French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[Black Dog]

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.

Bet you can't wait.

[Boges]

We see protests in Germany and France opposed to Fundamentalist Islam. Are those people being racist or culturally insensitive? Are we reaching a tipping point here?

Is "Je Suise Charlie" culturally insensitive because it's in solidarity with a publication that published images that "offended" muslim?

[Boges]

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.

By doing it, it shows that these terrorist's attempts to silence freedom of expression have utterly failed.

[Michael Hardner]

We see protests in Germany and France opposed to Fundamentalist Islam. Are those people being racist or culturally insensitive? Are we reaching a tipping point here?

We passed that point. We're now tipping.

Is "Je Suise Charlie" culturally insensitive because it's in solidarity with a publication that published images that "offended" muslim?

Of course they were, as is their right.

[msj]

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.

Then I suggest you show restraint by reducing your consumption of "insulting dialogue."

I know we can't help feeling insulted or offended at times.

Too stinking bad.

Don't see me killing people over whatever I find irksome.

[Michael Hardner]

Then I suggest you show restraint by reducing your consumption of "insulting dialogue."

Why do you suggest that ?

[msj]

Because I believe in free speech and support the right of people to be offensive.

I even believe in the right of Bill Donaghue to state what he states and for Kimmy to disagree and for you to ask for "restraint" and then for me to up the annoyance ante by asking you to restrain yourself....

And the cycle of offending/annoying continues.

That's part of life so may as well embrace it at times and ignore it at times ( even if it really is irksome).

[Boges]

Slow Clap Blatch

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/07/christie-blatchford-terrorists-cowed-us-all-into-ridiculous-self-censorship/

As the British cartoonist Martin Rowson said on the BBC on Wednesday, despite the horror of the Charlie Hebdo attack, the very best response to it is to “laugh them back into the dustbin of history, where they belong.”

(I love Mr. Rowson, and not only because he has written and had published a book called Fuck: The Human Odyssey, though that is a big part of it.)

It probably won’t happen, at least not quite the way I envisage, partly because we — cartoonists, editors and journalists — don’t run our shows any more than you all run yours, wherever you toil. We work for corporate entities who have concerns and sensitivities, don’t you know. They have shareholders or investors (they’re the ones who call us “content providers” now) and they don’t want to hugely and unnecessarily piss off a huge group of potential readers or advertisers, such as, say, Muslims, even though so far as I know there’s not a scintilla of evidence that Muslims are more willing than any other group to pay for news, though there is plenty of it to suggest that they are rather more sensitive to such slights.

[Michael Hardner]

Because I believe in free speech and support the right of people to be offensive.

What does that have to do with me avoiding insulting dialogue though ?

I sometimes like it.

[Michael Hardner]

Slow Clap Blatch

Good nickname for her. I don't agree, though, that people should be able to scream at people and harass them on the subway. That's beyond free speech.

[Rue]

I agree with MSJ. MSJ is invoking the classic freedom of speech stance and arguing if we restrain our free speech because another feels offended by it then none of us would speak.

Surely this board provides a working example of what MSJ is getting at. Can you imagine if we censored someone every time another disagrees with them claiming its offensive.

The last thing I want is someone saying something anti semitic for example censored. Please say it so I can challenge it openly.

See here is the point, I do get some free speech goes too far. I am sur MSJ does too. I don't think if I may speak for MSJ for a second, MSJ or I am saying you should be able to say ANYTHING at all. I am sure we all concede screaming fire in a crowded theatre is negligent behaviour.

I myself would say if your comments encourage someone to break a law, encourage violence, welcome violence, the context might go so far as to become criminal-but for hate laws to be invoked we do have a Charter of Rights, and I for one think since its there to be widely interpreted to protect the scope of what we can say, to go over the line to get censored it has to encourage, facilitate or engage in crime.

Being offensive by itself. Depends on the context. Say a stand up comedian or political satirist is one context, standing up at a neo Nazi rally,probably another.

Oh look its almost impossible to define that line at times and that is why like MSJ I err on the side of freedom. I think its more constructive and valuable to have the words come out and challenge them, then censor them and have them go underground.

I have to say it again and I know its very subjective. I don't think most moderate Muslims,likeme a Jew or Catholics in France were losing sleep over Charlie Hebdo. The cartoons were attacking conventional religious beliefs. To do that an orthodox Jew was used. Yah I saw the nose. I also saw the cartoon of the Pope. I did not see Catholics or Jews killing anyone over it though,

What I do see in the Western media is a willingness to criticize and depict Christian and Jewish icons in cartoons, i.e., poke fun of Jesus and Moses, its o.k. but those same media outlets including New York Times, New York Daily News, the mainstream papers holding a different standard forMuslim sensibilities. Why?

If do not like your cartoon then I write an editorial and post it. Generate discussion.

I grew up in Montreal with Terry Mosher aka Aislin who did cutting political cartoons that were an essential fabricate of the dialogue that went on with Quebec and federal politics, corrupt municipal politics, etc. Oh sure many of his cartoons offended but that is precisely what they were supposed to do, ruffle feathers, make people go to the zone outside their smug comfort zones to question themselves.

I mean in Toronto Donato the Sun cartoonist has been blasted numerous times for being racist. He liked to portray Olivia Chow in a Maoist suit and some people thought that racist. He was in fact playing on her similiarity to how Honey from Doonsbury looks like her. Even Chow got that. In fact Chow got the joke. If you go into politics you better have thick skin. the cartoonists exaggerate your features and insult your characteristics. Its part of the process.

What we have here are two phenomena. One is terrorist-extremists who do not understand and have never engaged in critical thinking, They come from environments where they learned by simply repeating back phrases. No one questions and so when they see people with views other than their own, they literally panic and feel threatened and act out through violence and terror as to the sanctity of their reality being invaded.

The other phenomena is what I called the trendy Liberal leftists who think if we placate terrorists they go away and the only reason terrorists attack is because we upset them and we should just be more polite and politically correct.

Its a very common primal phenomena, when you feel threatened by something you think can hurt you, you try look pleasing to it and show your neck and get all passive.

Dogs do it all the time. One lies on its back and show its genitals.

Passive reaction to terrorists does not work. This notion they only attack because you provoke them is called wishful thinking. It creates the myth that terrorists only attack when provoked. That belief in fact makes terrorists less scary-see if they only attack when provoked and you do not provoke them-presto, its all so simple they are never a problem.

However it never works that way. Terrorists are not just reactionary. They are pro-active as well. They are both.

I argue that when you placate a terrorist, when you give in to them, when you show them fear, when you appease them, when you give them what they want, you make them stronger, you fuel their fire.

Anyone who grew up faced with adversity and being spit in the face because of who they were gets that and whether we were Jews, Irish, Muslims, Catholics, whatever the hell we were in the situation where we were the minority, we knew eventually we either stood our ground and fought back, or we just made it worse.

I believe moderate Muslims know exactly what I am saying. I believe like any of us, they know that extremist Muslims are gaining power over them because of idiot Liberal appeasers who think if they suck up to terrorists they do so in the name of moderate Muslims.

You saw that reasoning in this thread. Oh heaven forbid we should say anything moderate Muslims might get hurt.

Oh bullshit. Stop invoking the name of moderate Muslims to appease extremist Muslims and use them as an excuse to appease Muslim extremists.

This is not about moderate Muslims. This is not about anything other than extremists including Muslims, any extremist who thinks they can use terror and violence to express political opinion.

I argue more cartoons should flow. I argue we must take up the pen and flood the board with cartoons critical of those who have hijacked Islam.

See I do not buy for a second the apologists on the board twisting and spinning revisionist attempts at justifying not "upsetting" people.

Where were all these same sensitive politically correct people when Iran held a world holocaust denial symposium and had a contest to see who could draw the most offensive anti semitic cartoon?

Where are all these sensitive people when Jesus and Moses are depicted in ways that question religion?

Of course they are silent.

Me personally if I am with certain people, I don't deliberately say things hurtful. If I know I am with a very traditional Christian for example. I discuss Christian doctrine in a way where I challenge but I use much different words than say a very progressive one who interoperates Jesus as a non literal symbol of the healing power of God through the actions of humans. Christians have many ways to express their belief as to what Christ means to them,

So sure I try find out what they believe and not say anything to insult that and they do the same in reverse say questioning dogma in the Old Testament particularly that kind of referencing to a cruel or unforgiving or jealous God. Its a great difference of theological opinion to compare the compassionate God of the new testament with the often distant and angry judging God of the old testament. The discussions can be fascinating.

Some people can handle that. They see it as helping challenge and create new ideas.

The fact is its bullshit to say moderate Muslims are the reason we should appease extremist Muslims and say nothing. Bull bull and bull. I know moderate Muslims, they challenge their religion the way I do mine or Christians or Hindus do their own-we challenge, we try understand and we are not frightened by satire, criticism and no we don't want to kill anyone.

Terrorists do not do what they do because they are offended. They do what they do because they feel you are not listening to them and will not do their bidding. No more, no less.

The Star Trek analogy of the Borg I love. It was a deliberate attempt to portray terrorism by taking out the notion these are people with feelings who are offended-they are acting as a unified robotic movement. The offensive language and screaming-its just a form of primal behaviour warriors engage in, its called whipping oneself into a frenzy before a kill.

It is the basic primal urge to kill, something terrorists invoke and do not repress. It is the part of all humans we either learn to repress to evolve pass to become civil, or we subsist within and never make it past walking on our knuckles and eating each other's children.

[Wilber]

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.

Satire cartoons insult people all the time. Only these people think they have the right to respond by murdering the cartoonist and newspaper staff in a cold premeditated, manner.

Be afraid, be afraid, don't upset the religious nut bars, even if it means giving up your own freedoms.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Wilber

[GostHacked]

Good nickname for her. I don't agree, though, that people should be able to scream at people and harass them on the subway. That's beyond free speech.

I thought insults/name calling of others was a frowned upon practice here?

[GostHacked]

If these men are caught I would be surprised.

Being killed is not justified for being a satirical cartoonist.

[Argus]

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?

There is nothing illegal about making cartoons or jokes about the Holocaust, and perhaps some resentment towards Jews.

[Argus]

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.

I think every newspaper in the western world should publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. The cringing apologists who are terrified of offending the vast horde of sixteenth century religious fanatics should just be ignored. These are people who would apologize for their face hurting someone's fist.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I notice Buddhism being held high above religion today and one of their most important precepts comes to mind, do no harm.

Buddhists are perfectly capable of slaughtering people in job lots, as has been amply demonstrated throughout history.

You are aware the Sri Lankans are Buddhists, right?

I really doubt if he'd suggest that more insults are the answer.

It has nothing to do with insults. If these people are so insular and so zealous in their attitude about their bloody god that a cartoon can drive them into frothing, raving, murderous rampages, then let's print a million of them! They'll either all kill themselves in one mass orgy of insanity or just damn well get used to it. You can only get outraged by something so often, you know, before you start to shrug and accept it as a fact of life. Some of the stuff said about the pope and Jesus and Mary probably would have drawn riots centuries in the past, too. But we've slowly grown used to the fact that people can have opinions which anger or outrage us without feeling we should reply with violence. Too much of the Muslim world has not reached that point, and hiding anything which might outrage them is certainly not the way to get them there.

In any case, I think this attack is intended to anger as many people as opposed to just terrorize them

Oh, please, you give these clowns too much credit. What you have are a couple of fanatic brothers outraged that anyone would dare say or print anything which is offensive to their notion of religious piety. They wanted to punish such people in the name of their bloody version of Islam. It doesn't go any further than that. There are no strategic objectives at work here.

Is all this grief really worth feeling so smug about our tolerance and if we're so tolerant why can't we tolerate a little self-restraint? Like I said it takes two to Tango.

That's complete drivel. It takes one to pull a trigger. Murder is not a dance. If you bow down before those who are willing to kill anyone who dares to offend them then you are no longer a man of any kind, but a slave.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

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.

So you put the people who beat you up in prison. Who wins there?

Of course, if you're too frightened of causing offense to speak your mind then you've given up your freedom of speech and expression. There's no doubt who wins there.

[Argus]

Satire offends all kinds of people but very few of those offended react with violence.

Because we are used to satire. The Muslim world needs to get used to it too. And it won't get used to it if the bootlicker crowd have their way and exorcise any sort of speech or behaviour which might offend them.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

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.

We have laws against the barbarous types who result to violence in the face of insults. In fact, many people sacrificed much to have such laws and such protection against speech some consider insulting or outrageous.

[Argus]

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.

It's interesting that he regards the idea of a free media being able to print whatever opinion it wants to is a 'debate from France'. Perhaps because he long ago surrendered to the notion that he simply isn't allowed to print anything which might be offensive to Muslims. No one else forbids it. He has simply surrendered that aspect of freedom of the press here to the violent and radical horde. But I would not have expected anything else from that organization, which has long been self-righteous about its 'progressiveness'.

[guyser]

Freedom of speech came about because soldiers fought for it so we could then take it for granted.

Which fight were the Athenians in? Edited January 8, 2015 by Guyser2

[Bonam]

Which fight were the Athenians in? Did you know any?

Interesting that you ask. Athens was involved in a ton of wars, not least of which were the Peloponnesian War and the Corinthian War, against the Spartans, a society which indoctrinated its people and was pretty much the opposite of freedom of speech. And then of course there were the Persian wars if that is an insufficient example for you.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Bonam

[PIK]

CBC has lost what ever little respect I had for them. It needs a major overhaul, everybody must go. They to are also in denial and say we are wrong for printing the cartoons and they never would and then you have the media showing the signs, We are Charlie, but yet are to scared to do what Charlie did. The media has become a major problem.

[guyser]

Interesting that you ask. Athens was involved in a ton of wars, not least of which were the Peloponnesian War

They had freedom of speech before the Pelo war. Pretty sure 200 years prior to the start.

But thank you.