Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

Sho said:
Nope, white people are exempt.
Click to expand...

He was just a nutter though, because it only happened once ages ago.

Constantly Islam is involved in some new barbaric act. After this charlie hedbo thing I'm just left wondering what is next again.

Lets also cast our eyes over IS shall we? I don't see Christians executing magicians.
 
Last edited:
Posted this in the Speakers Corner forum in response to Hodders. Would be interested to see your thoughts -



Hodders said:
Charlie Hebdo was singled out as they were one of the very few brave enough to stick their head above the parapet and publish cartoons criticising Islam.

If more organisations had done so, maybe C.H. wouldn't have been singled out. So, would it not be a good idea for all those "Je suis Charlie" claimants to actually be Charlie and publish their favourite C.H. cartoon ?

If they want to defend free speech, shouldn't they exercise it ?
Click to expand...

"Brave" or just seeking attention and sales?

Either way what happened to the members of that paper and the other innocents was wrong.

Begs the question though..... Was it responsible for them to make fun of religion?

We all know there there are some very sensitive "religious" people out here. So sensitive and caught up in their own beliefs, that any attempt to devalue or mock their faith. Will result in verbal or physical violence towards those who dared mock their faith.

All I'm seeing and hearing from those who support this newspaper is how brave they are in the wake of all of this.... Now say they were excising their freedom of speech to poke fun at the disabled. Would that be accepted?
 
DAIR said:
All I'm seeing and hearing from those who support this newspaper is how brave they are in the wake of all of this.... Now say they were excising their freedom of speech to poke fun at the disabled. Would that be accepted?
Click to expand...

Of course it wouldn't and shouldn't. Being disabled isn't an idea or a choice (same with Race), but religion is and as such people are free to join or leave it. Any idea should be open to criticism and ridicule.
 
DAIR said:
Begs the question though..... Was it responsible for them to make fun of religion?

We all know there there are some very sensitive "religious" people out here. So sensitive and caught up in their own beliefs, that any attempt to devalue or mock their faith. Will result in verbal or physical violence towards those who dared mock their faith.

All I'm seeing and hearing from those who support this newspaper is how brave they are in the wake of all of this.... Now say they were excising their freedom of speech to poke fun at the disabled. Would that be accepted?
Click to expand...

Responsible - no, their right - yes. There are limits to free speech and these limits are for the relevant lawmakers to debate and decide on. In the UK we live in a country where Jerry Springer: The Opera and a crucifix with Jesus on suspended in urine have to be tolerated, so I think a cartoon of the prophet Muhammed also has to be tolerated. If we ban depictions of Muhammed it will only be because of the threat of violence which will send totally the wrong signal.

So in answer to your question about jokes about the disabled, assuming it doesn't break the law then it has to be fine. Of course, if people get offended and want to protest about it which may result in someone getting sacked, reprimanded, apologising then that's also fine.
 
oneilldo said:
Of course it wouldn't and shouldn't. Being disabled isn't an idea or a choice (same with Race), but religion is and as such people are free to join or leave it. Any idea should be open to criticism and ridicule.
Click to expand...

As should any lifestyle. Regardless of whether one has the choice or not.

Surely, freedom of speech should be just that... And not Limited Speech.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Not all people who love their prophet are terrorists for goodness sake. Most people who have a love for their prophet wouldn't do anything other than feel a bit saddened, or very saddened, and then leave it there.

Not aggravating a bunch of terrorists by not making cartoons of his prophet (who is sadly the same prophet for non-terrorists) is not "giving in" to anything. It's called being smart.

You don't "give in" to the school bully by keeping yourself from insulting his father's hook nose.
Click to expand...

It sounds more like you advising the victim of a bully to carry on giving him his dinner money so not to upset him.

Insulting someone's parent is pretty much objectively insulting. It is completely rational to be offended by someone calling a family member ugly. It's not in the same league as insulting a mythical man who people ultimately worship by choice and take any picture of him (regardless of its content) as an insult.
 
estebanrey said:
It sounds more like you advising the victim of a bully to carry on giving him his dinner money so not to upset him.

Insulting someone's parent is pretty much objectively insulting. It is completely rational to be offended by someone calling a family member ugly. It's not in the same league as insulting a mythical man who people ultimately worship by choice and take any picture of him (regardless of its content) as an insult.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that to some (actually a large majority). It is offensive.
 
There was an Islamic academic on radio 2 just now, pulling out the Islam 'race' card. Sadly the presenter didn't pick up on it, nor did the other interviewee. I find it sad a so called academic fails to realise what race is.
 
DAIR said:
As should any lifestyle. Regardless of whether one has the choice or not.

Surely, freedom of speech should be just that... And not Limited Speech.
Click to expand...

I agree. If it is a lifestyle choice. Race or being disabled isn't a lifestyle choice. The cause of a disability could result in you being disabled, but you can't really choose not to be disabled once you are.
 
Brookert said:
There was an Islamic academic on radio 2 just now, pulling out the Islam 'race' card. Sadly the presenter didn't pick up on it, nor did the other interviewee. I find it sad a so called academic fails to realise what race is.
Click to expand...

This too annoys me lol.

I mean who first re-categorised this religion as a race?

I have to laugh at those "who claim to be muslim" yet constantly pull out the race card... Do they not understand that it is a faith and not a race. Muslims (like any other religious faith) can come in many different colours and come from many different parts of planet earth!
 
OldCoals said:
That is their problem then.
Click to expand...

Would it be "their problem" if someone drew a cartoon making light of concentration camps and people found it offensive? How about the naked rambler that keeps getting arrested because he offends someone? Is it not the offendees problem there rather than the person that just doesn't like clothes? How about stunning and slitting the throat of a goat in the middle of a town centre, then butchering it and cooking it?

Any tolerant, normal person should know you shouldn't purposly go out of your way to offend someone. That doesn't mean you should never draw a picture of Mohammed, or can never go naked, but at the very least you should realise what you are doing and be respectful of others and you know, tone down your actions in light of others opinions.
 
Never quite understood why people are so 'pro offense', why people think its clever and brave and all the other trite nonsense thats mentioned with CH at the moment, just comes across as crass,childish and uncouth, and an excuse to court controversy to sell more mags.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom