marcus Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 You are mistaken...nothing has been proven. Criticism is fair game for all....including French publishers....this point escapes you. It is also your right to be in denial that your comment which I responded to was B.S. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 ....Frenzy on a regular basis? Right. Lol. LOL....OH MY...a Jewish "FRENZY". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 It is also your right to be in denial that your comment which I responded to was B.S. I agree...you comment was most certainly BS....but that is OK. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Michael barbaric and backwards are not insults but perfect description of what The extremist are. And not just the extremists. If you see a poll which says 80% of the population of a given country want to live under Sharia law, how can you not describe their mentality as barbaric and backward? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Rue Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 To show just how baseless Marcus' claim is, all one has to do is type in yahoo Charlie Hebdo carttons on Israel: https://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrBTv48FrRUf2AAlIPrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-715&va=Charlie+Hebdo+cartoons+on+Israel Quote
Boges Posted January 12, 2015 Author Report Posted January 12, 2015 I guess you missed the part (even though it's right up there for you to see) where one of their own employees had to go to court for making a comment about Sarkozy's son converting to Judaism and then they fired him. So yeah, they do care if they are criticized. But only if it is criticism by the Jews. Is that not their right? Perhaps it's a zionist conspiracy but it should be allowed and it doesn't justify the killings last week. Quote
Boges Posted January 12, 2015 Author Report Posted January 12, 2015 To show just how baseless Marcus' claim is, all one has to do is type in yahoo Charlie Hebdo carttons on Israel: https://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrBTv48FrRUf2AAlIPrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-715&va=Charlie+Hebdo+cartoons+on+Israel That does kind of take a bit of the piss out of his argument now doesn't it. Quote
marcus Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 My opinion is based entirely on observed behaviour and culture. And it is not restricted to ISIS and Al Qaeda. The problem here is that you lack the ability to observe correctly, since you are ignorant. Observing based on your World Net Daily articles and your lunch hour with Sean Hannity leaves your knowledge of any situation stunted. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Argus Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 No special treatment that I can see. I refuse to condemn Christianity as a religion for abortion clinic bombings too. Do seventy or eighty percent of Christians support abortion clinic bombings? The mere fact you would use that is evidence of your determination to defend Islam's social backwardness by equating them with a few wacko Christians. You can't even equate the actual terrorism. There have been over ten thousand Muslim terrorist bombings since 9/11. How many abortion clinics bombings have their been and how many people killed? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
marcus Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Marcus you have not suprisingly raised the exact same baseless allegation as Hudson Jones did earleir in stating hateful comments about Jews are treated differently than hateful comments about Muslims. You have zero proof like Hudson Jones buit you throw it out and then fabricated an assumption that if Charlie Hebdo made insulting comments about Jews they would have been guilted out, etc. Except that there is proof.. Now pay attention: In fact, Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist who was also charged by France for making so-called "anti-semitic" comments about Sarkozy's son converting to Judaism: Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine. "L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad." Edited January 12, 2015 by marcus Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Argus Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 The problem here is that you lack the ability to observe correctly, since you are ignorant. Observing based on your World Net Daily articles and your lunch hour with Sean Hannity leaves your knowledge of any situation stunted. I watch the BBC, actually, and Canadian mainstream news media. You, on the other hand, seem to get your ideas from various heritage front and Nazi web sites. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 More erroneous conflation of two very separate ideas, and ultimately why "hate speech" laws are flawed. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
PIK Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Like everything else run by the left ,will not say boo about Islam. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) More erroneous conflation of two very separate ideas, and ultimately why "hate speech" laws are flawed. I'd say we've been reasonably restrained with our hate speech laws. Note, I'm speaking of the criminal code, not of the various human rights commissions, all of which ought to be abolished. Edited January 12, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 I'd say we've been reasonably restrained with our hate speech laws. Note, I'm speaking of the criminal code, not of the various human rights commissions, all of which ought to be abolished. Sure...more so than in Europe....but ultimately flawed in my Yankee bastard opinion. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Like everything else run by the left ,will not say boo about Islam.You do realize how left-leaning Charlie Hebdo is don't you? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Rue Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 I'd say we've been reasonably restrained with our hate speech laws. Note, I'm speaking of the criminal code, not of the various human rights commissions, all of which ought to be abolished. I totally agree. Quote
Rue Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Sure...more so than in Europe....but ultimately flawed in my Yankee bastard opinion. Well if one looks at that Larry Flynt hustler decision at the US Supreme Court, it is safe to say, the US approach to free speech at this time, would appear to allow more elasticity to how far that speech can go than say in Canada. However keep in mind our Charter of Rights is when challenged to be interpreted with as broad an application as possible so we have a built in bias that if and when our Charter is challenged with a free speech issue, its probably going to be very reluctant to curtail free speech. That said we need to wait and see. Our Charter is of course younger than the US Constitution and has not been used as much. Also we tend to be heavily influenced by legal precedent in the UK although that Larry Flynt decision is impossible for any common law court to ignore if push came to shove. In the past we have struggled with free speech when it comes to the depiction of sex and where to draw the line. In one decision in Vancouver some peodphile was allowed to publish a book expressing fantasies about man boy sex. It was protected as free speech. Truthfully I strongly believe in free speech and I understand why the decision was made but had they shoved the book up his buttox then opened it and caused him to die, I would not have lost sleep either. I don't like censorship at all but I am admitting to a bias and a strong one at that when it comes to depicting child sex or violence with sex. I also think our laws do our best to draw that line or the line in saying anythingthat incites physical or property violence for the most part as Angus said. Our huamn rights commissions are flawed. Their decisions are all over the friggin place with no logic or consistency. Quote
PIK Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Yes I know and in france not in Canada. Like the CBC and the star to scared to report the news, but instead as I was watching on TV ,they veered away from it to make fun of harper in a closet. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
WIP Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Not exactly breaking news that a published newspaper or magazine is teetering on bankruptcy in the digital age. Right! But, what it also means is that journalists (print and TV/radio) are not as independent as they used to be! In the U.S. media universe, the Foxnews personalities have their third rails that they aren't allowed to cross, and the same thing is true for the so called liberals in MSNBC's night time lineup. In print journalism, liberal war critics like Robert Scheer (L.A. Times) were retired out the door for questioning the leadup to the Iraq Invasion, and ended up like former NY Times war correspondent - Chris Hedges, putting their editorials, books and commentaries on the internet for little if any monetary return. Something that younger journalists with children to care for and mortgages to pay off, can't afford to do! That's why I have that Chomsky quote on my signature line. I don't agree with everything Chomsky writes, but his point about how big commercial media constrains free speech into their accepted boundaries, is something that most people aren't even aware of, and don't know how to think outside of the acceptable liberal or conservative box! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Well if one looks at that Larry Flynt hustler decision at the US Supreme Court, it is safe to say, the US approach to free speech at this time, would appear to allow more elasticity to how far that speech can go than say in Canada. I am glad you have referenced this landmark case and decision, because it resonates well with American libertarians of my age and experience. Ditto Al Goldstein (Screw magazine), Lenny Bruce, protected Nazi marches in Skokie Illinois, as well as the Piss Christ controversy concerning government funding of the arts. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does seem to be more vulnerable to so called Charter politics, but it is still more robust than the paralysis and contortions we see in Europe. Ironically, Europe was the cradle of such liberal free speech concepts. Print and broadcast journalism has taken a severe beating due to market and technology forces that they cannot control, but the free speech concepts remain. I would note that the Islamic jihadists are more than happy to leverage the new infidel technology to hate filled advantage. Edited January 12, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WIP Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 WIP seems this double standard definition changes on the fly and is now no longer Jewish cartoons are censored but Muslim ones are not censored and now has morphed into something entirely different at least in your field of perception. With due respect WIP I think you decontextualizing the actual issue being discussed to the point of absurdity,. Well, on that issue of Jewish cartoons being censored, here's some flesh on the bones of the story I only heard about from a recent interview: Maurice Sinet, 86, who works under the pen name Sine in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, faced charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote in 2009. The piece sparked a slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine. "L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad." A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused in a very strictly manner. Mr Val's decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech. As mocking young Mr Sarkozy converted to Judaism for money, Sine was accused of being Anti-Semitic and faced many preassures leading him to be fired from the weekly magazine. The same magazine published cartoons even insulting the Islam Prophet Muhammad and Muslims yet explained them as “freedom of speech.” Charlie Hebdo published cartoons about Prophet Jesus and Chiristianity, too, causing the magazine being sued 12 times by Catholic Chuch. http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/152585/charlie-hebdo-fired-cartoonist-for-anti-semitism-in-2009 And, the objection to the presentation of Charlie Hebdo as some sort of unprejudiced equal-opportunity offender was also called into question by that Hebdo editor of the time - Philippe Val, later being given a lucrative and high profile government appointment by Sarkozy.....perhaps as a reward...who knows; but it's a lie to claim to be an unbiased critic, so attacking religion without considering the context of who - what groups may belong to that religion, is a complete fraud! Catholicism in France takes a lot of crap because it is the religion of the majority of French and since the majority of French seem to view it largely as an antiquated historical relic, there's not much of a price to be paid for attacking the Catholic Church....since most French Catholics do it also. With Judaism, France has big problems, since they not only have a long, sordid history of persecution and ethnic cleansing (like the rest of continental Europe) France has never come clean about the degree to which the Vichy Nazi-collaborators during WWII worked with the Germans to round up Jews for exile to concentration camps, as well as war crimes within Franc. Perhaps it's not a whole lot different with Germany, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and most other European nations aside from Holland, which collaborated with the Nazis during occupation. But, some occupied countries were more willing collaborators than others. And French governments ever since De gaulle, have operated under the premise of 'we're going to look forward, not backward' which we hear so much in recent years. That Sine case looks like an example of doing a shoulder-check before acting on first impulse. But, since they are so easy to vilify the religion of most of the immigrants at obscene levels, I'm sure they already calculated that the price to pay for offending Algerians is minimal! It's been mentioned a few times that the editor - Charb, drew this cartoon recently that roughly translates as 'still no attacks on France, with the terrorist in the picture proclaiming that he 'still has to the end of January.' Maybe it was the 24/7 police security he was provided by the Government, but it sure looked like he thought he wasn't in danger! In effect, his goading of potential terrorists not only killed him, but others who were working for him! Technically the description of the Norway attack and the Hebdo attacks don't show a double standard. To have done they would have had to be described in a manner that said one attack was acceptable and one was not. Both attacks were rejected equally. I am sure in hindsight the persons who engaged in the Hebdo description would agree they were caught up in emotion and be the first to agree the Norway attacks are equally as bad for different reasons. You have inferred the description necessarily means one event was being described as more acceptable. It was not. My point is that the pundits jump right from 7/7 to this latest attack when they talk about terrorist attacks in Europe, and don't even think about the Norway Massacre.....that's what's telling! Beyond me how you turn that into a double standard.. you do realize that thanks to Snowden, his leaks compromised counter-intelligence operations across Europe and for all you know enabled this latest attack and more to come? The White House nor CIA and NSA officials have not produced one single example of where Edward Snowden's revelations have caused deaths or endangered anyone's safety! What the leaks endangered was the extraordinary powergrab by the NSA and private security apparatus...remember Snowden was working for a private contractor! And he had access to anyone, absolutely anyone's private information with a few clicks of the mouse at his computer. I have no doubt that one of the reasons why almost every Democrat and Republican politician in the U.S. is so averse to criticizing the abuses, the corruption and the ever-growing costs of the military apparatus is because they are already being blackmailed by their own security establishment! And, this is where free speech really serves a purpose that could benefit most people! Freedom to create obscene cartoons is at best - superfluous, and potentially corrosive, as some critics of Hebdo noted that pro-war propaganda prior to both world wars by nationalists and fascists on both sides, featured defamatory cartoons of their respective enemies and groups accused of being possible collaborators within their borders. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Michael Hardner Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Do seventy or eighty percent of Christians support abortion clinic bombings? I doubt it. The mere fact you would use that is evidence of your determination to defend Islam's social backwardness by equating them with a few wacko Christians. "a few" "many" ... I have already commented on such words. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Hudson Jones Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 The difference you deliberately ignore is people are angry at Islam because of all these bombings and killings and murders all around the world and in our own cities. This is of course if you pretend that The West has not gone into many Muslim countries and, not only killed hundreds of thousands of people (a large majority of them innocent civilians - example: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Yemen) with their high tech gadgets, but they have also continued support dictators who are anything but democratic. So if you're able to open your eyes and fight the temptation to look at Muslims as one entity and who have, in large number, suffered from our actions in the Middle East, then you would not be sounding so ignorant. Your unnecessary anger and feeling of victimhood pales in comparison to the actual suffering that people in other countries have experienced because of our actions in many regions. Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Michael Hardner Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 "a few" "many" ... I have already commented on such words. Better than describing numbers with words, is to study relative risk levels. Here's an example of how to do it right: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/10/21/christian-extremists-threat-muslims-homegrown-cliven-bundy-column/17679789/ Drawing upon surveys of law enforcement and intelligence experts, the report cited the sovereign citizen movement — Bundy's law-defying, government-denying crowd — as the most potent U.S. terrorist threat: more threatening than Islamist jihadists, who along with militia/patriots, racist skinheads and neo-Nazis rounded out the top five. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.