice] socks.

Btw, got a link to that golly thread? (I bet you do)

I learn a bit and it's a good laugh. That makes it worth reading.

And no, I really don't but I seem to remember you took part in that 'discussion' so do your own [s]stalking[/s]homework.

It's the kind of handwringing thread I'd love. I'll have to look. Was it recent or years ago?

**** knows.

Sometimes my memory is truly shit...

🙂

Edit : From the depths... Bruneep was the OP so that should make it easier to locate.

Would anyone really suggest they should not have been made because they were offensive to some peoples religion?

People said that about Life of Brian at the time. It was banned in Glasgow. Even back then it seems there were different standards for Christianity and Islam. There was a TV debate between a bishop, Malcolm Muggeridge, John Cleese, and Micharl Palin. Muggeridge said

"if you'd made that film about Mohammed there would have been an absolute hullaballo."

So no change there.

(around 5:15 in)

@Junkyard

You don't like my analogy .. (unless apparently it helps you make a point) but thats OK.

Anyway, if I take away the analogy and just write;

"You seem to think that legal, peaceful behaviours that can lead to violence from others should be discouraged."

Do you agree?

If so could you list the _legal_ and _peaceful_ behaviours that I should not undertake to prevent violence being visited on me?

(I emphasise the "legal" and "peaceful" as that is what the drawing of cartoons and the writing of books are despite your "shouting in the face" analogy, which is .. pretty poor).

Another follow up question, what about Malala Yousafzai?

She wrote a blog when she was 12 advocating the education of girls and women. Some people found that idea offended their religious sensibilities so they shot her in the head.

Now, she clearly avoided the "drawing prophets" land mine but only to step on the "advocating education" land mine (doh!).

I'm sure you must have some useful advice for how she might conduct herself through the "offense" minefield in future to ensure that no-one will try to murder her again?

You seem like a thoughtful person, but if you can't see the sliding scale that censoring yourself to avoid "offense" in others puts you on then you are being willfully blind to the almost infinite number of things that some people somewhere will find "offensive".

Stephen Fry said it well:
"It's now very common to hear people say "I'm rather offended by that" as if it gives them certain rights.

It's no more than a whine. "I find that offensive." It has no meaning. It has no purpose. It has no reason to be respected as a phrase.

"I'm offended by that."

Well, so ****ing what?""

@gonzy I am as against terrorism in Ireland, from both sides, as I am against Islamic Jihadists. I appreciate you putting your perspective here, not always easy on STW. I think the comments you have made about Charlie Hebdo inciting a response which they deserve are quite commonly held in the Muslim community in Europe and beyond and that is a very grave problem.

@grum its 12 miles over the water from Bodrum to the Greek Islands (Kos?). The distance to the mainland is irrelevant as once in the country they are moved in safety by the Greek authorities via large ferries.

@ninfan I'm old enough to remember the outrage at Life of Brian from Christians, it caused much offence and was major news for quite some time. There was however no violence.

@gonzy I am as against terrorism in Ireland, from both sides, as I am against Islamic Jihadists. I appreciate you putting your perspective here, not always easy on STW. I think the comments you have made about Charlie Hebdo inciting a response which they deserve are quite commonly held in the Muslim community in Europe and beyond and that is a very grave problem.

i appreciate what you're saying there Jambalaya...but would that also include state sponsored terrorism?
if you or anyone else has ever bothered to read any of my comments on there threads on STW around similar issues you would see that i am also very much anti terrorism, i have been very critical of jihadism and i have also been equally critical of those who use islam as a justification for their own criminal activities and those who try to warp the true meaning of islam.
i have never said that those 11 people deserved to die...the magazine must have known that the danish magazine years before them had received death threats for drawing cartoons of the prophet mohammed. just because it is not written down as law does not mean that it is allowed. it is widely recognised that the quran is explicit that islam will not involve the worship of idols and that includes images of that which is regarded as holy and sacred. you say you've been to saudi many time jambalaya...how many saudi publications have you seen that use pictures depicting the prophet mohammed...satirical or otherwise? have you seen any with images of jesus?
just becuase religious piss taking is allowed in europe does not mean you can do it knowing that someone outside that realm will see it and get offended...
arsenal were once sponsored by sega and had it on their shirt...did you wonder why they never used that shirt when playing in europe?
criticism and satire of religion is a tricky issue at the best of times but when you know using certain types of imagery will be seen as offensive to those you are being critical of isnt going to do you any favours if someone from that group takes the law into their hands.
those 11 people didnt deserve to die, their killers didnt need to take it that far but they did and rightly should be condemned for that.
but knowing that CH must have had some idea of the impact the images used would have, they tok a risk and it backfired on them and in doing so they painted large targets on their employees...for that they have to take responsibility for...that they put their employees lives at risk.
to do it again is madness knowing what the reaction was last time...or is it a sign of cockiness from them....publishing the images knowing that they now benefit from armed security...(kind of like saying that we're protected now so we'll make these cartoons knowing they may offend some of you and you will be baying for blood...come and have a go if you think you're hard enough)
this is why i said if something bad did happen then it would be their fault as they knew the risks and have again put the lives of their employees in potential danger.
i agree with some of the point CH are trying to make...but i dont agree with the their style of delivery and the use of the recent images are in poor taste and shows a lack of sensitivity and respect.
neither do i agree that the correct response to their cartoons is to consort to violence.
however i still maintain that everyone is responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for them...be that CH for publishing the cartoons or those who resort to violence against them in response to the cartoons.

Gonzy: "i still maintain that everyone is responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for them...be that CH for publishing the cartoons or those who resort to violence against them in response to the cartoons."

Taken at face value this sentence makes sense. But thats not what you mean is it?

You actually mean that the people who _drew_ things on paper are at least partly responsible for their own _murders_.

That's 24 carat victim blaming of the worst possible kind.

I find your post offensive for that reason.

Now, does my offence mean that, by your own standards, you'll have to be quiet now?
Or would I have to have an AK-74 and a bronze age morality before your (desperately wonky) (a)moral compass kicked in?

criticising Junkyard's character flaws

In reality (and without wanting to condescend) I actually feel kind of sorry for the guy and it mostly stops me from diving in.

Yes that it is it is not that you are bitter from a thread from ages ago and you have had a pop

Unfortunately i neither recall the thread nor the incident but can i , hoping once more to nip this in the bud one last time, apologise for any offence i may have caused and hope they we can either move forward in friendship or in ignorance. I dont think it will be an edifying sight if we just bicker across threads because of this.
If it helps , these posts aside, I have no anger towards you so please lets just give it a rest

to do it again is madness knowing what the reaction was last time...or is it a sign of cockiness from them..

The alternative is allowing terrorists to decide what is published in a free country. You can have free speech where people are sometimes offended or you can have censorship by AK47.

One of the reasons Charlie Hebdo are at risk is because everyone else has been silenced. As John Cleese said

“The problem is if you make jokes about people who are going to kill you, there is a sort of tendency to hold back a little isn’t there?”

If everyone exercised their free speech the danger for any one person would be less.

You have friends in high places, Junkyard - I've been warned off "engaging" you.

And for the record I bear no bitterness, I simply feel everyone deserves respect regardless of their opinion or standing.

You have friends in high places, Junkyard

I think you'll find the clue in the moniker "lazarus".

He owes his very existence to a Power greater than ourselves.

🙂

Yeah, I get it now. I am but a worm...

Well that's how karma works.