Me ne suis pas Charlie

[Zamo]

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?

 

I will agree with you that I think arresting Dieudonné M’bala M’bala for writing “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” on his Twitter account is wrong. I think the French have overreacted (can't really blame them at the moment) and that ultimately the case will be dropped. However, an error in the interpretation of a principle does not invalidate the principle.

 

The principle of free speech (and religious freedom) means that we can criticise, challenge and mock all beliefs. A few borderline/arguable cases do not mean we have double standards and certainly do not make a case for the free speech principle to not apply to religious beliefs. Examples of errors of judgement make a case for improving consistency and Muslims living in the West are going to have to accept that free speech is non-negotiable.

[L00b]

IMO freedom of speech is interpreted in different ways, Some say it includes the right to offend and some believe it doesn't.

The interpretation matters not so much as its boundaries in any given country.

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.

IMO (as a secularist infidel ) that's a moot distinction: putting outrage and high level discussion aside for a minute (and with all due respect to the victims and their families of course), then looking at it purely in pragmatic terms, the outcome is a self-inflicted pair of black eyes for belligerent Muslim fundamentalists everywhere, as they have effectively gifted the newspaper the global exposure, the commercial demand and an entry in European history rivalling that of 7/7, which it would never have otherwise gotten, mere months away from bankruptcy as it was before the attack...and in the process of course, secured its continuing existence and 'offensive' capacity in the medium to long term (Oh yeah, about that, been given a message to relay: Golden Dawn and the Vatican are fairly p****ed at the Kaouchis )

 

That this may in turn, in its own small way, foster further secularist thoughts and influence upon borderline-/vacillating- faithfuls of all persuasions (not only Muslims at all, and that was always clear insofar as CH is concerned) and steer them away from extreme/violent conduct, would be cherry on the cake.

 

EDIT - and can a Mod please correct the thread title, with replacing 'Me' with 'Je'.

Edited January 15, 2015 by L00b

[roosterboost]

 

The principle of free speech (and religious freedom) means that we can criticise, challenge and mock all beliefs. A few borderline/arguable cases do not mean we have double standards and certainly do not make a case for the free speech principle to not apply to religious beliefs. Examples of errors of judgement make a case for improving consistency and Muslims living in the West are going to have to accept that free speech is non-negotiable.

 

It is a pretty rubbish religion that can't cope with folk questioning it. It seems Islam continues to exist due to blind acceptance and the murder of folk who question it.

 

It is interesting that folk get murdered for a cartoon depicting Mohammed. If no pictures are allowed to exist how does anyone know that a cartoon is of him and not one of the billion folk who have been called Mohammed in the last thousand years. Wasn't there bother over a hamster called Mohammed a few years back?

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 14:38 ----------

 

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

 

Odd though that Israel only retaliates when attack my Islamists. It seems Islamists attack just about anyone these days. Would you blame them all for retaliating. Is your hatred confined to Jews?

Edited January 15, 2015 by roosterboost

[milquetoast1]

What about their freedom of speech?

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

 

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

 

Quite the persecution complex you have there.

 

However, it is unfounded.

 

Like Zamo I might not agree with the arrest of Dieudonné and others, but it is NOT an example of double standards. Also at this stage it's an arrest, a chat to see if an offence has been committed.

 

It's only double standards if you think that people are arguing for ABSOLUTE right of Free Speech. But nobody is, it's a strawman.

 

We collectively agree to relinquish our freedom of expression with respect to libel, forgery, incitement and terrorism. This is generally accepted.

 

There is no right to not be offended, but in France there is a right not to be subject to racial slurs and incitement. This applies to everybody.

 

If Dieudonné is charged for making offensive remarks to non-Muslims then THAT would be an example of double standards, I would grant you that.

[RonJeremy]

It is a pretty rubbish religion that can't cope with folk questioning it. It seems Islam continues to exist due to blind acceptance and the murder of folk who question it.

 

It is interesting that folk get murdered for a cartoon depicting Mohammed. If no pictures are allowed to exist how does anyone know that a cartoon is of him and not one of the billion folk who have been called Mohammed in the last thousand years. Wasn't there bother over a hamster called Mohammed a few years back?

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2015 at 14:38 ----------

 

 

Odd though that Israel only retaliates when attack my Islamists. It seems Islamists attack just about anyone these days. Would you blame them all for retaliating is your hatred confined to Jews?

 

I think there was a teddy bear in Africa called mohammed at one point that got the zealots riled a bit.

A teacher gone to help and educate those less fortunate than her.

[anfisa]

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.

 

Where would your draw the line though, lets say it becomes illegal so say bad things about religion because of the offense it may cause, it should then follow that a lot of the religious texts should be banned because of the offense it can cause, sooner or later no one can say, write or draw anything because of the offense it may cause.

[cardoor]

Where would your draw the line though, lets say it becomes illegal so say bad things about religion because of the offense it may cause, it should then follow that a lot of the religious texts should be banned because of the offense it can cause, sooner or later no one can say, write or draw anything because of the offense it may cause.

 

That's the govt plan. To stop terrorists taking away our freedoms the govt is going to take away our freedoms.

 

Before its removed a must watch for you all is >>>>

 

[aliceBB]

There is however a history and tradition of images of Muhammed:

 

http://tarekfatah.com/images-of-prophet-muhammad-from-islamic-art-and-history-before-the-clan-of-ibn-saud-took-islam-hostage/

 

And the principle of 'not creating, or looking at, images of people' seems to be applied somewhat selectively. Do Muslims not use cameras/mobile phones , or watch TV or read newspapers with images of people?

 

We must perhaps conclude that it is simply the mockery (of religion) which is objectionable to them.

[Mecky]

Here we go again http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/seven_churches_torched_in_charlie_hebdo_protest

[Penistone999]

Here we go again http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/seven_churches_torched_in_charlie_hebdo_protest

 

Why do these religious nutjobs throw their toys out of the pram over a cartoon. ?

Its like the other year when the same variety of religious idiots spat the dummy out because someone called a TEDDY BEAR Mohamid .

 

These people really need to get a life and stop living it by what it says in some fictional comic. ( this applies to ALL religions)