Je Suis NON Charlie

Post Reply New Topic

The point of political satire, tends to be less about other's belief and more about criticizing the abuse of an authority.

This is the tradition that was followed here.

You don't have like it, but I would not want to live in a world where anything was out of bound from criticism, or satire.

Let's be honest here, these terrorist were not just annoyed that they are being criticized they are annoyed that people have beliefs other than their own. They are not bothered about insulting other's beliefs.

Jacoby and 0=True i agree with pretty much all of your sentiments, although not the idea of restrictive immigration and repatriation. The point I am making is that one can condemn and abhor the actions of any terrorist without identifying with the target. In this case the level of praise heaped upon CH by commentators such as Simon Sharma seems to me unfounded, and it concerns me that once again a level of critical thinking seems absent, this does not mean I am right, but at least I am prepared to look at the various angles of what is going on and try to form an opinion.

And as to the greater issue of freedoms of speech and expression the cynicism and opportunism of world leaders in foul.

The fascists have one thing right, unfettered immigration of people who have no intention of assimilating into their new society can be a problem. I love the CH cartoons, since I love blasphemy and making fun of religion. I've been a fan since the previous controversy, for which they got bombed. They aren't just hateful propaganda, they are making serious points.

Assange's rape charge is obviously a sham. However, his speech was of a different nature since he revealed state secrets. Had he simply expressed an opinion, he would not be in trouble. I happen to think he did an important and courageous act.

I support free speech but that doesn't mean you have a right to offend people and their beliefs. I never heard of Charlie Hebdo though I read that it had a controversial history. It made distasteful cartoons that feature Muhammad, not only that but other religions as well. I notice a double standard prior to the attacks in Paris. Why is it okay to make fun of God and Christianity but not okay to make fun of Islam? When there are militant Islamists out there. I don't think it would be ok to publish cartoons that are anti religious. You don't have to hate religion but if you don't agree with it then respect other people's beliefs.

But that is also free speech: people do have the right to say things that are offensive. And how are we to know what is offensive? Some people are offended by depictions of Jesus, but we don't ban depictions of Jesus just to appease those people. The 80 Years War was partly caused by Protestant people storming the Catholic churches and destroying the statues and icons because they were offended. It should be ok to make fun of any God.

No one denies the right to do it. The question becomes, what is the point of doing it over and over and over. You make your point, move onto other things. Why keep hammering the nail once it's already in the two by four?

Their "right" to do it? Is this some natural "right" that we see around us? If I stand in front of a lion and spit in it's face will the lion recognize my "right?" That's BS.

Charlie knew the killing and destruction following anger at depictions of Mohammed. They could only logically expect the same to happen if they printed the filthy depiction they chose. And they chose to spit in the face of the lion.

But they didn't think it would be "them" that would be the subject of death and destruction. And they paid the price, however unfair.

Anyone know what an "8-pager" used to be? How about an edition portraying Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus on their way to Bethlehem? Could this cause violence?? Should it be printed AS A PUBLIC SERVICE to show the hypocrisy of Christians (how about it "freedom lovers?). Maybe more along the same or similar lines??? Would my publishing of the above cause me to get punched in the face (or worse)?

You see folks. In the West, at least in the U.S. it is NOT permissible to do or say anything you wish. The main "pointer" to this is the phrase: "It's against the law to yell "FIRE" in a crowded (not burning) theatre." There are many other things you're not allowed to say, some you can be sued for; perhaps this is some Muslim's methods (of suit), that Charlie brought upon themselves, knowing fully what they were doing.

Personally I find this a "pig-on-pig" story.

8 year old French Muslim boy arrested because he refused to say "je suis Charlie."

The French are such unbelievable cowards, they arrested an eight year old on a completely unfounded suspicion. This is the climate of hate and hostility European Muslims must endure every single day. Having to justify yourself, and convince the world you aren't a terrorist, and being arrested for not laughing at Charlie Hebdo's racist jokes. To me, that is terrorism.

#JeSuisAhmed
#JeNeSuisPasCharlie

Instead of simply publishing and distributing in an impersonal way, why not just say it directly to their faces. Go up to a devout religious person and begin insulting their religion right to their face? That's freedom of speech. You will find a more human response that way and it might make more of an impression if you can actually feel their reaction in person, the energy all this generates, imho. Get a more human vibe in this.

If that story is true then it turns the whole "freedom of speech" issue on its head. The same freedom of speech that protects the magazine's right to make juvenile jokes about other folks' religion also protects folks' freedom to NOT laugh at any particular joke! That would make the French blazing hypocrites.

Are there additional verifiable reports?

The French and German are hypocritical on certain laws like the Holocaust denial law or genocide denial laws. I am not a Holocaust denier BTW.

This is an unfortunate incident if true.

Note that in a democracy, it doesn’t mean they mistake and abuses don't take place from time to time. What matterd is how these incidents are dealt with.

Why should you have to?

I mean if they had gone up to to the people that eventually killed them, they would have been probably killed.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Je ne suis pas Charlie. Get it right!

The point I am making is, if you don't have the guts to do it in person face to face, then quit hiding behind freedom of the press, sitting in a corner hurling insults at people by sending it out via the media. When you think about it, it's the coward's way. It's like any other form of cowardice. You don't have the guts to do it face to face so you do it in such a way, you can say whatever you want and never have to be held responsible in any way.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, though. It doesn't change the right to do it.

You are basically saying if you are not willing to say something where you could potentially be at risk, then don't do say it all. This is the opposite of freedom of speech, and hardly principled.

You are enforcing the fallacious argument that people have right not to be offended.

You might as well tell people who take huge risks in countries that don't have freedom of speech already, to further put themselves at risk, more than they already do.

Some may be martyrs for the cause, but the idea that you have to put yourself at risk for what you say is bunk, and morally suspect.

You know what is really stupid about this argument, it is almost implying that the if only Charlie Hebdo hadn't published, these guy wouldn't have been so moved to cause this act, that someone they were justified, or this reaction is somehow 'understandable'.

It is just apologist, that is what it is.

There reality is these guys would have take exception to far less, learn something about there ideology, they aren't splitting hairs over the depiction like you are. If it wasn't Mohammed cartoon it would be something else.

They aren't tolerant of other religions, so why be tolerant of them?

In fact it wouldn't surprise me they chose act, before they even chose exactly what they would attack.