Jump to content

Me ne suis pas Charlie


Recommended Posts

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,

 

I think there is a slight difference between defending someone right to draw, write or speak and defending someones right to kill people for drawing writing and speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

What about their freedom of speech?

Does freedom of speech not apply when it's muslims doing the talking?

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 13:25 ----------

 

I think there is a slight difference between defending someone right to draw, write or speak and defending someones right to kill people for drawing writing and speaking.

 

As I have said before, selective freedom of speech.......:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

On the contrary, the Saudi Arabian ambassador had the cheek to show up at the march in support of the victims the other day.

 

Plus Turkey and Egypt were also represented there, countries that seemingly lock up journalists for fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about their freedom of speech?

Does freedom of speech not apply when it's muslims doing the talking?

 

I don't think freedom of speech is the issue, the issue is killing in the name of it or defending the killings. Objecting via speech is light years apart from killing because you're are offended by it.

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 13:30 ----------

 

On the contrary, the Saudi Arabian ambassador had the cheek to show up at the march in support of the victims the other day.

 

Plus Turkey and Egypt were also represented there, countries that seemingly lock up journalists for fun.

 

I would say grotesquely obscene..but I understand you diplomacy.

Edited by skinz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about their freedom of speech?

Does freedom of speech not apply when it's muslims doing the talking?

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 13:25 ----------

 

 

As I have said before, selective freedom of speech.......:rolleyes:

I think freedom of speech is open to everyone mafya . killing people for expressing it is a no no thou :roll:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bold=

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

Nice attempt at obfuscation there. Disingenuous as well.

 

Can I draw you back to the distinction between a right to offend (and to be offended) and the crime of violence? Or is that difference still entirely lost on you (after I pointed it out)? Freedom of speech has SFA to do with criminal violence, you do understand that, right?

 

There is no right to theological vengeance or retribution or such other BS under French laws. Plenty of laws against hate speech, racism and the like, which extremists could try and use to bankrupt/silence Charlie Hebdo. Yet they've never done so. Ask yourself why.

 

Have you read the link posted by forum41 at all, btw? Heartily recommended to you.

How were the detained people defending terrorism ?

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

The distinction is completely moot: they broke criminal/anti-terror law. Simple as.

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?
LOL, the irony! :hihi: Would you care to re-read my earlier post, wherein I explained that 'French' free speech is according to French laws? It's not the sort of 'absolute' free speech you seem to believe it is, so you can stow that strawman away arteady :roll:

Does freedom of speech not apply when it's muslims doing the talking?
That's quite poor for you. Grab the latest Le Point edition (one of the 3 main newsweeklies in France, read by millions): 10 pages of well-known and influential French muslims discussing the recent events, being a muslim in France, hopes for the futures <etc.>

 

Fundies, whether belligerent or not, can get ready in France though. The country is now busy getting its secular a55 in gear in a really major way, with a near-unlimited budgetary cheque and unanimous cross-political and popular support. Expect the UK to be receiving a sizeable share of theological refugees in the very near future.

Edited by L00b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about their freedom of speech?

Does freedom of speech not apply when it's muslims doing the talking?

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 13:25 ----------

 

 

As I have said before, selective freedom of speech.......:rolleyes:

 

Yes freedom of speech is selective but it is not based on your religion or race, it is based on what you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice attempt at obfuscation there.

 

Can I draw you back to the distinction between a right to offend (and to be offended) and the crime of violence? Or is that difference still entirely lost on you (after I pointed it out)? Freedom of speech has SFA to do with criminal violence, you do understand that, right?

 

There is no right to theological vengeance or retribution or such other BS under French laws. Plenty of laws against hate speech and the like, which extremists could try and use to bankrupt/silence Charlie Hebdo. Yet they've never done so. Ask yourself why.

 

Have you read the link posted by forum41 at all, btw? Heartily recommended to you.

The distinction is completely moot: they broke criminal/anti-terror law. Simple as.

LOL, the irony! :hihi: That's quite poor for you.

 

IMO freedom of speech is interpreted in different ways,

Some say it includes the right to offend and some believe it doesn't.

The special edition of Charlie Hebdo is seen by some as standing up to extremists and showing them that we will still print what we like under freedom of speech which IMO is understandable.

On the other hand we have some people and that includes non muslims who believe that the latest Charlie Hebdo edition is a provocative gesture as it is known that some people see it as insulting their religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.