[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

"I am anti-Semitic and I am no longer afraid to say so... I want every Jew to live in fear, except if they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die,"

lemonysam - Member

There are a great many things which I have the right to do but doing so at work could get me into trouble - as it happens I'm doing one right this very second by posting this. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

And the reason you left off getting arrested for breach of the peace is?

Oh... and JY, would you go along with christians not being subjected to things like this.....

[img] &q=90&w=479&zc=1[/img]

Is this overstepping the mark of what is acceptable? Because its exactly the same thing that this nutters are killing people for. Gives it a bit of perspective doesn't it. Its patently ridiculous to say that this is somehow verboten The Islamic faith needs to sort itself out and learn some perspective. Because the present viewpoint is not conducive to a living in a free society.

My worry is that people with views like your own will suggest further restrictions on what can and cannot be said, unless anyone gets offended. Then they've effectively won. And why stop there? Whats next?

Time for this again I reckon:

One of these is Free Speech, the other had to be retracted:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Wrecker he made those remarks in 1985 and apologised for them as the article clearly states.

4 hostages dead.

What a mess.

oh no...at least four hostages killed. 🙁

Whats next?

PC gone mental?

I like pies me.. And suppin ale..

I don't mind anyone calling me a ****, so I'll call anyone a ****, even if they've asked me not to, and further more, I'll then demand that they not see that as confrontational..
And then I'll call them a **** over and over again..

Try that logic in the boozer 😆

Wrecker he made those remarks in 1985 and apologised for them as the article clearly states.

I@ binners ts really not that long that we could do this and the islamic faith is not the only one that needs some perspective
I dont think they will suddenly change their mind if we bombard them with images and none of them offend me and Obviously I dont agree with their view but they get a bit Jihadi if they do it.

For example I have a mate who looks like shrek If anyone says this to him in a piss taking way he responds with great anger and mighty fury. He is a big fella as well and he has hit folk for it including very good mates. I have other friends who you can be far ruder to and they take it well and laugh it off. What I do is treat then differently as they respond differently.
Or we can take your approach and tell him he has no right to not be offended and insist he has to learn and change to be more like you. Lets be honest the world would be a better place if they were just like you wouldn't it.
EDIT: I dont mean that to sound as harsh as it does.
Its up to you treat them the same treat them differently has he won or are we just not upsetting him? Bit of both but it clearly annoys him more than I need to do it.
EDIT:

My worry is that people with views like your own will suggest further restrictions on what can and cannot be said, unless anyone gets offended. Then they've effectively won. And why stop there? Whats next?

Just on the news that all 3 Muslim bastards have finally been killed.

....don't often agree with Clegg, he tends to come across as a wet fish most of the time but his comments today are spot on with the right to free speech and the right to offend.

Reuters reportign this as Next weeks' Charlie Hebdo cover;

[edit] now beign reported as fake so removed pendign confirmation.

So is that why his colleagues at the magazine stood up for him for his right to express himself ? He didn't directly insult Judaism exactly did he.

Just on the news that all 3 Muslim bastards have finally been killed.

He didn't directly insult Judaism exactly did he.

Not really a helpful comment.

I think it was designed specifically [i]not[/i] to be helpful. It screams classiness.

Edit- wrong forum!

For example I have a mate who looks like shrek If anyone says this to him in a piss taking way he responds with great anger and mighty fury.

Of course he has a right to be offended, but would your friend murder 12 people in cold blood because someone called him Shrek?

If you come to play here, you accept the restrictions that are placed on what you can and can't say. It's clear, as an example....look at the rules of this forum.

And as you know, there is an element of subjectivity (inevitably) on how this (and any other rules of this type) are managed here and elsewhere.

Under Nick Clegg's analysis John Terry's behaviour may have been tolerated. Happy with that?

Never thought I'd agree with Cleggy, but he's bang on the money there!

He might be right in that should be the situtation, but he is wrong from a legal perspective, he should have asked his wife. Insulting behavior can be an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.

French media saying 1 male gunman has escaped the supermarket and that the female terrorist is still on the loose. I don't think it's over.

Just seen one trooper being hit in the raid, doesn't look like he was moving at all after. 🙁

You kind of don't though. It's a criminal offence to abuse someone based on race, gender or sexuality. Occassionally religion gets bundled in to that as well (although it shouldn't).

Satire isn't abuse though is it, let's get this clear, this was like Private Eye being shot up.

Does freedom of speech extend to freedom to be racist? The caricature of Mohammaded wasn't too far off the caricatures of the big-nosed grasping jews or the bog-trotting Fenians that used to be common here.

Everyone here fine with them too presumably?

(NB for the hard of thinking I've already said no cartoon EVER justifies violence)

Maybe something is lost in translation/cultural differences but I'm struggling to see anything funny or witty in there either. You can get away with a lot of offensiveness by at least actually being amusing/clever.

Also what is the correct "ISM" for discriminating against a person of a certain Religion.
It would not bother me if we had a black, brown or south East Asian prime minister if they were Christian or atheist but I would be decidedly nervous about a Muslim prime minister irrelevant of their/or lack of colour.

A few years ago i would not have been so, so what ism am I suffering as I am definitely not racist as I would never discriminate against a person based on the colour of their skin or think that I was better than anyone else simply because I was white and they was not. but I would based on their beliefs or more to the point how their beliefs cause them to discriminate against others.

A good person with faith will do good in the name of their faith.
An evil person with faith will do evil in the name of their faith.
What bothers me is, could an evil person with faith use their faith to cause a good person with faith to do evil.

To me religion is poppycock and I have the right to say so and It is impossible for me to blaspheme if i have not religion.
People have the right to believe but don't get so bent out of shape at others who don't and consider it no more believable than fairies at the end of the garden.

And in such circumstances should think that is your opinion and you are entitled to it not,
[img] [/img]

This extends to all religions, when jade goodie called shilpa sheti (probably spelt that wrong)
A Chapati or some thing like that in the big brother house they were burning effigies of jade on the streets of India.

I can not take that behaviour seriously, I am no fan of Christianity but at least now it is being forced to join the modern world.

no i'm not and if it comes across as this then i'm sorry. everyone has a freedom of speech but when you know that criticism of something in that manner may be seen as an insult that could potentially have repercussions of that nature then i would think carefully about airing those opinions in the first place.

I guess we shouldn't offend nonces, corrupt politicians, murderers, dictators etc etc - their mates might get upset and come and shoot us.

I find your views massively offensive.

(NB for the hard of thinking I've already said no cartoon EVER justifies violence)

Does freedom of speech extend to freedom to be racist? The caricature of Mohammaded wasn't too far off the caricatures of the big-nosed grasping jews or the bog-trotting Fenians that used to be common here.

Mohammed is an individual, making stereotyped images of Jews/an entire race is a different ball game.

Aspects of satire might be used by racists and were used by the Nazis, on the other hand satire has been instrumental in opposing regimes such as Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Frankos Spain.

Not sure about an ism chip but bigotry or simply prejudice are words that would work pretty well for you.

Tony Blair and George W - both Christians who said their faith inspired them to invade Iraq.

We're not talking about nonces etc though..
We're talking about insulting a generally peaceful demographic that is billions strong.. It's not their fault that the demographic in question contains a handful of psychotic gun toting maniacs

We're not talking about nonces etc though..
We're talking about insulting a demographic that is billions strong.. It's not their fault that the demographic in question contains a handful of psychotic gun toting maniacs

The Nazis, the fascists of Italy and Spain, Russias communists - all practically entire demographics that were on the receiving end of satire.

Apparently the morality of insulting people is based on how many people you are insulting though.

Not sure about an ism chip but bigotry or simply prejudice are words that would work pretty well for you.

Acting all offended has been raised to an art form by some on STW.

What you can and can't say is governed by laws pretty much everywhere. Anything sexist, racist or homophobic will get you into trouble in France but insults that are objectively accurate descriptions allowed. Telling the truth and calling a crook a crook won't get you into trouble if there is evidence you are right. As an example, Armstrong managed to sue lots of people who accused him of doping in the Anglo-Saxon world but failed in France. In France he would have had to prove he hadn't doped to get a decision in his favour, and the courts would have legally obtained the results of every dope test available in order to make an objective decision - and they wouldn't have been restricted by UCI tolerated limits for doping products, it would have simply been the presence of doping products. That's why he didn't take on l'Equipe.

Comparing Muslims to nonces, murderers, dictators etc

I can see why you struggle with condemning racism.

Tom - you are an islamophobic, practically racist tit.. I have nothing further to discuss with you xx

So we can satirize nonces in the vatican but we can't satirize Islam.....cuz Islam isn't as bad as the vatican?

You guys are just suffering from a severe case of logic failure. Yes, maybe comparing Islam to fascism was going a bit far - but, as Doug Stanhope has pointed out - the Vatican and by extension Islam has a far more prosperous and prestigious record of mayhem than the Nazi's.

Before spluttering too much with references to totalitarian regemes you might want to check out other news today from [url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693 ]Saudi[/url].

5thelefeant, you just backed my opinion even further.....oh noes....he insulted religion....he's obviously a racist that needs to be lashed.

You talk about logical fallacies but then come out with a pathetic straw man that barely makes sense. I genuinely expected better from you Tom.

I didn't from you though 5th Elefant. Well done on an excellent point. I don't think anyone had noticed that Saudi Arabia is a shit country before.

yunki - Member

Tom - you are an islamophobic, practically racist tit.. I have nothing further to discuss with you xx

😯 C'mon! C'mon! Can't you accept alternative views?

I can assure you Muslamic have extreme phobia over other beliefs too ...

Tom_W1987 - Member

So we can satirize nonces in the vatican but we can't satirize Islam.....cuz Islam isn't as bad as the vatican?

[b]You guys are just suffering from a severe case of logic failure.[/b]

😆 Ya, told you. Too many PhDs with logical minds yet can't stick to logic and I see them coming ... 😯

edit: oh ya ... the AK47 shooters. Dead. Very Dead but unfortunately they have taken many with them. Now, the AK47 shooters will be the virgins to be savaged upon by those waiting for them on the other side.

Would you agree that it's okay to offend Catholics in the name of satirizing the Vatican's scandals? If you don't, we are never going to agree on this at all.

If you do, then you are guilty of double standards.

Yes but it's not ok to be racist. HTH.

I don't see the racism in Charlie Hebdos cartoons. The context and intent isn't there.

The word some of you are looking for is sectarianism. Hope that helps.

To be racist is to believe you are better than someone simply based on the fact you believe you are of a superior race than them.

Until there is scientific proof there is a god,
Peoples right to believe in god goes hand in hand with peoples right to say how ridicules such a belief is.

Religious people have the right to draw cartoons mocking my lack of faith, I am not allowed to shoot them,

Of course you don't even need to draw a cartoon..
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/01/saudi-arabia-blogger-flogged-insulting-islam-20151911120952108.html

I think I remember yunki ordering a baby Jesus but plug, stone him.

I didn't from you though 5th Elefant. Well done on an excellent point. I don't think anyone had noticed that Saudi Arabia is a shit country before.

And added a smiley face to posting the fact.

We're we not so hamstrung by well meaning but naive bunch of Islam apologists we could have prosecuted Abu Hamza 10 years ago and stopped him recruiting a generation a whole generation of murderers we are presently dealng with.

That was a mistake that shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

The word some of you are looking for is sectarianism.

Nope, that's what happens between subdivisions in a certain group, the correct word was already pointed out to be bigotry.

eg. Sunni vs Shia (Islamic), Protestant vs Catholic (Christian)

The clue is in the name: [b]sect[/b]arianism

WTF, one dickhead in Finsbury Park is now responsible for all this?

Aye, okay then...

You guys are just suffering from a severe case of logic failure...

...the Vatican and by extension Islam has a far more prosperous and prestigious record of mayhem than the Nazi's.

Really? I could see the point if you were talking about Stalin, Pol Pot or any other single person that ordered the wholesale murder of people on a genocidal scale but seriously?

I think it's perhaps you that's suffering from logic failure here.

Satire only works when it's funny to the audience. If they laugh there was more than a grain of truth in the jest. Ridiculise the ridiculous.

Humour is one of the things that make our world good place to be. Dave Allen, Monty Python, Private eye, Charlie, Anne Roumanoff, Clarkson (yes even that a***), Coluche, Dieudonne, Florence Foresti, Gad, Franklin, Cantalou, spitting image, les guignols, Danny... . Do you really want to silence them?

Really? I could see the point if you were talking about Stalin, Pol Pot or any other single person that ordered the wholesale murder of people on a genocidal scale but seriously?

I think it's perhaps you that's suffering from logic failure here.

If we include the past 2000 years of history, then yes.

And you can't even compare the Nazi's anti-jewish posters to these cartoons. I would post images of some examples of each, deconstructing them and the intentions behind them but I don't think that would be allowed.

Dave Allen,
Wonderful.

[img] &f=1[/img]

The image above is in my son's school history book. The seemingly banal headline resulted in Hara Kiri being banned. A week later Charlie Hebdo was launched. The freedom of the press is a French institution more important than the institutions themselves. After a few revolutions and an occupation attempts to silence the press don't go down too well.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/paris-and-beyond-europe-is-at-war-with-itself/16435#.VLAjxyusWHA

Good article, here's an excerpt.

Cultural polarisation
The idea of the Islamisation of Europe is just as evasive as the official rhetoric of multiculturalism. The real threat facing Europe is not that of an external force or the irresistible attraction of Islam. The real problem is that the political and cultural elites of Europe are struggling to give contemporary meaning to their cultural and historical legacy. Europe’s embrace of multiculturalism has been inspired by a variety of different calculations. However, its principal driver has been European societies’ difficulty in providing their ways of life with positive and forward-looking values. Opting for the ‘multi’ has spared governments the difficult task of elaborating and upholding a common foundation for communal life.

Multiculturalism, then, has served as a form of political evasion. But it has also encouraged the destructive process of cultural segregation. Such segregation means that dialogue now only takes place within parallel communities. Not surprisingly, young people growing up within a community that is relatively untouched by the values of officialdom will have their views and prejudices affirmed and echoed by others. The pool of knowledge on which millions of young Muslims now draw is very different to that of other communities. But the emergence of views that run counter to those of the host society is rarely noticed by the media because there is no dialogue that transcends the multicultural divide.
The sentiments that drove thousands of European youths to fight in Syria have been produced by confusions and tensions generated in Europe. Opinion polls indicate that IS is supported by a far higher percentage of young Muslims in France and other parts of Europe than in the Middle East. That shows that the source of anti-Western sentiments should be located in Europe, not ‘over there’.

The chain of events that led to the massacre in Paris may well have been sparked off by a classroom discussion in the banlieus of Paris or Marseilles. Some pupils were no doubt certain that the Holocaust was a myth. And the defensive way their teachers dealt with their points would only have strengthened their conviction, itself informed by their older peers at home. Throughout their teenage years, their alienation from French society would have gained in force. They then encountered radical Islam, a medium to express their alienation, and the rest is history. But if Europe wakes up, this won’t necessarily be the future.

Religion cannot be compared with race. It's a choice and as such I'm quite happy for it to be ridiculed. If some people are insulted sufficiently to cause crime, then they're just criminals. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm firmly with Binners on this one.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2015/Jan-09/283552-takfiri-groups-offended-prophet-mohammad-more-than-the-cartoons-mocking-him.ashx

Glimmer of hope.

On the analysis front, it's non-stop on French TV. To the above quote I'll add the Sunnite/Shiite divide, with shiite states such as Iran offering support and sympathy to France.

Edit: Tom's link is an example of Shiites slagging of Sunnites.

Edit: to add a link that makes it all clear [url= http://news.yahoo.com/hezbollah-chief-vows-syria-victory-ashura-address-110158174.html ]Shiites at war with Sunnites condemn Charlie attack[/url]

I guess it could be construed that way. 😕

Irans message of support to France came with a message though.

I assume it would be either an idiotic idea to supply Shiites with lots of weaponry, upset Israel and/or upset the Saudis?

In a bit of a pickle aren't we, to many factions at war with each other to pick one side and run with it. Probably shouldn't have befriended the Saudis and pushed the Iranians into the arms of the Russians during the 20th century.

Befriending the Saudis and the 50/50 deal made the US what it is today. Demonising Iran after the fall of the Shah, funding and arming Saddam against Iran then isolating Iran were perhaps unwise moves.

Acting all offended has been raised to an art form by some on STW..

Satire only works when it's funny to the audience. If they laugh there was more than a grain of truth in the jest.

I dont doubt folk laugh at the satire images of Obama as a monkey I dont think this elevates them to having a grain of truth. There is a very fine line between satire and just mocking and /or just abusing something

I don't think Charlies Hebdos cartoons are in the same league as the Obama-monkey cartoons or even the watermelon cartoon incident, the latter of which was actually defended by some of the black community, something that I never quite understood actually.

Viz have done it in style!

[img] [/img]

Back that "racist" accusation up with a quote, Junkyard. You normally litter your posts with them. Link a whole thread even. Perhaps one in which I put forward the French government view that covering one's face in public is not acceptable whether it's with a religious garment, or a scarf and hoodie. There are limits to what a secular state can tolerate.

I am not sure portraying black person as a monkey can be called "sailing close to the wind". Its just racist.

You seem to have turned offence in to an art form there Edukator,

I would agree Junkyard, you know what I meant though.

Tom I dont think you are a racist; thick skinned like a rhino and pig headed Yes but racist , no 😉

Said with affection rather than malice to be clear.

tbh i have next to no French and the Charlie ones often seem to be just be offensive for the sake of it.
Naked prophet with a camera but I dont know what the captions mean.
I do get the intouchables one though as I have seen the film

I didn't think you thought I was a racist - I've found this an interesting thread.

I change my opinions all the time anyway as I never really believe my own, let alone other peoples opinions. I think some of you know that my opinions can take wild swings from thread to thread, it depends on my mood and which side I feel like arguing for. The pig headed comment comes from the fact that I will then attempt to defend which side I pick at all costs.

I enjoy playing the contrarian.

I have the fortune or misfortune depending on view of believing what I say

One of the better debates on here on a complex issue with no completley satisfactory answer

Most of societies ills come from the fact that you often end up with competing rights and having to pick which to support and which to ignore.

This is interesting for me as I dont support either view fully and see that both have a point though of course killing folk is not the correct response.

Not offended, Junkyard, just asking you to back up a clearly directed insult (you quoted me and implied I'm a racist) with evidence. Perhaps you could make it clear as you have done to Tom:

Tom I dont think you are a racist

However Junkyard, when I place Nazi imagery next to Charlie Hebdo cartoons - it is really clear how much of a darker and nastier message the Nazi cartoons are portraying. There is no comparison IMO - I think some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are unfunny, in bad taste and sometimes inaccurate in their commentary. I don't think they are incitements to hatred though and I do believe in the right to use scathing humor to question the validity of authority be they governments or religion and we have to accept that we won't always like some of this humor if we find it unfunny, unhelpful or offensive. Think of this as satires equivalent to collateral damage.

In response to your thoughts on "killing the message" of radical Islam, I think we should combine some of the thoughts raised in that Spiked article into a coherent policy as a long term solution to our chronic problems with Islamism. I do think that the short term response to the acute and immediate threats of Islamism should be robust, using measured force.

The more we fail to achieve a cohesive response to Islamism, that placates the public's fears, the more we play into the hands of the far right. Europe needs to remember and start championing it's values, the enlightenment, the rule of law etc etc before we forget it and see a reversion to fascism.

I am not sure portraying black person as a monkey can be called "sailing close to the wind". Its just racist.

Depends if there was intent.
Don't know the cartoon you speak of but if meant as in the the term you pay peanuts you get monkeys as in useless or I will speak to the organ grinder as in not the man in charge.

My sister said to a new black mother a friend of my niece of her baby, he's a cheeky little monkey.
The mother took offence where non was meant.
My sister calls all little boys "monkeys"

The religion of peace again spreading it's message of peace of love again I see...

Not like Christians and their ever so friendly burning each other at the stake because they are the wrong sort of Christian.

Different era, same religion.

Anyone old enough here to remember Enoch?

Boardwalk Empire?

Oh the other one.. Yes I think that was done a few pages back, some people thought he reasonably predicted this situation but apparently their all racists.

Anyone old enough here to remember Enoch?

Givup, we've been there earlier in the programme.

Apparently he was a misquoted rascist. (or something)

I wonder if a wee bit beer on a friday night makes the fan boys braver?

I wonder if a wee bit beer on a friday night makes the fan boys braver?

Not braver just more gobby! 🙂

Can't wait for that weekend away with Ton!!