French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[guyser]

CBC has lost what ever little respect I had for them.

Can one subtract from zero?

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.

Is there some link ro somthing that could perhaps, make some semblance or sense to what is written above?

I doubt it , but have to ask.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Guyser2

[Bonam]

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

Sure, but that's precisely the point... they had to defend it.

[guyser]

Sure, but that's precisely the point... they had to defend it.

Pretty sure the OP of that thought had no idea what he was posting, So i fasiciously asked

[Bonam]

Pretty sure the OP of that thought had no idea what he was posting, So i fasiciously asked

He was clearly referring to more modern history, in which the fight over freedom of speech was no less prevalent, regardless of its analogs in antiquity.

[Michael Hardner]

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

Of course it is. This is not the public though.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I agree with you. It seems to me a commercial concern.

[Argus]

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.

An interesting read on the situation with Muslims in France.

This attack – the deadliest terrorist attack on French soil in 50 years – may well pitch the country into profound crisis, because it crystallizes what everybody knows. France has a serious Muslim problem, a serious immigration problem and a serious terrorism problem, and the political class has no idea what to do about it. France is an easy target for Islamist terrorists because a large number of French Muslims are sympathetic to their causes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/frances-problems-are-in-plain-sight/article22359531/

Edited January 8, 2015 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

A reader comment from that Globe opinion piece raises a good question:

Would similar published Charlie satire be subject to Human Rights Commission hearings in Canada ?

[Michael Hardner]

Would similar published Charlie satire be subject to Human Rights Commission hearings in Canada ?

Well, the cartoons were reprinted so maybe we'll find out ? I doubt it. Making fun of religious figures can't be equated to hate speech. "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits though WAS banned, which seems like overkill so who knows.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, the cartoons were reprinted so maybe we'll find out ? I doubt it. Making fun of religious figures can't be equated to hate speech. "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits though WAS banned, which seems like overkill so who knows.

"Money for Nothing" was banned because of the "F" word ? Is this a recent development or was it banned in 1985 ?

The CBC won't publish Charlie cartoons, but it did publish the 'Piss Christ' IIRC.

Edited January 8, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

"Money for Nothing" was banned because of the "F" word ? Is this a recent development or was it banned in 1985 ?

Very recent, I think. I thought you'd like that one. More grist for your mill, I guess. I don't agree with the banning of that song, but I still see utility in anti-hate legislation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Very recent, I think. I thought you'd like that one. More grist for your mill, I guess. I don't agree with the banning of that song, but I still see utility in anti-hate legislation.

No, that's fine....at least it is consistent if such censorship and penalties are the law of the land. Frankly, I wish I had my own jet airplane too.

[Bonam]

An interesting read on the situation with Muslims in France.

This attack – the deadliest terrorist attack on French soil in 50 years – may well pitch the country into profound crisis, because it crystallizes what everybody knows. France has a serious Muslim problem, a serious immigration problem and a serious terrorism problem, and the political class has no idea what to do about it. France is an easy target for Islamist terrorists because a large number of French Muslims are sympathetic to their causes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/frances-problems-are-in-plain-sight/article22359531/

It may be an interesting test case for what a "liberal western democracy" does when it can finally no longer deny reality on this issue.

[eyeball]

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?

They're also human, but I said what would the Dalai Lama do, right now, not Sri Lankans back in history.

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.

Yes, we slowly grew used to it but now we expect everyone else to catch up yesterday. It's a little phenomenal to get off thinking it's our duty to go around the world expecting everyone and thing to get with our program while kicking them in the ass to speed them along.

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.

It's the reaction around the planet that's crediting them, with attacking our freedoms as if they were under some dire threat of immediate extinction. You really think cartoons of Muhammad having sex with a pig will save us?

They just wanted to go out in a blaze of Jihad against the west and probably expected to die yesterday morning along with their victims, if it hadn't been Charlie Hebdo yesterday it would have been a mall or subway next week.

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.

It takes demand to drive supply. It may seem this is about Muhommad vs cartoonists and comics but the satiristas are actually just making a living supplying derisive and contemptuous criticism for the same consumers who are now demanding more of the same times a million. Why don't you man up and go stand in front of a mosque with a drawing of Muhammad having sex with a pig yourself? Just tell them you're on a Crusade to uplift Islam and Muslims to the same point the west is at and see how far that gets you. The real drivel is that I'm supposed to believe that cartoonists fighting my battles for me at a safe distance will somehow make me feel like a man.

Edited January 8, 2015 by eyeball

[Boges]

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

― Oscar Wilde

This whole Je Suis Charlie thing is a case of the above. Denigrating religion isn't exactly clever or interesting but in a world where we value Freedom of Speech, people should be allowed to do it. No one bats an eye when Christians or Jews are similarly denigrated.

If certain followers of a specific religion don't like that, people shouldn't just shy away from doing it simply because it offends. I give Charlie credit that they're an equal opportunity offender unlike others who think offending Christians and Jews is fine but offending Muslims is somehow offensive or even racist.

It's as if people said Abortions shouldn't happen because some (fringe members) of another religion have killed abortion doctors.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Boges

[Black Dog]

This whole Je Suis Charlie thing is a case of the above. Denigrating religion isn't exactly clever or interesting but in a world where we value Freedom of Speech, people should be allowed to do it. No one bats an eye when Christians or Jews are similarly denigrated.

Ernst Zundel ring any bells? How about Jim Keegstra?

[WIP]

This is just dumb. Maher a neocon? Your problem seems to be he doesn't hate Israel. That doesn't make him a neocon. It make him normal.

I would never claim that Maher is a deep thinker about any subject! The only reason he doesn't hate Israel, is because he hates Muslims more (doesn't account for the Christian minority in Palestine though). His political thought has always been simplistic and self-serving; but he hates the Arabs so much, that his default setting is everything Israel does is wonderful......re: the 15 min. of lobbing softballs at Israeli President/war criminal - Benjamin Netanyahu:

[Boges]

Ernst Zundel ring any bells? How about Jim Keegstra?

So Anti-Semites? What about Muslim Anti-Semites?

I've heard lots of people defend Ernst Zundel's right to say what he said, even if repugnant.

Here's a cartoon that was in the Western Standard following the Danish Cartoon thing.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Boges

[Rue]

A reader comment from that Globe opinion piece raises a good question:

Would similar published Charlie satire be subject to Human Rights Commission hearings in Canada ?

Its a great question. A couple of comments. The Charter fo Rights is supposed to be used to assure the widest possible application of any interpretation of it in FAVOUR of rights so one would assume there is a built in legal bias to assume restricting freedom of expression should not be done lighly and only under exceptional circumstances.

There does seem to be an attempt in law to look at both each set of circumstances and context from which words or actions are conducted or expressed when determining if they go too far as to engage in a criminal act or hate crime or human rights offence.

Its possible hurtful words are not criminal but could allow someone to still be able to sue civilly for damage caused by them.

It is also possible something can constitute a human rights offence but not be a criminal or civil offence.

There clear as mud.

What I will say is it appears things have been brought to the human rights comissions of provinces (the primary jurisdiction for them, it only goes to the federal one if its something said on the airwaves, i.e., radio, televsion or done the federal government or an organization exclusively under the regulation of federal law) that many of us do not think should have gone there.

Human rights commissions usually look at discriminatory acts that come from the words, not usually the words themselves. They are looking at the effect of the words. The words themselves until proven to create a discriminatory act or some kind of emotional or physical harm may not be something the commission has power to do anything about.

Its difficult. The actual hate crimes are also not easy to trigger. If you out and out deny the holocaust and belittle holocaust survivors it might be a hate crime. If you limit your terms to questioning the extent or amount of deaths and avoid using words that call for hatred against say all Romas, or Jews who died in the holocaust it may not constitute a hate crime. It depends on the choice of words, context and audience as well as circumstances.

Where the speaker makes it clear he is expressing a subjective opinion and makes it clear he is not calling for violence, hatred, etc., it may not go over the line.

We see this debate all the time with academics.

Cartoonists are a different context, circumstance and have a different method of communication. They depend on symbols to get their point across and so often have to use an exaggerated symbol to get that point across, thus the Charlie Hebdo symbol of conservative Catholics or conservative Jews by depicting an orthodox Jew and a Pope. Its quick and its immediate but is it meant to slur all Catholics and Jews, probably not.

Let's also not confuse the above with certain countries like Germany have laws that make it a specific offence to deny the holocaust because they have citizens not just Jews, who live there and suffered as a result of the holocaust and the impact of denial is too emotionally hard on such such people so they are protected.

Cartoonists unlike what Eye said to not fight his/her battles or presume to make him/her feel like a man. That is not their mandate. In fact I have no idea where Eye pulled that one out of although if I was a cartoonist I might be temped to showing him pulling it out his buttox.

Cartoonists don't claim to speak for anyone but themselves. Like comedians or artists, they express through a medium a take on a vision or thought or concept and throw it out to provoke further conversation. Its meant to generate a reaction.

What is to one person derisive and contemptous criticism is another person's counter-argument to what they consider derisive and contemptous religious beliefs.

In a democracy if you want to express certain religious views, its not realistic to say, well someone can't criticize those views because that's offensive.

It might be offensive if I walk up to a person and slap them in the face or say provocative things yes. But when issuing a cartoon there is physical distance-there is no immediate physical threat and the context is understood to be one meant to challenge discussion and not to be taken literally.

For me to be depicted as a hook nosed Fagan like character in a cartoon is something to challenge yes, but no I do not have the right to kill people for

drawing such depictures.

Cartoonists make a living providing a sounding board for thoughts that otherwise remain repressed and generate hatred by mutating from lack of expression into other forms of anger,

A lot of times cartoons defuse tension by getting it out in the open.

Political editorial cartoons deliberately jab at social wounds and sometimes its like lancing a boil-it helps start the healing or reconciliation process by first

confronting the obvious and admitting it.

I don't expect anyone with a poltical reference that is simplistic and black and white to be able to understand the importance of cartoonists. I can see why to them they can only take things literally, i.e., as offensive. Some people can not see more than rigid narrow blacks and whites in cartoons. They can't get the complex wide range of emotions and arguements called out by a cartoon. They can't see it, so they don't see it.

Some people can only read a Bible passage and see one meaning just like they can only see one thing in a picture painted, or not get a comedian's nuance in a joke.

If you talk to artists they say cartoonists, really good political ones have many techniques-one is over exaggeration of a physical feature, another is double entendre, another is irony, another is showing how absurd something is by physically acting it out, etc.

That is the job of the cartoonist. To bring more than one way to analyze an issue. Its got nothing to do with making Eyeball feel like a man. Drawing pictures belittling the holocaust may not be something I like but would I kill the person doing that? Know. I am not afraid of such cartoons. why would I be? They are an excellent tool to generate a response to counter them.

Free speech won't be silenced simply because someone finds something offensive. That's too easy a test to shut down free speech.

[Big Guy]

Free speech does not include shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. What is funny to one is an insult to another. A "cartoon" depicting Jesus Christ sodomizing the Virgin Mary would probably be "funny" to a few and disgusting to others. A cartoon or statement denying the Holocaust will get you a jail sentence in Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland. Is that freedom of speech?

In Canada there are no specific laws against denying the Holocaust but we deal with it by deporting these deniers to countries where such a law exists. Sections 318,319 and 320 in Canadian Hate Laws place conditions of what you can or cannot print or state under the penalty of law. Is this freedom of speech.

Does anybody really believe that this latest incident in Paris was an attempt to curtail criticism of Islam? I believe that it was a few very smart terrorists on a recruiting drive. Already the more moderate Europeans and Westerners are making peaceful protests bigots and racists are also active. The skinheads are causing problems for Mosques, hassling visible male and female Muslims and hate and resentment towards Muslims is building. I have no doubt that we will soon see a very violent reaction where some Muslims will be killed. This will turn more young moderate Muslims towards the radical fanatics. More recruits for ISIS.

We see on this board the reactions of the knee jerkers who are easily manipulated by the terrorists.

I believe that this has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with agitating the more feeble minded in the West into doing some really dumb things to Muslims. It worked in 9/11 and it will work again and again and again.

[Rue]

Ernst Zundel ring any bells? How about Jim Keegstra?

Jim Keegstra not that you noticed was not a political cartoonist. He was teaching a curriculum at a school that was unauthorized and did not just deny the holocaust ever happened, but went on to claim many hateful things about Jews designed specifically to incite hatred against Jews. Not even close to the Charlie Hebdo legal issue.

Jim Keegstra was not censored for expressing his views. He was censored for WHERE he expressed his views. Had he expressed them in a magazine article, he would not have been censored.

In regards to Ernst Zundel you clearly do not understand his case so let me explain.

He actually had his minions place cartoons all over peoples cars calling for attacks on blacks, Jews and Catholics. The words not just the pictures on the pamphlets distributed called on people to engage in violence.

Next, where Zundel also broke the law was to use the telephone to broadcast pre-recorded messages calling for violence against blacks, Jews and Catholics.

I would suggest you go read what he actually said to see what words pushed him into the criminal arena or in violation of federal CRTC regulations-this had nothing to do with simply debating an opinion or drawing a cartoon-it had to do with using specific words calling for violence.

More to the point Mr. Zundel's right hand man, was also arrested and convicted for drug sales and sex with minors.

So before you equate smeer Charlie Hebdo as being in the same league as Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra think again.

When Charlie Hebdo depicted Jews and Catholics in cartoons they did not deny the holocaust or call on violence against Catholics or Jews as Zundel in fact did.

More importantly Charlie Hebdo if you bother to read its mandate and look at its cartoons would see it was attacking all conventional religious thoughts as to divinity and moral righteousness. If anything Hebdo applied that standard to all religions not just Islam.

It did not call on attacking Muslims simply because they are Muslim. It challenged certain religious precepts of Islam. There is a huge difference and clearly one that you can't get.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

This has everything to do with free speech / freedom of expression. It was "knee jerkers" who built and defended liberal western nations, including rational people of faith who know the difference.

[Rue]

1-Free speech does not include shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. What is funny to one is an insult to another. A "cartoon" depicting Jesus Christ sodomizing the Virgin Mary would probably be "funny" to a few and disgusting to others. A cartoon or statement denying the Holocaust will get you a jail sentence in Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland. Is that freedom of speech?

2-In Canada there are no specific laws against denying the Holocaust but we deal with it by deporting these deniers to countries where such a law exists. Sections 318,319 and 320 in Canadian Hate Laws place conditions of what you can or cannot print or state under the penalty of law. Is this freedom of speech.

3-We see on this board the reactions of the knee jerkers who are easily manipulated by the terrorists.

4-I believe that this has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with agitating the more feeble minded in the West into doing some really dumb things to Muslims. It worked in 9/11 and it will work again and again and again.

In regards to 1, it is absurd to contend free speech is soley defined by whether its found offensive by someone-if that was the case none of us could say anything. Secondly you removed the holocaust laws you discuss out of their context to now try justify censoring Charlie Hebdo because clearly you do not understand them or how they would be and have been used and why they could not be used to close down charlie Hebdo.

In countries where such laws exist they are rarely used. I challenge you to go add up the convictions under these laws and present them on this board. Good luck. More to the point in countries of Europe where they exist, they were created to protect people living in those countries who survived the holocaust whether they were Jews, Christians, Romas, etc., and because holocaust sites where massive deaths occurred continue to exist and denying such things would cause serious emotional harm. You clearly don't get that because you live in a country where you don't live next door to an old concentration camp or a railway used to send people to their deaths. However outside your world, many countries where political events have caused trauma have created laws to prevent denying the cause of the collective trauma so as to prevent people from having to relive it in reaction to the denial.

Clearly you don't understand the above.

You also clearly do not understand that the laws you have raised have not prevented discussion as to the holocaust, nor have they been userd to prevent holocaust deniers from presenting their views or to shut down political cartoonists.

In regards to 2, I suggest instead of discussing laws you do not understand you just stop and before you assume you understand them you go read them first.

The hate crime laws in Canada, the Charter of Rights, human rights law, civil legal remedies for defamatory comments are all complex and so are grounds for deportation of individuals and no you can not deport someone who was born in Canada and has always been a citizen of Canada.

I challenge you to show anyone anyone born in Canada who has only been a Canadian, to have been deported from Canada. It has never happened unless they have commmitted a crime in a foreign country where we recognize that crime and have an extradition treaty with that nation.

What you in fact are distorting and twisting was the deportation of Ernzt Zundel. He wasn't deported for drawing political editorial cartoons. Don't be ridiculous and stop equating him with Charlie Hebdo and its mandate. He was deported because he was always a German citizen and remained one. He chose to remain a German citizen. He also chose to put in writing in pamphlets and to record and broadcast over the telephone and at meetings words calling on his followers to engage in violence against blacks, Catholics and Jews. I was there. I was one of many at the time working with the communities at the grass roots level.

People worked with the police. The police did their job. They explained and waited until they had evidence where the words went too far. Everyone understood that Zundel was a professional hater and trying to bait people. People did not take the bait. Because they did not and Zundel did not get the reaction he wanted he pushed further with even more hateful words calling for violence and then and only then was he charged.

Zundel chose to leave. He would have been deported to Germany but he chose to flee to the US. Get this clear-his right hand man was arrested and convicted for selling drugs to minors and having sex with minors. Go find out who this man was and what he said before you try equate him with a Charlie Hebdo political cartoonist. He is the furthest thing removed from a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist. He is everything Charlie Hebdo was challenging.

Zundel fled to the southern US thinking he would be befriended by the KKK, and neo Nazi groups. He was not. They wanted nothing to do with him. He was in the US. They deported him back to his home country where he came from because he violated both federal and state laws and the Yanks were not about to put up with his hatred.

In Germany he was placed in jail for denying the holocaust. That law protects not just Jews, but all victims of the holocaust. He wasn't put injail because he was challenging conservative Jewish precepts. Zundel was no champion of individual liberties. Zundel was not anti religion at all. He called himself a devout conservative Christian.

Zundel's views are not even remotely close to Hebdo's on religion.

Zundel was not arrested for being anti religion. He was arrested for denying a poltically traumatic event in German history that if allowed to continue to be expressed would have continued to incite skinheads and neo Nazis in that country.

The point is clear. Zundel was no cartoonist. He was no one engaging in political satire challenging religious dogma. He was someone using words to justify committing violence to hate Jews, Catholics, blacks and glorify Adolph Hitler.

Charlie Hebdo fought everything Zundel stands for.

In regards to 3, yes one could argue that about your comments and views on this thread. However this is not about you.

In regards to 4, you are trying to invoke protection of moderate Muslims to justify not challenging extremist Muslims. The tactic is illogical and it hides behind moderate Muslims.

Ordinary, moderate Muslims are just as endangered as the rest of us if we remain silent to Muslim extremists. The tactic of invoking concern for their safety to justify remaining silent in the face of what extremist Muslims did, only makes it more possible for extremist Muslims to control moderate ones.

Stop stereotyping and patronizing Muslim moderates as weaklings in danger because some of us will not be bulled or appease terrorists. You do not speak for them.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Rue

[WIP]

WIP stated: " The Charlie Hebdo killing has to be taken in context of all that is happening there now. If you deliberately throw gasoline on the fire, you have to accept that you are putting your life and the lives of others at risk. "

I completely disafree with the above comment and state it actually is an example of taking what happened out of its actual context by WIP.

I would argue the context was political satire and that the purpose of a political editorial cartoon is to challenge and provoke debate through pictorial symbols. I would argue the above reasoning blames the people murdered and abolves the murderers and says they deserve to die by knowing if you challenge the thought beliefs of an extremist they will kill you.

That reasoning is illogical. It would argue we can not challenge extremism with cartoons because it might get us killed.

Nonsense.

The issue here is that a normal, sane person when looking at a cartoon he does not like, does not kill.

I say bullshit to the above. I am a Jew. When I saw the Charlie Hebdo depictures of Jews I did not want to kill anyone nor do I have an excuse to. I doubt any Catholics felt that way either when they saw the Pope in a cartoon and I doubt moderate Muslims lost any sleep over the cartoons.

The above reasoning gives importance and legitimacy to the murderous actions of extremists blaming the victims.

Yah yah. Rape victims who wear provocative clothes showing their breasts deserve to be raped. Yah yah. Been there. Done that.

NO, I recall reading a few things over the years about this Charlie Hebdo collective in Paris, though I did not pay much attention or give it a lot of thought. In spite of all the spin we are getting on the news over the last 48 hours, they were not equal opportunity critics by a long shot! They targeted religion more than politics as general subject areas. This is a problem right from the start, because only in the simplistic, neatly bordered universe of new atheism, can religion be studied and critiqued in complete separation from politics and economic realities.

Here is a summary of some of the worst and most offensive cartoons, and they are not only anti-Muslim, they also play into the racism and cultural xenophobia that so many French feel...pretty much constantly since they lost their empire:

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

A favorite standup comic of mine - Jimmy Dore (used to be a regular on Comedy Central...does a weekly podcast show, made the observation a couple of years ago about his chosen livelihood, that the job of the standup comic who does political and social commentary, is to impugn and mock the priviledged and powerful/ not to attack the poor and the downtrodden...as an explanation for why the RNC never has enough money to book decent comedians for their events. In this analogy, the comic is the modern day equivalent of the court jester during the dark ages. At a time when everyone in the king's court was walking on egg shells worrying about offending the King; the Court Jester would entertain the King by subtle and not-so subtle mockery of him and other prominent nobility.

From what I saw of Charlie Hebdo, their mission was the exact opposite: rigorously atheistic and anti-religion of all sorts, but focused on Islam in particular. And their jokes made no reference to France's abysmal situation of race relations and income disparities. Supposedly it can all be distilled down to abolishing someone's religion, as if that can be done without also abolishing their cultural heritage and identity! Sure, they paid a heavy price for inflaming tensions that have apparently been matched by Al Qaeda...because, let's not forget, that the goal of Al Qaeda and similar Islamic fascist movements is to prevent assimilation and prosperity of Muslims moving to western, non-Muslim nations. Their goal is to make the divide even sharper. So, in effect, the Islamic extremists and the anti-Islam nationalists have the same goals in mind!

Edited January 8, 2015 by WIP

[Black Dog]

So before you try smeer Charlie Hebdo as being in the same league as Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra thing again.

Who did that? I didn't.