Paris Shootings

icebreaker said:
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".
Click to expand...

Last week I would have said the same, but I believe the murders leave no choice but to stand with Charlie. The immediate priority has to be to defend the principle of free speech. Nobody should have to die for a cartoon. Once that point has been firmly restated, and arguably that has already been achieved by the marches, we can return to a more nuanced position.
 
Last edited:
moehat said:
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?
Click to expand...

Have you seen the proportions that do believe in murder of apostates? And so on? It's a long way from being just jihadists.
I see no reason at all why we should now down to their demand (as you gently suggested) not to publish cartoons of the prophet when it is not against the law.

What will the next demand be?

It reminds me of Shirley Williams on question time arguing that salman Rushdie mustn't relieve a cbe because it "would upset them" . As much as I've always thought she was ok, the straight answer is fck off
 
Warbler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wolf was right
 
Grey said:
Last week I would have said the same, but I believe the murders leave no choice but to stand with Charlie. The immediate priority has to be to defend the principle of free speech. Nobody should have to die for a cartoon. Once that point has been firmly restated, and arguably that has already been achieved by the marches, we can return to a more nuanced position.
Click to expand...

'Free speech' is really a detail though isn't it. This is about the sort of society we want to live in and lifestyle we'd prefer to be at liberty to enjoy. I note however they you leave open the possibility that the marches achieved this by qualifying it with "arguably". They will have only achieved this in full if the beligerent accepts the legitmacy of the marcher's aspirations and backs off. Do we have anything by way of evidence to suggest they have? Do we have any reason to think they will? I'd say the answer is no, on both counts. In this regard standing with Charlie isn't so much an act of rejection and defiance, but will be seen on the other side as an entrenchment, and beginning of the drawing of battle lines. The area that nuance permits will eventually get squeezed into an ever narrowing band. The beligerant Islamists aren't going to be cowed in the slightest by 1 million people on the streets of Paris. All that happens instead is that perhaps a previously reticent chunk of society are just beginning to stir and realise that perhaps they might need to start taking a more pro-active role. I don't see that there is going to be an accommodation
 
Last edited:
In fact I agree with that . Largely. The marches and buying of Charlie whatsit is a statement beyond free speech. The bbc aren't going to broadcast some French guy saying "this is one in the eye for the bearded cnts and their Dalek wives" . But it is.

The behaviour in the schools will add ballast to the French inherent hatred towards Islam.

i see the Netherlands being the next flashpoint.
 
Last edited:
download (6).jpg


This thread will be moved to the Politics forum that will be up and running soon.


That should do the trick :lol:
 
Grey, as always, uses well chosen words to present a sound argument. I was sorely tempted to find an appropriate place to go to express my support for the people of France in the light of the terrorist atrocities. I ended up doing nothing.
I certainly would not carry a 'Je suis Charlie' placard. 'We stand together against terrorists and murderers' would have to be my placard.
There is no free speech in any country. There are countries that have a greater freedom of speech than others but in my view that greater degree of freedom is available largely because the population in general holds to ideas such as respect and tolerance. Insulting someone's religious beliefs is not a practice I would indulge in.
 
No it isn't. It's the rule of law that allows freedom of speech. You can have a tolerant population but laws that kill it. And one of those was going to be the stupid blasphemy law that was proposed here.

Insulting religion to some is merely passing comment or the gentlest of satire. The handwringers with their "nuances" are inviting a situation whereby the slightest comment becomes impossible to make.

if I think Islam is a bigoted nasty paranoid medeaval cult then I should be free to say so. It's not as if it isn't is it?
 
clivex said:
No it isn't. It's the rule of law that allows freedom of speech. You can have a tolerant population but laws that kill it. And one of those was going to be the stupid blasphemy law that was proposed here.

Insulting religion to some is merely passing comment or the gentlest of satire. The handwringers with their "nuances" are inviting a situation whereby the slightest comment becomes impossible to make.

if I think Islam is a bigoted nasty paranoid medeaval cult then I should be free to say so. It's not as if it isn't is it?
Click to expand...


Do you frequently refer to Jew baiting and Jew haters?.
 
clivex said:
No it isn't. It's the rule of law that allows freedom of speech. You can have a tolerant population but laws that kill it. And one of those was going to be the stupid blasphemy law that was proposed here.

Insulting religion to some is merely passing comment or the gentlest of satire. The handwringers with their "nuances" are inviting a situation whereby the slightest comment becomes impossible to make.

if I think Islam is a bigoted nasty paranoid medeaval cult then I should be free to say so. It's not as if it isn't is it?
Click to expand...

There is another stream of consciousness the flow underneath this Clive which the indivdual's allegiance with the view being experessed or cause being championed. Icebreaker has already alluded to this, as have others. Not many of us I suspect, are really Voltaire, in so far as we qualify our support for your right to say something based loosely around the degree of conviction we hold towards the opinion. I wouldn't be best pleased if we ended up in a quasi war situation because of imflamatory remarks made by the Daily Mail. Fighting to defend a way of life is one thing, fighting for Paul Dacre is another.

Also I think a free-for-all becomes a bazaar with no limits. There needs to be regulation of some description and we do need a line drawing (however hazy in places) whereby people who push it know that there might be consequences. It's not as if there aren't plenty of reasons where we have restrictions. OK some of this might involve secrecy, but the like of Assange and Snowden must be slightly puzzled about the idea of a no limits freedom to say what you like society

I wasn't sure Nick Clegg had fully thought through his own right to offend notion either (which can quickly corrupt itself and become a duty to offend if we aren't careful). Consequently, I wasn't totally comfortable with Grey's idea which made it a black and white demarcation (that and the fact it so clearly aped George Bush). If Bush could say you're either with me or against me, and was roundly lampooned (particularly be the French) is it really cosnistent that they invoke a derivative of the same theme a decade later when all of sudden it suits them?
 
Last edited:
For the slow witted above, religion is a CHOICE. Race or ethnicity is not. The thick left will always try to make out that criticism of Islam is racism because as ever their idea of free speech depends on identity.

Having said that Islam is not exactly a choice if you want to leave is it? But of course we must not be hostile to the "belief" that apostates should be executed.
 
I didnt mean your warbler of course. The limits as set out in current law seem pretty fine to me and most others I believe. If someone chooses a way of life then why should that be beyond any criticism? And lets face it, tens of millions across Europe despise Islam uniquely of all religions, so it's going to pretty hard to shut them up.

Also what the apologists like to fantisise is that it's just the hard right that hate this cult. Wrong. The facist right are closer in spirit to the far left (nothing between them as we know) and the religion itself than the liberal centre.

You really have to simply laugh at the apologists don't you? If we were to have laws deeming it illegal to laugh at scientologists and their belief that Jesus or wherever visited in a spacecraft 200 years ago or if we were to be told that we must respect the "belief" of those that blew themselves uo at Waco ...

And what is the difference exactly? Aside from the fact that those two cults were not hostile.


Soon we will have this banned I'm sure

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4f6_1393176756
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
If we were to have laws deeming it illegal to laugh at scientologists and their belief that Jesus or wherever visited in a spacecraft 200 years ago or if we were to be told that we must respect the "belief" of those that blew themselves uo at Waco ...

And what is the difference exactly? Aside from the fact that those two cults were not hostile.
Click to expand...

While I largely agree with the points being made, I suggest you do some research to find out exactly what happened at Waco. None of the Branch Davidians "blew themselves up" - they were murdered by the ATF. *

* This is fact, and not a conspiracy theory.
 
Grasshopper said:
While I largely agree with the points being made, I suggest you do some research to find out exactly what happened at Waco. None of the Branch Davidians "blew themselves up" - they were murdered by the ATF. *

* This is fact, and not a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

i forgot that but you get the drift. Also there were also those berks in the jungle that poisoned themselves.

I have absolutely no difficulty at all with people holding beliefs and i certainly take to task those that criticise those for the simple fact of holding a belief. I actually believe the c of e is a fine institution which has adapted to modern life and liberal values adroitly. Certainly no one in their right mind could have issues with quakers or buddhists. But if within those beliefs there is something i disagree with then there is absolutely no justification for the muzzling which some appear to suggest
 
Back
Top