Paris Shootings

I reckon it might be ....

"Despite clearly being a vile jew hating newspaper, we've at least got the balls to run a copy of the cartoon (however small and apologetically) which is more than we can say for some of the bullying right wing titles who run for cover the moment their management might put themselves in harms way"

In case you missed it, it's a subtle anagram made up from all the answers in the crossword
 
No, it's the part in bold before the start of the article saying that the reprinting of the cartoon may cause offence - ffs, what world do we live in?
 
Yeah but in fairness to the Guardian at least they've stepped up. Are we not entitled to ask where the self-styled hardmen of Fleet Street are?. You know, the paper that's always telling us how unacceptable bending over backwards to accommodate muslims is?. The one which preaches one thing but when its called out bottles it. Surely this is their chance to make a stand today, but instead they lead on the heavyweight issue affecting western europe, Aby Clancy's new slim line figure, and the Irish girl who should have won goal of the season. I've tried scouring their smutty website looking for the cartoons, and I can't find them, so until someone tells me otherwise (I stand to be corrected) I'm forced to conclude that they're an even more diminished paper today having been exposed, and shown to be naked . For all it's sound and fury, it signifies nothing. And without any sense of irony, they actually have the audacity to mock Fox News for its misreporting about Birmingham (this coming from a paper that openly lied to its feeble minded readership that the local authority from the same city had abolished christmas celebrations to appease the sensitivities of the ethnic minority population). White feather for Mr Dacre me thinkz. The same paper that used to appease Adolf Hitler and campaign for him in the 1930's can't take a stand today because it's too scared, whereas the wishy washy, namby pamby, Liberal Guardian does. Still, that's how bullies operate isn't it? They try to inflame everyone to do their bidding for them, but when the crosshair might land on them, they run. Hopefully some of the Mail's readers might start seeing it for its true colours. They're happy to inflame others to do things that they're too scared to confront themselves
 
Last edited:
This is why I'm confused regarding the Guardian you see. For years I thought it was a "vile jew hating" paper and I believed that! Now this has happened. Clive laid the situation bare very well when he said

"secondly are we supposed to water down negative coverage because certan minorities are involved? No way. Not on. That is every bit as bad as ony highlighting criminal acts by certain minorities, thirdly its only a low circulation broadsheet paper that has produced fawning articles over those that preach hate."

You see why I'm really confused, because the low circulation broadsheet that fawns over those who preach hate has taken a stand, but the craven and cowardly right wing Daily Mail (and others) haven't, but I always thought these were the gallant defenders of our society and the big brave boys who stand up for us. Will Clive now start to preface the word Guardian with the word "valiant" in future please. And could he hearby refer to the Daily Mail as the Daily Chicken, and the Murdoch tabloids as 'yellow tops'
 
Last edited:
From the article Hamm has linked to above:

I, too, have ached since hearing the news of what happened in Paris but je ne suis pas Charlie et je ne suis pas Ahmed et je ne suis pas juif...

Demands for solidarity can quickly turn into demands for groupthink, making it difficult to express nuance. It puts the terms of our understanding of the situation in black and white – you are either with us or against us – instead of allowing people to mourn and be angry while also being sympathetic to complexities that are being overlooked.
Click to expand...

This desire for nuance is fair enough in normal circumstances, but not in the immediate aftermath of such a barbarous outrage. If murder is to be the disproportionate price exacted for offending some people's religious sensibilities then I am going to choose free speech all the way, including the freedom to offend. When put in those terms, and it has been by the deeds of the murderers, the only possible choice is Je suis Charlie, no matter what quibbles I might have about its actual content.
 
Last edited:
This is an editorial statement from the Irish Times. I have to say I'm very disappointed with it.

The threats to Jyllands Posten, the Danish paper which first got into trouble back in 2006 for publishing depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, prompted a furious debate in the international media about how it should be defended. Should papers which unanimously strongly asserted the Danish paper’s right to publish such material show their solidarity and defiance of Islamist threats by republishing the cartoons even though they accepted that they were deeply offensive to wide sections of the Muslim community?

At the time The Irish Times, along with most of the press, decided that it would not do so, and its decision stands in relation to Charlie Hebdo’s representations of the Prophet, including the front page of the issue to be published on Wednesday.

The paper took the view that publication of the cartoons was likely to be seen by Muslims as gratuitously offensive and would not contribute significantly to advancing or clarifying the debate on the freedom of the press.

The “right to offend”, an essential corollary of the right to freedom of expression, could be defended and upheld, as it should be, the paper holds, by other means than causing further offence to the overwhelming majority of a community which deplored the threats to Jyllands Posten and today the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

The Irish Times unequivocally and unapologetically defends the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish, and regards the attack on the magazine as an outrageous attack on the freedom of press. The paper welcomes the French government’s commitment to help the magazine financially and expresses its solidarity with the brave band of journalists who are determined to keep the title afloat.
Click to expand...
 
Grey said:
From the article Hamm has linked to above:

This desire for nuance is fair enough in normal circumstances, but not in the immediate aftermath of such a barbarous outrage. If murder is to be the disproportionate price exacted for offending some people's religious sensibilities then I am going to choose free speech all the way, including the freedom to offend. When put in those terms, and it has been by the deeds of the murderers, the only possible choice is Je suis Charlie, no matter what quibbles I might have about its actual content.
Click to expand...

The bit you've highlighted has slightly uncomfortable echoes of George W Bush who said that you were "either for him or against him" on his "crusade" as with supreme irony, he was using the absence of a shaded grey position to isolate the French who he perceived as not being in favour of his invasion. Funny how things go a full circle
 
I don't believe Bush any choice other than to pursue AQ in Afghanistan. His decision to got to Iraq was clearly motivated by other concerns and was strategically imbecilic and morally bankrupt. So too was his selection of his 'enemies'.

Leaving that aside, the next time America elects a neo con, (and they will) is likely to be the moment when we go through another gear. The American's have been developing a whole host of new generation weapons, sooner or later a particularly aggressive President will use them, or, feel sufficiently provoked and justified in doing so
 
I'll reserve judgement, but if we enter a kill or be killed situation, then clearly this is a no brainer.

I notice the BBC (another bastion of wishy washy liberalism if you believe Clive) have joined the valiant Guardian in publishing the cartoons (have Sky?). I note also that the Daily Mail are getting slaughtered for being chicken by their readers (or some of them). Oh well, what do you expect. Those who make a big noise (the Mail) nearly always run for cover when the heat is on. They're fine bullying their favourite targets and hitting those who can't hit back, but like so many on this soft right wing bully agenda, when they encounter someone who can hit back .... well the answer is there to be seen. Have a look at their webpage comments section, it's mildly amusing. Paul Dacre's silence is deafening

I should say, I'm not totally convinced where the valiant Guardian and the BBC stand on this legally under employment law and their duty of care?
 
Last edited:
I don't get fed up with him, mainly because I can never understand what he's talking about [is that what ubiquitous means she asks herself...?]....
...no
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
When put in those terms, and it has been by the deeds of the murderers, the only possible choice is Je suis Charlie, no matter what quibbles I might have about its actual content.
Click to expand...
I'm having an internal conflict with myself about this whole issue.
I completely condemn the murders ( why do I feel the need to preface with that?), but, a large part of me wants to shout "I Am NOT Charlie".

Some of Charlie Hebdo content is funny, but much of it is downright nasty. As simple as.
The raison d'etre of Charlie Hebdo seems to be to make a mockery of other people's beliefs and spirituality. Doesn't matter if the target is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish; the concept of gratuitously insulting any particular creed is abhorrent in my view.
Comment and criticism is fine; insult in the form of juvenile cartoonery isn't.
Free Speech is fine too ( I'm all for it), but free speech must have some boundaries to prevent someone like me shouting "FIRE" in a crowded cinema.
 
Spitting Image?

I thought Clegg was on thin ice to be honest when he started advocating for the freedom to offend, which starts to verge into justifying hate crime. I think what probably exists is that free speech doesn't mean that you're immune from the consequences that supposed freedom entails, but where do those boundaries lie? Well we already have laws that govern things like incitement and hate crimes. If you fall inside of those, then that's acceptable.

I guess they'll argue that in a free world you can exercise your right to register a dislike by not buying the publication or supporting an alternative world view cause (as indeed the Muslims can)
 
Last edited:
I think icebreaker has voiced an opinion that is one that I've been feeling over the past few days. I don't know the ins and outs of the Muslim faith but if they are taught that you shouln't portray the Prophet in any way [?] then it's wrong for others to do so other than, say, a cartoon showing a terrorist killing someone in the name of Islam. I haven't any of the cartoons so I don't know what they have shown over the years. There should be a moral code about making jest of other peoples faiths or beliefs.
 
clivex; by 'they' do you mean Muslims in general because they aren't all jihadists and isn't that sort of attitude fueling what's going on at this moment in time? Of course I don't respect such views on homosexualityetc and feel that cartoons making a mockery of such things should be allowed. There was a Muslim guy interviewed on the news the other night that was complaining about lack of freedom for Muslims in this country and not being allowed to wear headgear in France and I was infuriated by his comments [unfortunately I didn't catch his name]. But that still doesn't mean that I don't feel uneasy about 'some' of the cartoons that have been published. What hope is there for peace anywhere when those of us on this forum can't agree to disagree on issues like this?
 
I don't think he thinks my comments are worth replying to. It's so difficult to get points across on forums isn't it [?]. My take on terroroism is that it's the worst sort of conflict to deal with and you have to show strength and solidarity but you also never fuel grievances uneccessarily because they then use those comments to fuel and recruit more terrorists. I'm annoyed today cause I've read that OUP are not going to print childrens books with pigs in because they 'offend' some people. Not sure of the ins and outs of it. That has made me feel angry about the members of society [ie the poeple in my country] that are offended by pigs], and there's a litle niggle of irritation going on inside me because of it. the same thing must happen to Muslims who see cartoons about their Prophet, and these irritations can build up into full blown prejudice over time. I'm also pondering a lot at the moment as to how things would be now if we hadn't invaded Iraq [which I was against at the time and still am]. And yet the Saudi's can do no wrong in our eyes. It confuses me. I probably have too much time on my hands these days and should go back to work perhaps.
 
I doubt very much that any ban exists on the OUP. To be honest, without knowing where you read that story, it does sound like the sort of thing that the Daily (chicken) Mail would run and completely twist out of context to suit their own agenda. Having said that, they are hardly in a position to mock anyone today and should be hanging their heads in collective shame for their own craven cowardliness

As regards Clive not thinking your comments are worth responding to, that's really easy. Just call him a few names, he'll respond, albeit I would counsel you against using Clives engagement as a benchmark to assess the validity of what you say one way or the other. In fact there's probably a counter argument which would suggest you should be concerned if he does respond

There are of course all sorts of contradictions in the name of freedom of speech and they aren't hard to find. There is of course a fine line between managed regulation and a complete free for all. Such liberation will normally lead to conflict at best and war at worst as people use it as a platform and start to abuse and pervert it.
 
Last edited:
Must point out before I lose what little credibilty I do have that I DON'T read the DM but read about the article on another forum.....
 
Well I've had a quick dig around and thank the Valiant Guardian for the context.

It isn't a ban (as the Daily Chicken would have you believe). It's "guidance" for overseas markets with a view to maximising profit. That is to say a book that requires additional editing and separate print runs costs more money to produce so authors are encouraged to think about this when pitching ideas and manuscripts. There is a whole list of about 2000 items called PARSNIP apparently. I can't remember what the full PARSNIP acronym stands for but its was something like Politics, Religion, Sex, Nazis, Ism's and Pork. It seemingly stems from Harper Collins being forced into a pulping an atlas for sale the middle east because of Israel. In much the same way that if you were seriously going to try and sell an atlas to Argentina you would be pretty stupid to call the Malvinas, the Faklands. There are loads of such examples, so the reporting is just a tad disingenuous, and Peppa can sleep easy tonight
 
Back
Top