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

Clever bugger though, fished me in

Clever bugger? Not really. It was immediately obvious that it was a fake, yet you're so determined to find the hidden answer that you'll immediately jump on any source to back up your "theories".

Zero credibility...

If it was immediately obvious, why were you the only one to point it out?

We're none of us infallible, but, like the babies in incubators incident, or GCHQ/NSA and the wealth of lies and half truths in between, questioning Government and media is certainly a credible path.

I'm not sure (and hey, I got drawn in too a few pages back) bringing the Israel-Palestine conflict into the thread helps that much, while I very much sympathised with you on the last one gonzy.

the reason i brought it up was to show that ninfan is a bit of a hypocrite in saying that its ok to kill innocent people during times of war especially as they can be counted as collateral damage...but it would be wrong if they had been targeted deliberately...hence the question about the boys on the beach.
he then went onto allude that making offensive comments on religion should not have been outlawed but is more than happy to state that any criticism towards judaism is anti-semitism.
he later stated that islam and christianity dont count as they are religions and that judaism has transcended both these religions and is now a race...and therefore anti-semitism should be punishable but not islamophobia or christophobia

It's very difficult to legislate to make people "morally" decent. Morality is so bloody subjective. We would have to have the kind of legislation which would make binners explode, leaving behind nothing more than a white sticky mess afterwards...and noone wants to have to clean that up. Thus, we have to set some lines in the sand...possibly set for the lowest common denominators and punish those who cross those lines with consistency and fairness.

Unfortunately, and it can be seen in a microcosm on this forum, when lines are drawn in the sand (the rulez of the forum), lots of folk will happily dance on that line and that means sometimes, we're going to have to be upset by it but not lose our rag. I've had loads of digs concerning my nationality over the years, and I've had to read lots of bigotry-bordering-on-racism-but-perhaps-not-enough-to-get-banned from a few contributors in particular, some of whom have posted on this thread.

So yeah, we have to have lines in the sand, but accept that sometimes people will sort of cross them, but then jump back to the right side before you can do anything about it...and you can't always expect someone to be prosecuted because you're upset by something.

i agree

Your overly dramatic analogy with a bullied child is just daft.

Well that's a well thought-out and convincing argument.

Have you actually looked up many Charlie Hebdo cartoons? Many of them are full of witless racism that the BNP might think twice about. I'm not sure how that's being good at satire or why you're so 'fiercely protective' of it.

And poking fun at the rich and powerful is a bit different to bullying the marginalised, don't you think?

If it was immediately obvious, why were you the only one to point it out?

Because I'm the smartest guy in the room 8)

What am I wearing?

Am I right in thinking its original target was mainly the Catholic church/establishment (which was more intertwined at the time)?

that's what i had read too...i also read that the catholic church had successfully sued them on 12 occasions...so maybe they had started to pick new targets to insult as a result

Is this one of your favourites binners?

[img] [/img]
'Hands off our benefit cheques'

Nice.

Or perhaps this charmer:

[img] [/img]

Grum - the bullying charge doesn't really stand, as we're talking about a publication with a tiny readership (until this week, obviously). If you were talking about a national newspaper with a circulation in the millions, then maybe. But a readership in the tens of thousands against a muslim population of millions? Not really bullying, is it? Hardy a lynch mob.

I'm not doubting that some of it is tasteless, ill-conceived or offensive. Its satire? Isn't that the point? Most satire is pretty hit and miss, to say the least. Have you read Private Eye recently. A large percentage of it is twoddle.

But if they'd crossed any legal boundaries they could be taken to task legally. Having spent quite a bit of my career working in publishing, I can tell you that their output, like any other publications, would be run past a lawyer before it went to print. Anything that crossed the lines we as a society have deemed unacceptable would never have made it to print. Simple as that.

EDIT: Once again gum. My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn't be allowed? Of course I shouldn't! I don't have the right not to be offended. Neither does anyone else.

What am I wearing?

A tinfoil hat 😉

This week's Charlie Hebdo features cartoons of Mohammed...

until this week, obviously

Something for jivehoneyjive to go after there...

What exactly are they 'satirising' in the above cartoon about the benefit cheques binners?

EDIT: Once again gum. My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn't be allowed? Of course I shouldn't!

I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed, I said it shouldn't be supported/encouraged - which is what you and many others are doing.

If the one showing bullets going through the koran was reversed, and was published by an Islamic magazine, showing the bible/christians - you'd be quite happy to use it as an example of the twisted evils of Islam inciting violence/hatred I'm sure.

With Grum here much of what they did was puerile rather than brilliant cutting satire and done just to offend. See also the prophet as a porn star - again what is the bitign satire there and the point?
Its like turning up at someones wedding and shouting that the bride is a dirty fat slag then talking about your right to free speech and how they dont have the right to not be offended rather than address the fact you have just been an offensive ****.

EDIT:
Your I dont have the right to be not offended is tiresome not least because no has asserted the right to be "not offended" - see wedding above example.

I'm not doubting that some of it is tasteless, ill-conceived or offensive. Its satire? Isn't that the point?

* insert poster of choice and no offence meant just satire innit

I have Sunnis, Shias, combinations of both, Jews, Christians (Anglican and RCs), agnostics and atheists all working in my office.

I stand by this being interesting; no bollocks talked

Did you manage to type that with a straight face ?

Because I laughed when I read it.

The world leaders pictures you "exposed" and posting fake news websites certainly seems like posting bollocks.

though I admit I was taken in by the false BBC link:

Fair enough, but have a think about why you were taken in by it.

Because you are blinded by your point of view, you do zero analysis of anything that backs it up.

As it happens, I didn't spot the fake domain either, but the first thing I did when I looked at the article was Google the name of the "expert" to see who he was.

And as stated above, he isn't anybody.

(plus. The BBC News YouTube channel has a few hundred thousand videos. Not 31)

What am I wearing?

A tinfoil hat

Good guess, but it was actually a momentary frown...

Smiling again now though 😉

My personal opinion is irrelevant. Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn't be allowed?

obviously not you're just one fella..

But when it's offending a quarter of the world's population, surely there's a difference?

I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed, I said it shouldn't be supported/encouraged - which is what you and many others are doing.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating that the law sets the limits of what is acceptable. We all live within those same guidelines. Unless it crosses these lines, they're free to do that. It might upset some people.

I don't have an opinion on it one way or another. Not being an authority on French domestic politics, I have no idea what they're satirising. My opinion is irrelevant anyway.

People publish stuff all the time that other find offensive. Heres an example for you. I'm a designer and illustrator. So, as you've seen I do a graphic for our weekly pub ride. A few weeks ago i did this, for our 'Songs of Praise' christmas night ride, and posted it up on't interweb

[img] [/img]

Is it tasteless? Yes. Is it disrespectful to some peoples deeply held beliefs? Of course it is. Puerile? Tick. Will some people be offended by it? No doubt. Should I be somehow have to consider all this. Well... yes. Up to a point. Everything relative innit?

Theres a lot of things i find offensive. Should I therefore have the right to decree that therefore they shouldn't be allowed? Of course I shouldn't! I don't have the right not to be offended. Neither does anyone else.

but you should be Binners...you have as much right to be offended as you have to offend....it should work both ways
do you think you would find it accepteble if someone was being offensive towards a family member? i dont think so...thats the point i made and its the same point Grum is making.
its about having the right to be able to freely express yourself and balancing that with the equal right to be able to challenge it if you think it wrong.

Here is food for thought why is a popular conspiracy theory (popular as in widely quoted by conspiracy theorists) being presented on a fake BBC link ? why was that link address set up some time ago not for this hoax. are conspiracy theories themselves a conspiracy. If so by who and why ? does David Ike have a financial interest in perpetuating this never ending cycle of doubt and paranoia?

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating that the law sets the limits of what is acceptable.

So when you were praising them for being 'pretty good' at satire, you weren't supporting them. Oh ok then.

BTW your graphic may offend some but at least has a little wit/humour/inventiveness to it.

I bet the sunni is the brightest.

IGMC (and bulletproof vest).

Is it tasteless? Yes. Is it disrespectful to some peoples deeply held beliefs? Of course it is. Puerile? Tick. Will some people be offended by it? No doubt. Should I be somehow have to consider all this. Well... yes. Up to a point. Everything relative innit?

that depends.....is that a 29er?

My opinion is irrelevant anyway.

Still waiting for you to explain the freedom of speech right to hurl abuse at weddings- not illegal after all.

That bride has no right to not be offended on that special day after all.

Cmon whose with me ?

[i]is that a 29er? [/i]

It's worse than that.

It's an Orange.

Worse than that! Its an Orange! I'm surprised I've not had a fatwa issued already 😉

Its an Orange! I'm surprised I've not had a fatwa issued already

needs an Audi in the background... 😉

Theres a few people here are saying that personal abuse, directed at individual is the same as criticising a particular belief system. It isn't. Its totally different.

All religions are open to criticism. Even if it is crass and tastelessly done. We can't select on the basis of quality. As long as its not inciting hatred of that religion, its permissible

The examples you're listing are selecting individuals and subjecting them to personal abuse (hurling abuse at the bride at a weddings? Wheres the similarity there?). Thats a very different thing.

😥 all i said was Audi Binners...

That's a religion of sorts 😉

All religions are open to criticism. Even if it is crass and tastelessly done. We can't select on the basis of quality. As long as its not inciting hatred of that religion, its permissible

i agree Binners....but the problem is how do we know what is seen as inciting hatred and what isnt...its down to interpretation.
its the same with islam and the text of the quran...its interpreted in many ways hence why there are so many nutjobs running around preaching the wrong message and causing havoc

right Binners...thats enough! you've drawn a monday night pub ride poster depicting what you have admitted is an Orange and i suspect a 29er too...i'm not letting you add the Audi in...so here's your fatwa
you are hereby banned from the consumption of any goods from Greggs for one whole month.
you can still enter the premises to look and smell but you must not purchase, handle or consume any of their wares...if you do i'll steal your bike and send it back to you with 24" wheels on!! 😉

Free speech does not entitle you to say whatever you want. It has to be within the bounds of law [u]in the country in which it's said[/u]. Now the Internet confuses this but in the UK we abolished our Blaspehmy law, not least as comedians constantly made religious jokes. The Charlie Ebdo editor made it very clear he expected some Muslims to be offended just as he assumed those of other religions would be with other cartoons but under French law it was not illegal and he cared not whether the cRtoons would illegal under other countries laws as the magazine was published in France.

As for the Israel/Palestine conflict I'm not sure it was anyone other than I who raised it. I did so as with a terrorist attacking a Jewish supermarket and almost certainly intended to attack a Jewish school (as per Toulouse and ****stan attacks I teded to cause maximum outrage) it was very much relevant to this thread in my opinion as was my link to various comments about how to deal with terrorism.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/paris-shootings-jewish-school-target-amedy-coulibaly ]guradian: Jewish school likley target[/url]

Of course Jews and Mulsims can live and work together, there where two friends one Jewish and one Muslim who where together in Paris and who's interview was widely shown, each talking of their friendship and each wearing a Je Suis Juif/Muslimam of the others faith. Here in the UK you have chef Ottolenghi a Jersulem Jew who's business partner is a Paestinain from the same city.

As for the cartoon and benefits there is a view in France, as in England, amongst certain people that certain immigrant communities are more likely to live on welfare. The supermarket terrorists was head on an open phone line berating a hostage for paying taxes and boasting he did not, reinforcing that stereotype that says some do not make a contribution to society and see that as a positive

Theres a few people here are saying that personal abuse, directed at individual is the same as criticising a particular belief system. It isn't. Its totally different.

That's not answering the question - it's about the principle not how similar the two scenarios are.

Both are legal, both would be considered unacceptable by some/many people - under your black and white 'only the law can decide' ethos, both then should be considered fine.

And not only considered fine, but we should apparently strongly defend someone's right to do what they are legally allowed to, without any thought for the target, as the principle is more important.

Just to really play devil's advocate, how many people in this country would think an acceptable response in the wedding scenario would be to lamp the abuser? Quite a few I'd imagine.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Not the pasties!!!!!!

[img] [/img]

ohhh yes! the pasties!!
[img] [/img]

Free speech does not entitle you to say whatever you want.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

does David Ike have a financial interest in perpetuating this never ending cycle of doubt and paranoia?

Dunno, does he have shares in the arms industry, (or private military contractors, security etc)

Oh no hang on that's:

[img] [/img]

And of course the Chair of the UK Intelligence & Security Committee (and Leon Brittan's Cousin) Malcolm Ri****d:

[img] [/img]

Wonder why he was so eager to get his hands on CIA Torture Report?

What Grum said - Of course they are different but both are legal and both are fine as she does not have the right to not be offended, That is what you are arguing is it not ?

FWIW I am not sure why insulting more people is better than insultign fewer people seeing as we seem to be both twisting folks arguments and ignoring them 😛

i agree Binners....but the problem is how do we know what is seen as inciting hatred and what isnt...its down to interpretation.
its the same with islam and the text of the quran...its interpreted in many ways hence why there are so many nutjobs running around preaching the wrong message and causing havoc

Which, by your logic, means the Koran should be outlawed.

[img] [/img]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/muslims-warn-antiterror-laws-could-prevent-teaching-from-koran-20141008-1137lj.html

"We are therefore concerned that the proposal has serious implications on [b]free speech[/b] and will have a chilling effect on legitimate religious and political debate," the council – representing 250 imams - said in a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

If certain lines within the Koran can be viewed as an incitement to violence, should they not be banned and removed from all UK editions of the book?

does David Ike have a financial interest in perpetuating this never ending cycle of doubt and paranoia?

Yes he absolutely does, he makes a lot of money from book/DVD sales, ticket sales, advertising sales.

There's a lot of money in telling stories to gullible people.

Dunno,

Yes you do.

But quick, change the subject !!

does he have shares in the arms industry, (or private military contractors, security etc)

That's better.

Which, by your logic, means the Koran should be outlawed.

The organisation is hosting a lecture in Lakemba on Friday to denounce "the politics and plots of the American-led intervention in Iraq and Syria" and Mr Abbott has conceded that the current legal framework is not sufficient to shut the event down.The imams council said a cleric could fall foul of the new law even if he simply "advocated the duty of a Muslim to defend his land".

"We are therefore concerned that the proposal has serious implications on free speech and will have a chilling effect on legitimate religious and political debate," the council – representing 250 imams - said in a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Appearing in front of the committee on Wednesday, members of the Muslim Legal Network said the laws, introduced by Attorney-General George Brandis, should target the extreme fringe, not mainstream Muslims.

They said any religious community could face being charged with a terror-related offence "if they refer back to stories in the Quran, Bible and Torah in their sermons".

It is documented the al-Qaeda handlers of the 9/11 suicide pilots had urged them to dwell on passages in the Koran in which God promises to "cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks!"

But some scholars have pointed out that the Old Testament is just as violent in its imagery, including Psalm 137 which threatens Babylonians that "blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks".

In its submission, the Islamic Council of Victoria said the new law would incriminate Muslims who support "legitimate forms of armed struggle", including resistance to the Assad regime in Syria and the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

"The broad definition of 'terrorism' and the way in which it is sometimes selectively applied to such groups is problematic … [and] the power of the Attorney-General to list terrorist organisations without oversight and consistency exacerbates this problem," it said.

"Broadening this definition to include 'foreign incursions' and 'treason' when Australia already has laws which deal with these further muddies the water on the issue of what can be considered terrorism and what should be considered legitimate resistance to oppression.

"Criminalising the act of 'advocating terrorism' adds another layer of complexity to this issue. The scope of what constitutes 'advocating terrorism' is unclear."

The council identified what it says is a double standard in Muslims wanting to go to Syria and Iraq to provide aid having their passports cancelled "while ignoring the travel of Zionist Jews wishing to travel to Israel – a state which illegally occupies Palestinian territory with intention of fighting in a war against Gazans and has been accused of war crimes".

MLEH to your selective quoting

I think the point was that nutters interpret the written word poorly as you so eloquently demonstrated

Grums message throughout this thread has been, "these images shouldn't be allowed because some people interpret them in a way that is an incitement to hatred". How is this different than verses in the Koran that can be construed as an incitement to violence/hatred?

Personally, I think some of the passages in the Koran are a lot more cut and dry than the messages portrayed by Charlie Hebdo. So, why should images like the ones that were produced by Charlie Hebdo be banned - but not certain verses from the Koran? If we ban them, isn't that going to offend one quarter of the worlds population? But Grum doesn't want to offend one quarter of the worlds population.

I really, really want to know how Grum has managed to end up with this logically flawed view - doesn't compute.

It's pretty hilarious for you to talk about my logically flawed view and then come out with what you've just said.

Grums message throughout this thread has been, "these images shouldn't be allowed because some people interpret them in a way that is an incitement to hatred".

I've never said that - in fact I've specifically said that I don't think they should be banned. Yet another straw man/troll from you. I've said they shouldn't be applauded/supported.

Following on from the very poor straw man, we have some classic whataboutery:

Personally, I think some of the passages in the Koran are a lot more cut and dry than the messages portrayed by Charlie Hebdo.

I've never read the Koran, but if it's used to justify violence then I don't support that, as well as not supporting racism/bigotry in CH. Yet again, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I also don't support people selectively quoting things they know very little about, out of context, to support their own bias/prejudice.

I've never said that - in fact I've specifically said that I don't think they should be banned.

I must have missed that, as you and a few others have spent the past 10 pages arguing against freedom of speech.

eg

This is patently bollocks. There's a large grey area between acceptable criticism and harassment, bullying, inciting racial hatred etc.

To use gonzys school analogy - if large numbers of kids in a school were all consistently picking on your kid, insulting him and ridiculing him all the time - you're saying that would be fine with you? Bollocks it would.

its the same with islam and the text of the quran...its interpreted in many ways hence why there are so many nutjobs running around preaching the wrong message and causing havoc

If the doctrine of abrogation, which is mentioned a few times in the Koran, is taken on board then there is no confusion in the interpretation of the text.

Any contradictions that appear are easy to sort out.

Although that would also mean that the nutjobs have the "right" message, which is when it starts to look a bit scarier

Meanwhile in Saudi

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-fatwa-banning-snowmen-triggers-heated-debate-1.1439821

"these images shouldn't be allowed because some people interpret them in a way that is an incitement to hatred". How is this different than verses in the Koran that can be construed as an incitement to violence/hatred?

I must have missed that, as you and a few others have spent the past 10 pages arguing against freedom of speech.

I must have missed that, as you and a few others have spent the past 10 pages arguing against freedom of speech.

eg

Can you find me a quote where I've suggested banning anything?

He doesn't actually believe you've suggested banning anything, he's just arguing from the point of view of someone who may hold that view, because, you know, attention.

I'd certainly like to be able to ban [i]some[/i] people's free speech. 😉

We all support free speech, we all agree it has limits we are just debating where the line is drawn
I cannot take you seriously on this thread and I decline to engage with this gibberish or this which is another poor Straw man

Okay, I managed to find Grums post where he states CH's drawings shouldn't be banned.

If there are limits to freedom of speech though, do you feel religious texts are exempt from this Junkyard?

Not sure if previously linked to on here, but a German paper which reprinted three Charlie Hebdo cartoons was firebombed over the weekend: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/german-newspaper-hamburger-morgenpost-arson-attacked-over-20151117135939826.html

This at the same time as the German politicians are condemning Pegida marches.

Not going to bother responding to any of your posts any more Tom_W1987 - it's just tedious if intelligent people aren't going to debate in a grown-up way.

It's mind boggling to me that in 2015, with all the scientific advances we've made, and how much we know about the world and universe around us, that any sane adult chooses to believe and live their life according to a story book written a couple of thousand years ago.

Not going to bother responding to any of your posts any more Tom_W1987 - it's just tedious if intelligent people aren't going to debate in a grown-up way.

I'll just consider that the cat's got your tongue then.

"To think out a problem is not unlike drawing a caricature. You have to exaggerate the salient point and leave out that which is not typical." - E. Hoffer.

it all boils down to having a bit of moral decency and respect and telling yourself "i can go there but i wont".
...
its about having the right to be able to freely express yourself and balancing that with the equal right to be able to challenge it if you think it wrong.
...
Both are legal, both would be considered unacceptable by some/many people - under your black and white 'only the law can decide' ethos, both then should be considered fine.

There's a fundamental point here which I think some folk are missing.

Borrowing the wedding example above and "is it freedon of speech or personal abuse" whataboutery aside, this gate crasher is absolutely within his right to say what he likes so long as he remains within the law. However, critically, [i]he is an arsehole.[/i]

Now, most people have moral codes which tell them not to be arseholes (some even have a special book to help them). Some don't, of course. But what are we proposing as the alternative here, Anti Arsehole Act 2015 legislation?

And one of the beauties of this freedom of speech is, it works both ways. This is the other thing some folk seem to be either ignoring or misunderstanding. There have been a few posts along the lines of "someone insults me and that's ok then, is it?" That's not what we're saying. Someone insults you, you're free to insult them right back. Or ask them to leave your private function. Or tell their parents that, actually, little Johnny is being a dick and would you mind awfully asking him to behave? You can absolutely challenge people if you believe that their behaviour is out of order; good, isn't it?

Freedom if speech isn't about rolling over and taking abuse, rather it's the primary tenant that allows us to even be having this discussion.

"To think out a problem is not unlike drawing a caricature. You have to exaggerate the salient point and leave out that which is not typical."

You do this a lot on here Tom. And then you'll start shouting at someone for not interpreting the data you've posted. Either be one or the other. You might want to open your eyes a bit and see how your tone comes across.

Tom - what the nutjobs are very clever at is taking certain lines of text from the Quran and then interpreting them in the way they see fit so that it fits in with their agenda. what you fail to see is that these lines of text they use are taken from much larger scriptures and therefore what they say are removed from the context in which they were originally written.

Lalazar hits the nail on the head with this from page 11

Edukator looking at those verse numbers their quite easy to identify as their always the ones thrown about on the net. The Quran is not a book that came about in one go.It was revealed and compiled over a course of 23 years. Many of its verses are relevant to specific events that took place.

So your first verse ;
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

This was revealed in relation to Muslims seeking sanctuary in Medina after 13 years of tyranny and oppression in Mecca. Some escaped and others were expelled leaving behind all they had. Muslims then reestablished themselves in Medina which became the first Muslim city. The Meccans however weren't content and took their armies to destroy Medina. Up until this point the Muslims had no authorituy to fight hence this verse was revealed giving them permission to fight those who fought them and expel those who expelled them.

Taken out of context you can take that verse and make what you want of it . Get the real background and you'll see it for what it is.

Tom - what the nutjobs are very clever at is taking certain lines of text from the Quran and then interpreting them in the way they see fit so that it fits in with their agenda. what you fail to see is that these lines of text they use are taken from much larger scriptures and therefore what they say are removed from the context in which they were originally written.

If the BNP issued a story to it's membership that involved advocating the killing of Jews, but was potentially open to interpretation because actually it was an unclear allegory - that would be banned.

P.S I've read that that line was revealed after Muslims overthrew those who subjected them in Medina?

This week edition of CH will feature the prophet cartoons.

Going back a bit,

you might find that the vast majority of muslims can tolerate cartoons etc that question,criticise or mock their faith but there are certain things that are strictly off limits.

There are certain things which are off limits according to [b]their [/b]religion and / or belief system, which is fair enough. Here's the thing. The other three quarters of the planet don't recognise their book as an authority. Ergo, they don't get to make demands. Sorry. Maybe they should consider asking nicely instead?

Because that's were we're going with this, as I was alluding to in my previous post. If I were a CH cartoonist and had been told, "look, we don't mind being the butt of a few jokes, but this prophet thing is a really big deal and really upsetting a lot of folk, can we draw the line there please?" then I'd apologise, not do it again, and probably feel quite guilty about the whole thing. If instead someone rocked up to my office with assault rifles telling me what I could and couldn't do based on their own ideology, I'd want to be out the back door with a cartoon of the prophet in a compromising position with a pig and off to the nearest Algerian embassy with an Imax projector.

I think this is what's grinding my gears the most about this debate, it's the "special privilege" argument again. In the link about 30 pages back, that gobshite Choudry was banging on about how the law of god trumps the law of man and he doesn't recognise our legal system, or some such. Thing is, a country's laws are not optional. You can add to them for your own guidance, sure, and if you've got your Bumper Book Of Being Nice To People then all the better, but if you fundamentally disagree with the laws of your country then you're in the wrong country. If I went over to Saudi with a bottle of Jack and a wife in a bikini and said "oh, I follow a different set of laws to yours," do you reckon they'd go "fair enough matey skip, carry on then"?

but that does not mean to say that "we take the piss out of our religion so should be able to do it with others"

It really rather does I'm afraid. Arguably we shouldn't, perhaps, because it's not a nice thing to do when you've been told it's upsetting people. But we can if we want. And that's a really, really important thing. As someone (Binners?) said earlier, "the rule of law is tolerated above everything, including religion, as that is the cornerstone of any free democratic society."

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Anyone here able to explain to me how this incitement to violence against women, is actually an allegory/out of context?

surely Allah is High

That's your answer, I think.

On the occasions when I used to dip into the Qu'aran I was amazed at how there seemed to be some brutality or other on every page. The danger with people 'being offended' is that they then want to call the tune on what is censored, a very slippery slope. The other typical response is to excuse your own violence because' you were provoked', thereby making it someone else's responsibility.
Should we refer to a 'Jewish' supermarket instead of a 'kosher' one when the employee who saved 15 lives in the fridge was a Muslim. Going by much in the mass media there's a bit of victimhood being claimed here for political reasons. Who has measured, for example, this 'flood of Jews' leaving France for Israel? They would have to be pretty fleet of foot.

You can absolutely challenge people if you believe that their behaviour is out of order; good, isn't it?

Freedom if speech isn't about rolling over and taking abuse, rather it's the primary tenant that allows us to even be having this discussion.

I do not think anyone here is suggesting we remove free speech tbh.

Should we refer to a 'Jewish' supermarket instead of a 'kosher' one when the employee who saved 15 lives in the fridge was a Muslim.

Normally we just call them "supermarkets" I'd hazard.

Quite so, apart from the fact that the shop sold beans or whatever that had the blessing of a rabbi.

Rocking up at someone's wedding and hurling abuse wouldn't be protected as freedom of speech, it would likely lead to arrest for breach of the peace (or something similar). Where as drawing a picture of a bride with the face of a pig to express your view of marriage would be and is unlikely to get any legal or shooty type attention (unless the militant wing of mumsnet felt compelled to get all murdery).

Borrowing the wedding example above and "is it freedon of speech or personal abuse" whataboutery aside, this gate crasher is absolutely within his right to say what he likes so long as he remains within the law. However, critically, he is an arsehole.

Now, most people have moral codes which tell them not to be arseholes (some even have a special book to help them). Some don't, of course. But what are we proposing as the alternative here, Anti Arsehole Act 2015 legislation?

No, we are suggesting that people don't be arseholes (or applaud others being arseholes), just because they can. Pretty simple really.

You might want to open your eyes a bit and see how your tone comes across.

Made me laugh.

I think half the dominant members on this thread could follow your little suggestion. In fact over half the users of this forum could probably take a step back and attempt realise how they come across. Me included when I can be arsed to comment...

Now, most people have moral codes which tell them not to be arseholes (some even have a [b]special book[/b] to help them).

What book are 'we' referring to and what's special about it?

What book are 'we' referring to and what's special about it?

I believe there are several different ones - all of which must be special as they've sold more copies than anything by J K Rowling.

Is it too simplistic to say words/pictures don't offend people - people do?

No, we are suggesting that people don't be arseholes (or applaud others being arseholes), just because they can. Pretty simple really.

Then why were so many of you arguing about there being limits to freedom of speech eg incitement etc, when what you really think is simply -

[img] [/img]

What was the point? Where was it all going? You basically now agree with Binners, you were both arguing over nothing.

It is but some out of order behaviour is so out of order we ban [ hammer] it

... which is what I said two paragraphs earlier, "so long as he remains within the law."

The debate is about where the line is drawn not about whether we draw one.

The line is pretty clear, I thought. Unless you're talking about a change to English law, of course?

I do not think anyone here is suggesting we remove free speech tbh.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting removing free speech completely, but there's certainly a suggestion that "free speech is fine apart from the bits I don't like." And much as "slippery slope" is often a logical fallacy, if we were to afford special protection in law to ban the drawing of an image this would surely lead a) to Islam wanting other things protecting and b) every other religion wanting their own religious trappings protecting as well. The Daily Mail and their red-topped friends would explode about creeping Sharia Law and the Islamification of Britain, and UKIP would think all their non-denominative winter festivals had come at once. No good can come of this, it's a prophet and loss situation.

Quite so, apart from the fact that the shop sold beans or whatever that had the blessing of a rabbi.

What part did those beans play in the saving of 15 people's lives? I must've missed that bit.

What book are 'we' referring to and what's special about it?

There's a few different ones which are enjoyed by various different people, I believe. I'm surprised you've not come across this before, it's quite common.

As for what's special about them, I never quite worked that out I'm afraid. You'd probably be better off asking those who think they are.

digga - Member

Not sure if previously linked to on here, but a German paper which reprinted three Charlie Hebdo cartoons was firebombed over the weekend: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/german-newspaper-hamburger-morgenpost-arson-attacked-over-20151117135939826.html

Which is a reaction most people would find not too unreasonable. Bit of a demonstration, break a few windows etc, but the step change to slaughtering the jounalists and police in cold blood is something I just can't get my head around.

Call me old fashioned, but I'm not sure that I'd agree that a spot of light firebombing is a reasonable response to a newspaper reprinting a couple of cartoons.

Further violence this afternoon.. this time in [url= http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/01/12/3-dead-after-cadburys-cream-egg-protest-turns-violent-in-dublin/ ]Dublin[/url]