Me ne suis pas Charlie

[Cyclone]

You can't defend your right to free speech by taking it away.

[Halibut]

France arrests 54 for ‘defending terrorism’ after Charlie Hebdo attack.

 

This is a good thing is it not, what right minded person would defend terrorism or condemn a government for arresting those that do defend it.

 

You defend Israeli terror in Gaza do you not?

[Ellco]

The two civilisations just don't get on. We're more divided than ever before.... Its time for a mutually agreed separation and then an amicable divorce.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 08:12 ----------

 

You defend Israeli terror in Gaza do you not?

 

That's self defence... think you're confused.

[Cyclone]

That's self defence... think you're confused.

 

One man's freedom fighter, etc, etc...

[anfisa]

You can't defend your right to free speech by taking it away.

 

The right to free speech as already been taken away.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 08:35 ----------

 

The two civilisations just don't get on. We're more divided than ever before.... Its time for a mutually agreed separation and then an amicable divorce.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 08:12 ----------

 

 

That's self defence... think you're confused.

 

I agree, when people are fighting it is best to stay away from each other.

[L00b]

Non Wahhabi muslims also wear a burka by the way so by classing burka wearers of being wahabists wives shows how little you know about the subject.

I use 'Wahhabi' as a descriptive shortcut, because the burka is a staple of that branch, by contrast to the 'mainstream'.

 

Perhaps you should be glad I don't use 'Muslims' willy-nilly instead, and that's because I'm very aware that it is a minority practice...but obviously not, as that last sentence of yours just goes to show your (undeclared but quite clear) bias in the matter.

 

As you so eloquently put it, I don't give a **** about whether burka-wearing fundamentalists are actually wahabis or not: all of my points stand regardless of the actual denomination, because I consider all burka wearers as proselytes, and so fair game.

This article makes a point about the Selective freedom of speech by the French= http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/14/france-charliehebdoarrests.html

The Justice Ministry said that 54 people' date=' including four minors, have been [b']detained for defending or verbally threatening terrorism[/b] since the Charlie Hebdo attack. Several have already been convicted under special measures for immediate sentencing.

 

Justice officials are holding meetings with the defendants to remind them that defending terrorism is illegal. Like many other European countries, France has strong laws against hate speech, particularly anti-Semitism, in light of its history during World War II.

Regardless of the French context on the above, there's a bit of a difference between satire (à la Charlie Hebdo) and extremism (hate speech, threatening terror acts). It's about the size of a small mountain range, but it looks like you're still managing to miss it. Now, you seem very articulate and intelligent, so how is that possible? Rethorical question, don't bother answering.

 

By the way, thanks for vindicating my earlier comment about the varying codification of the principle with your link. Now here's my reply.

 

EDIT:

Brilliant, well written article...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lliana-bird/charlie-hebdo_b_6461030.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Indeed, and very many thanks for this link, forum41 Edited January 15, 2015 by L00b

[Ellco]

Has anyone else noticed how this attack has Liberals frothing because its an attack on their core values.... while all the other issues don't receive half as much attention, or they trot out the same old excuses...

[Zamo]

Maybe the words Islam and Muslim should be removed when describing these terrorists since it's plain to anyone that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and all it does when describing them as Muslims is rattle the majority.

 

Time to adopt a more suitable term for them. C.R.R.A.P Common riff raff and pseuds

 

"Terrorists claiming to be muslims" would be sufficient IMO......

 

Islamist is the correct term.

 

Pretending that Islamic extremism isn't a by-product of Islam and Islamic culture is a form of censorship and a strategy than cannot work. Firstly, most people will simply not believe it no matter how many time you say it. Secondly, it is used by the 'moderate' Muslim majority as an excuse for inaction... and we desperately need action.

 

As the arch-pacifist of SF, Halibut, has already informed us - terror and violence will only breed terror and violence. This is already starting to happen and media censorship (presumably to avoid news of it fuelling anger) may be well intended but is ultimately futile and unhelpful. Showing mass rallies of Muslims and non-Muslims holding hands in a show of unity is cause for hope but is, frankly, no solution and serves to down plays the threat posed by growing division.

 

The solution to the division is not for the evil West to stop angering Muslims. It is for the 'moderate' Muslim majority who have chosen to live in the West to moderate further and move away from the extremist precipice that so many Muslims fall in to. A good starting point would be to accept that their religious has no reverence here in the West. Religious freedom means we do not treat people differently based on their religious choices and as such we are free to challenged, opposed and ridiculed religious and non-religious beliefs alike. If Muslims cannot live with this fair, secular principle then they should consider living somewhere else because their anger is not considered reasonable and the violence is intolerable. Muslims need to get with the programme because it is their attitude causing the division.

[skinz]

It isn't just this site. I note that the BBC has shied away from showing cartoons relating to the Charlie Hebdo story. Is it fear, political correctness or political censorship? Do any of those reasons justify censorship?

 

It shouldn't but quite clearly it does. I'm not sure how you can offend a dead prophet..he's dead.

 

Basically it's a case of we wont show the cartoon if you promise not to gun me down or hack my head off. If that isn't a case of blackmail and capitulating to it I don't know what is. Why aren't we paying for the release of journalists and hostages?

[mafya]

I use 'Wahhabi' as a descriptive shortcut, because the burka is a staple of that branch, by contrast to the 'mainstream'.

 

Perhaps you should be glad I don't use 'Muslims' willy-nilly instead, and that's because I'm very aware that it is a minority practice...but obviously not, as that last sentence of yours just goes to show your (undeclared but quite clear) bias in the matter.

 

As you so eloquently put it, I don't give a **** about whether burka-wearing fundamentalists are actually wahabis or not: all of my points stand regardless of the actual denomination, because I consider all burka wearers as proselytes, and so fair game[/b].

 

There's a bit of a difference between satire and extremism. It's about the size of a small mountain range, but it looks like you're still managing to miss it.

 

By the way, thanks for vindicating my earlier comment about the varying codification of the principle with your link. Now here's my reply.

 

EDIT:

Indeed, and very many thanks for this link, forum41

 

My bold=

That's what the extremist think about people who draw cartoons that are obviously going to offend.

How were the detained people defending terrorism ?

Is it due to what they said which I suspect it is or was it physical?

The double standards are very clear indeed and the Saudi link has no bearing on this as Saudi Arabia doesn't make out that it does free speech like the French does it?