Charlie Hebdo Champion of free speech or anti-muslim?

[GranadaJoe]

Responsible free speech may be something to be hoped for, but based on whose definition of responsible?

[g88ner]

It's not about winning or losing - it's about being smarter. If you know images of Muhammed offend the vast majority of muslims, then does it help or damage our cause for peace if we print these images? - even if we don't like it, we should at least try and respect the wishes of peaceful muslims or we risk alienating them.

Is it Charlie Hebdo's cause for peace, g88ner?

Probably not. But I'm sure I wasn't the only one who read about the image of Mohammed on the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo and then waited for the inevitable riots, death and destruction around the world as these muslim nutters lose their shit yet again.

And of course it came. 10 killed, 128 injured, 45 churches and an orphanage torched in Niger as they protest. A million apparently protested in Russia? and their was apparently violence in Pakistan at protests there too.

I'm all for freedom of speech and all that, but I'm not totally convinced cartoons of Mohammed are worth the turmoil they cause to be honest.

[QuartzGooner]

Augie

I don't respect their beliefs though, not the extremists ones.

And the UK is fighting ISIS in Iraq.

Why do so many Muslims want to live here?
I guess because it is wealthier than their countries, it is much more a meritocracy than their nepotistic and more corrupt countries, which are also often in civil wars.

As for free speech, I do not regard it as an inalienable right.
My religion puts a very heavy emphasis on responsible speech rather than free speech.

So you are suggesting that muslims want to live in western society and then change the workings of the society that has made those countries so appealing to the muslims in the first place ? Something not quite adding up there don't you think ?

Quartz your religion may well view responsible speech rather than free speech as everyone's right, but the law of the land that counts - clearly your faith means a lot to you and I totally respect that, but it seems to me that everyone that is committed to their religion feels that the laws of their church trump the legal laws of the land

I suggest that the Muslims who live here are not all here for the same reasons.
Most want a sensible (ish) place to live.
Our corruption is lower than most countries, the weather less extreme than for instance violent cyclones in Bangladesh, and we have less terrorism and no civil war.
We have utilities that work, a functioning Post Office and public transport, not to mention a free health service and social security benefits.

Most think that is a good deal.

Some though want to take over, for sure.
Impose Sharia Law and make the UK part of their Islamic State.
But they will keep the transport networks and the good housing etc.

As for the law of my faith, it is an actual law of Judaism that we have to follow the laws of the land.
And we do.
There are Jewish Courts (I am one of them, if you'll pardon the pun) here, but they are strictly for civil or religious law internal matters between Jews.
Such as if there is a business dispute, we can elect to take it to a Jewish Court where judges will settle it, or if there is a divorce case too.
It saves a civil case clogging up the court system.

But for criminal law it is only the British legal system, and no one wants to or is permitted to use otherwise.

[Rugby Gooner]

Rugby

Of course there are thousands of fanatical Muslims who want an Islamic State under their version of Islam or bust.
But do all Muslims want to convert or wipe out other faiths?

Because we are into dangerous territory here.

Are there any Muslims still on this Forum? (Red Gunner is but he is not around much, and we had an Arab from Israel for a bit but he moved to Sweden I think, Hashkads is too.)

Can you accept that there are other paths to spirituality?

No posts from anyone yet who has declared themselves a Muslim.

Point taken Quartz, I did use a broad brush, and agree that not every muslim is bent on taking over the planet. Also, I agree that their are many paths to spirituality, both religious and non-religious.

[arseofacrow]

It's not about winning or losing - it's about being smarter. If you know images of Muhammed offend the vast majority of muslims, then does it help or damage our cause for peace if we print these images? - even if we don't like it, we should at least try and respect the wishes of peaceful muslims or we risk alienating them.

Is it Charlie Hebdo's cause for peace, g88ner?

Probably not. But I'm sure I wasn't the only one who read about the image of Mohammed on the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo and then waited for the inevitable riots, death and destruction around the world as these muslim nutters lose their shit yet again.

And of course it came. 10 killed, 128 injured, 45 churches and an orphanage torched in Niger as they protest. A million apparently protested in Russia? and their was apparently violence in Pakistan at protests there too.

I'm all for freedom of speech and all that, but I'm not totally convinced cartoons of Mohammed are worth the turmoil they cause to be honest.

I see the correlation between the two things, in much the same way as if you don't want to get robbed/mugged/stabbed, don't go walking late at night around *name your area here* - It's not your fault there are nutters out there, just don't give them more of a chance than they have already.

It's a dispute between a religion whose belief that an image is sacrosanct and people whose belief system revolves around the freedom of speech and expression. Is it unreasonable to set a limit to this expression in the interest of security? If a limit is set, then how long before that bar is lowered, then lowered still?

How long will I carry on replying to you using questions?

[DB10GOONER]

It's not about winning or losing - it's about being smarter. If you know images of Muhammed offend the vast majority of muslims, then does it help or damage our cause for peace if we print these images? - even if we don't like it, we should at least try and respect the wishes of peaceful muslims or we risk alienating them.

Is it Charlie Hebdo's cause for peace, g88ner?

Probably not. But I'm sure I wasn't the only one who read about the image of Mohammed on the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo and then waited for the inevitable riots, death and destruction around the world as these muslim nutters lose their shit yet again.

And of course it came. 10 killed, 128 injured, 45 churches and an orphanage torched in Niger as they protest. A million apparently protested in Russia? and their was apparently violence in Pakistan at protests there too.

I'm all for freedom of speech and all that, but I'm not totally convinced cartoons of Mohammed are worth the turmoil they cause to be honest.

I see the correlation between the two things, in much the same way as if you don't want to get robbed/mugged/stabbed, don't go walking late at night around *name your area here* - It's not your fault there are nutters out there, just don't give them more of a chance than they have already.

It's a dispute between a religion whose belief that an image is sacrosanct and people whose belief system revolves around the freedom of speech and expression. Is it unreasonable to set a limit to this expression in the interest of security? If a limit is set, then how long before that bar is lowered, then lowered still?

How long will I carry on replying to you using questions?

I don't know but it feels like about 10 years at this stage.

[DarylAFC]

If it takes a legal ban, then ban the images of Muhammad.

So they win. Those minoritty of fanatics have their way.

IMO if something offends you, don't read it. Don't want to see a picture of Muhammed? Don't look at one.

It's not about winning or losing - it's about being smarter. If you know images of Muhammed offend the vast majority of muslims, then does it help or damage our cause for peace if we print these images? - even if we don't like it, we should at least try and respect the wishes of peaceful muslims or we risk alienating them.

And it's not only about respect. It's also about responsibility. Every time people disrespect muslims by printing cartoons of Muhammed or burning the Quran, vulnerable westerners in volatile Muslim regions of the world feel the wrath of the locals. The amount of times I've read about riots leading to attacks, murders and destruction of property of innocent westerners as a direct result of people's obsession with disrespecting Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech" is crazy.

There are ways to stand up to these extremist thugs without resorting to offending peaceful muslims. We should be building bridges, not pushing people away.

But where does it end?

We ban images of Muhammed because it causes extremist violence, but what if they then attack restaurant selling non-halal food? Or murder a woman for not dressing modestly?

[arseofacrow]

It's not about winning or losing - it's about being smarter. If you know images of Muhammed offend the vast majority of muslims, then does it help or damage our cause for peace if we print these images? - even if we don't like it, we should at least try and respect the wishes of peaceful muslims or we risk alienating them.

Is it Charlie Hebdo's cause for peace, g88ner?

Probably not. But I'm sure I wasn't the only one who read about the image of Mohammed on the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo and then waited for the inevitable riots, death and destruction around the world as these muslim nutters lose their shit yet again.

And of course it came. 10 killed, 128 injured, 45 churches and an orphanage torched in Niger as they protest. A million apparently protested in Russia? and their was apparently violence in Pakistan at protests there too.

I'm all for freedom of speech and all that, but I'm not totally convinced cartoons of Mohammed are worth the turmoil they cause to be honest.

I see the correlation between the two things, in much the same way as if you don't want to get robbed/mugged/stabbed, don't go walking late at night around *name your area here* - It's not your fault there are nutters out there, just don't give them more of a chance than they have already.

It's a dispute between a religion whose belief that an image is sacrosanct and people whose belief system revolves around the freedom of speech and expression. Is it unreasonable to set a limit to this expression in the interest of security? If a limit is set, then how long before that bar is lowered, then lowered still?

How long will I carry on replying to you using questions?

I don't know but it feels like about 10 years at this stage.

You know the bit about getting robbed/stabbed and "name you area here" - you know where I was talking about, don't you mate!

[Yankee_Gooner_Dandee]

Obama couldnt go to France to stand united with world leaders, but apparently has plenty of time to cut short a visit with a Democratic ally (India) in order to pay homage to his "friend" Abdullah. 2 more years...

Maybe Obama and Wenger will be done at the same time.

[augie]

If it takes a legal ban, then ban the images of Muhammad.

So they win. Those minoritty of fanatics have their way.

IMO if something offends you, don't read it. Don't want to see a picture of Muhammed? Don't look at one.

It's not about winning or losing - it's about being smarter. If you know images of Muhammed offend the vast majority of muslims, then does it help or damage our cause for peace if we print these images? - even if we don't like it, we should at least try and respect the wishes of peaceful muslims or we risk alienating them.

And it's not only about respect. It's also about responsibility. Every time people disrespect muslims by printing cartoons of Muhammed or burning the Quran, vulnerable westerners in volatile Muslim regions of the world feel the wrath of the locals. The amount of times I've read about riots leading to attacks, murders and destruction of property of innocent westerners as a direct result of people's obsession with disrespecting Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech" is crazy.

There are ways to stand up to these extremist thugs without resorting to offending peaceful muslims. We should be building bridges, not pushing people away.

But where does it end?

We ban images of Muhammed because it causes extremist violence, but what if they then attack restaurant selling non-halal food? Or murder a woman for not dressing modestly?

I'm with you on that buddy It seems like the fanatics (and they are the only muslims I am talking about) seem to think that we should all be living our lives according to their beliefs and as soon as we allow them to dictate morality and behaviour to the rest of us even once, is the day that life as we know it will cease to exist

[g88ner]

If it takes a legal ban, then ban the images of Muhammad.

So they win. Those minoritty of fanatics have their way.

IMO if something offends you, don't read it. Don't want to see a picture of Muhammed? Don't look at one.

It's not about winning or losing - it's about being smarter. If you know images of Muhammed offend the vast majority of muslims, then does it help or damage our cause for peace if we print these images? - even if we don't like it, we should at least try and respect the wishes of peaceful muslims or we risk alienating them.

And it's not only about respect. It's also about responsibility. Every time people disrespect muslims by printing cartoons of Muhammed or burning the Quran, vulnerable westerners in volatile Muslim regions of the world feel the wrath of the locals. The amount of times I've read about riots leading to attacks, murders and destruction of property of innocent westerners as a direct result of people's obsession with disrespecting Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech" is crazy.

There are ways to stand up to these extremist thugs without resorting to offending peaceful muslims. We should be building bridges, not pushing people away.

But where does it end?

We ban images of Muhammed because it causes extremist violence, but what if they then attack restaurant selling non-halal food? Or murder a woman for not dressing modestly?

I'm with you on that buddy It seems like the fanatics (and they are the only muslims I am talking about) seem to think that we should all be living our lives according to their beliefs and as soon as we allow them to dictate morality and behaviour to the rest of us even once, is the day that life as we know it will cease to exist

Augie, Daryl,

The freedom of speech argument is so overused to defend the behaviour of bullies, bigots and fucktards that it's ridiculous.

What we're talking about here is people going out of their way to offend Muslims by drawing something so emotive to the very core of their religious beliefs that it's impossible not to be aware that you're deeply offending a large population of people. Not just extremist morons but peaceful, law abiding muslims.

I've been brought up to be polite and respectful towards other people wherever it's possible to do so. I don't agree in needlessly offending others simply because I'm legally allowed to.

And Daryl, I didn't suggest banning anything - that was Quartz. My argument, as I state above, is that people shouldn't go out of their way to offend others if it can be easily avoided. Respect and politeness should be a societies core values.
- to suggest in any way that that puts us on a path to only selling halal meat and living in a country that murder women who don't dress modestly is scare mongering and plain silly. Being a civilized, respectful and inclusive country does not in any way mean the full force of the law won't be used to destroy extremism within the population who threaten the core values and stability of Britain.

[DarylAFC]

And Daryl, I didn't suggest banning anything - that was Quartz. My argument, as I state above, is that people shouldn't go out of their way to offend others if it can be easily avoided. Respect and politeness should be a societies core values.
- to suggest in any way that that puts us on a path to only selling halal meat and living in a country that murder women who don't dress modestly is scare mongering and plain silly. Being a civilized, respectful and inclusive country does not in any way mean the full force of the law won't be used to destroy extremism within the population who threaten the core values and stability of Britain.

But it goes back to what I said earlier on, if it offends you, don't look at it.

I'm offended by The Guardian and The Independent. I find the way it talks about the military is based on outdated stereotypes and the way it views men in general as sexist. But rather than boot off about it, I simply don't read it.

As a free society, I'm free to draw Muhammad and Jesus tap dancing for Buddha if I wish. And as a free society, people are allowed to be offended by it and complain.

[officepest]

But it goes back to what I said earlier on, if it offends you, don't look at it.

I'm offended by The Guardian and The Independent. I find the way it talks about the military is based on outdated stereotypes and the way it views men in general as sexist. But rather than boot off about it, I simply don't read it.

As a free society, I'm free to draw Muhammad and Jesus tap dancing for Buddha if I wish. And as a free society, people are allowed to be offended by it and complain.

The Guardian I can understand, but the Independent? Bored by it, fair enough, but offended?

[GranadaJoe]

Iran has launched another 'holocaust denial' cartoon competition. Cash prizes and a place in the Museum.

Not offending is clearly a one-way street.