dre Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 I find the focus on free speech after this terrorist act to be interesting. It is OK to make fun and create demeaning cartoons about Mohammed. It is OK to make fun of and create demeaning cartoons about God and Jesus. But try to create a cartoon or a story or a joke about the Holocaust or imply that it did not happen and you find yourself going to jail. Why is that? Is that not free speech? Theres no question you should be able to say any of that stuff. And you should certainly be able to insult religious idiots and ridicule their silly fake gods and prophets. Problem is free speech can provoke aggression. If I choose to excersize mine by getting in peoples faces and insulting them there a decent chance I might get beat up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 I find the focus on free speech after this terrorist act to be interesting. It is OK to make fun and create demeaning cartoons about Mohammed. It is OK to make fun of and create demeaning cartoons about God and Jesus. But try to create a cartoon or a story or a joke about the Holocaust or imply that it did not happen and you find yourself going to jail. Why is that? Is that not free speech? Anyone who supports free speech would support the right of people to say any of the things you quote. I daresay those misguided souls who don't would refrain from killing to make their point, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Holy Crap. Its not the massacre of 12 people in cold blood thats the crime: Its the lack of respect for free speech thats the real immoral failure! What is wrong with these people to have no respect for free speech? I couldn't give a shit what they think of free speech. Their contempt for free speech is absolutley meaningless beside their actions. Edited January 8, 2015 by Peter F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, because there is obviously no connection. It's all so clear to me now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 I find the focus on free speech after this terrorist act to be interesting. It is OK to make fun and create demeaning cartoons about Mohammed. It is OK to make fun of and create demeaning cartoons about God and Jesus. But try to create a cartoon or a story or a joke about the Holocaust or imply that it did not happen and you find yourself going to jail. Oh? https://www.google.com/search?q=holocaust+jokes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=holocaust+cartoons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Now sure, in a few places like Germany Holocaust denial is against the law, but you won't see those here who are pro free speech defending said laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 These killings are disgusting. But hopefully cooler heads prevail. The mindless reactionaries calling for media outlets to respond by posting afflamatory material that will insult a billion people in response to the actions of 3 are simply that... Angry brain-dead idiots. No, they won't insult a billion people. They'll only insult the people who are specifically looking to be insulted, those who are only a short step away from being like those 3 themselves. The typical moderate Muslim, if we are to believe what people keep telling us about Muslims, should be no more insulted than the typical moderate Christian is by a Jesus cartoon (which are ubiquitous and noncontroversial in very Christian America). There's nothing to be gained by it and quite a bit that could be lost. What could be lost, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Yes TERRORISTS!!!!! Not Criminals, Not mentally ill people that have been excluded from society. This was an act of Islamic Terrorism. And against journalists to boot. I've heard reports that the men asked for the people they wanted to kill by name. This was a cold calculated act of horrific violence in the name of Fundamentalist Islam. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/deadly-shooting-at-french-satirical-newspaper-report/article22329480/ How will the media respond? will they publish the cartoons that caused this or will they shrink away like with the Danish cartoon that got Ezra Levant sent to a Human Right Tribunal. I can think of one Canadian PM candidate who will say that it's because of alienation, exclusion and poor regard for the emotional well-being of the brothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) No, they won't insult a billion people. Regardless, the feelings of a billion Muslims ought not to enter into the equation. That is the entire point. Edited January 8, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 These killings are disgusting. But hopefully cooler heads prevail. The mindless reactionaries calling for media outlets to respond by posting afflamatory material that will insult a billion people in response to the actions of 3 are simply that... Angry brain-dead idiots. There's nothing to be gained by it and quite a bit that could be lost. Why should not the media show that it cannot be intimidated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Regardless, the feelings of a billion Muslims ought not to enter into the equation. That is the entire point. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Satire offends all kinds of people but very few of those offended react with violence. Edited January 8, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Why should not the media show that it cannot be intimidated? Because doing so in the manner being prescribed would probably only delay the day we ever get through the Bleak Age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Satire offends all kinds of people but very few of those offended react with violence. Sure but insults result in violence and death all the time. So whether you have the right or not intentionally insulting people isn't always a smart thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Because doing so in the manner being prescribed would probably only delay the day we ever get through the Bleak Age. The Arabs are inviting a truly tragic outcome. At some point people in countries like France, even if denigrated "skinheads" by the chattering classes will take matters into their own hands since governments cannot or will not do their jobs in protecting civilization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 These killings are disgusting. But hopefully cooler heads prevail. The mindless reactionaries calling for media outlets to respond by posting afflamatory material that will insult a billion people in response to the actions of 3 are simply that... Angry brain-dead idiots. There's nothing to be gained by it and quite a bit that could be lost. If you refuse to defend what you have out of fear of reprisals than you in fact have already lost, and it is precisely your attitude that has lead us to this point, they come to our countries and take advantage of our good graces and then demand that we change, we must give up our right to free speech for them, and some of you are willing, that attitude does nothing but embolden them. Shame on the CBC and others for not showing the cartoons, shame on anyone who beleives we should placate any scum that thinks a cartoon is worth killing for, whether they themselves do it or not. We should shove our rights to free speech right down their throats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Cartoonists unite: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/heartbreaking-cartoons-from-artists-in-response-to-the-ch?bffb&utm_term=4ldqpgp#.bqXJmB9ZP A few funny, a few serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Meanwhile, "the Catholic League" has published an editorial called "Muslims Are Right To Be Angry". Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction. Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses. While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them. http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/ "The Catholic League" is actually just a big fat bitch named Bill Donahue who writes angry editorials from his basement every time he perceives some sleight against the Catholic Church. "The Catholic League" isn't officially affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way. Despite that, Bill seems to have some amount of name recognition and is often invited to guest on radio shows (like Fox Radio, where today he called the cartoonists "brats" and said: "The abuse of liberty, in this country and . . . by these smart alecks who want to take their middle finger and put it in the face of people of faith, that has to stop too," he said. "How about some restraint and civility and decency on the part of these people?" http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/Bill-Donohue-Paris-liberty-provoke/2015/01/07/id/617129/#ixzz3OD7p8qVX Bill should hope people don't stop, because he'd be out of a job if people stopped producing satire for him to cry about. His message is "I don't hate freedom, I just hate it when people use their freedom in ways I don't like." To Bill "Catholic League" Donahue, I say "up yours, asshole." Religion, like politicians and peace officers and any other supposedly revered institution, must never be exempt from commentary, criticism, or satire. Regardless how crybabies like Bill Donahue or Suq Madiq feel about it. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 The usual excuse for terrorism following the US and UK involvement in the Middle-East conflict is that if you take war to our territory we will take it to yours and if you randomly kill our civilians we will kill yours. Some people might even buy that but to get the knickers in a twist over cartoons is an entirely different matter altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Of course it's easy to say.... Everything is easy to say.... Does that mean we shouldn't discuss our opinions on the topic? Of course not. But two fake names on a web board saying that somebody else "should" stand up to the attacks is worth exactly nothing in the grand scheme of things. We are not risking anything by saying somebody else should invite attacks by extremists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 I don't see how these sorts of actions have any plan to achieve those goals. I don't think there is, or needs to be "a plan". The right to express oneself, even in an insulting manner, will continue and the violent response will continue. These are REAL culture wars, fought with bullets and bombs over an idea. You seem to have a good knowledge of history - is there another example of a difference like this ? That is, a cultural difference that was very deep, resulted in continued attacks on civilians rather than just battles between armies ? I'm thinking about perhaps the French and Indian wars possibly... which were won by utter subjugation and domination and still continue in a sense today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 The Arabs are inviting a truly tragic outcome. "The" Arabs are doing this ? Not helpful. At some point people in countries like France, even if denigrated "skinheads" by the chattering classes will take matters into their own hands since governments cannot or will not do their jobs in protecting civilization. Skinheads beating innocent people is an expected reaction... just like attacks against people who express themselves through ridiculing religion are an expected reaction... So where are we ? None of this line of thinking leads to two different points of view co-existing. People shouldn't insult others, but if they do they shouldn't be killed. When extremists and terrorists attack freedom, reprisals against innocent people shouldn't be tolerated. All of this is mainstream thinking, as far as I see. There's very little that most of us can do except to support these values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Bill should hope people don't stop, because he'd be out of a job if people stopped producing satire for him to cry about. His message is "I don't hate freedom, I just hate it when people use their freedom in ways I don't like." To Bill "Catholic League" Donahue, I say "up yours, asshole." Right. So you're objecting to his objecting... That's just dialogue even if it is insulting dialogue. I don't see him (or you) calling for censorship, he's just calling for restraint. Religion, like politicians and peace officers and any other supposedly revered institution, must never be exempt from commentary, criticism, or satire. Regardless how crybabies like Bill Donahue or Suq Madiq feel about it. And people can object to insulting behavior, too. Bringing force to shut people up is what crosses the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 John Cruickshank (Toronto Star publisher) on Metro Morning today indicates that The Star didn't reprint offensive cartoons because they didn't see a need to "import" a debate from France, while acknowledging a desire to not offend people, readers presumably. National Post apparently did reprint the cartoons. While at first look, The Star's stance seems at best to be a business decision. I find it hard to disagree outright with their response, as they are a business after all. Their pasty corporate identity is their own, just as Charlie Hebdo's business identity was outrageous and insulting. I would have been heartened, though, if the Star made more of a stand at this point. This is really a time when principles matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 So where are we ? None of this line of thinking leads to two different points of view co-existing. People shouldn't insult others, but if they do they shouldn't be killed. When extremists and terrorists attack freedom, reprisals against innocent people shouldn't be tolerated. All of this is mainstream thinking, as far as I see. There's very little that most of us can do except to support these values.Unfornately, in many cases "the" Arabs (I should have said Islamists) have no long-term interest in co-existing. They will "co-exist" only as long as they need rights from those in power. After they amass sufficient mass to be become a law unto themselves, even if only in some core neighborhoods or cities and elsewhere through intimidation, the "group hug" of "co-existence" doesn't interest them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Unfornately, in many cases "the" Arabs (I should have said Islamists) have no long-term interest in co-existing. "in many cases"... is mush talk. It's just an observation that can mean a specific response is needed, or it can just be a general observation. After they amass sufficient mass to be become a law unto themselves, even if only in some core neighborhoods or cities and elsewhere through intimidation, the "group hug" of "co-existence" doesn't interest them. So they are different. Irredeemable ? What is to be done then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.