The article was about media reporting as opposed to final charges.
In the immediate aftermath, it was mainly 'mass murderer', as soap alluded. There was a whole debate about the double standards.
Shooting at Charlie Hebdo HQ in Paris
- Thread starter rednev
- Start date
In the immediate aftermath, it was mainly 'mass murderer', as soap alluded. There was a whole debate about the double standards.
He was consistently referred to as a terrorist here. He's also a mass-murderer, obviously.
Bit random but heard this for the first time this morning and it presents one side of the debate in this thread in a way that is pleasing to the ear. So feck it, I'm posting it.
Also kind of fun seeing how many talking heads you recognise.
Also kind of fun seeing how many talking heads you recognise.
Got to give that to the useful idiots. They're much much better in music and art.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ce-of-britain-first-counterdemo-10032912.html
Wankers, every single one of them. Where were they when the cartoonists got shot?
Wankers, every single one of them. Where were they when the cartoonists got shot?
Last edited:
Unfortunately racial hatred us only going to grow and grow.
Peaceful, moderate majority eh?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ine-publishing-cartoons-Prophet-Mohammed.html
Shocking.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ine-publishing-cartoons-Prophet-Mohammed.html
Shocking.
Digressing from the topic itself: I only skim-read, but surely the only thing to take from that is that it is slightly ironic in that by protesting against free speech, you are exercising your right for free speech?
Silly comment. The protest is actually peaceful (whether it is right or wrong). There doesn't seem to be any violence, from what I can see. To talk about peace in this matter & paint them with the same brush as those who committed the murders & those who claim to be against it is just ridiculous. They are doing the exact same thing as all those who gathered in Paris to protest the killings (in which, ironically, there was some violence).
I agree that his comments were over the top but I think the fact that there is such widespread rejection of a fundamental western value among otherwise normal Muslims is worrying.
The majority are peaceful and moderate yes.
Many feel the cartoon is insulting, many do but didn't protest either because there views on Charlie Hebdo fall on a spectrum. No Muslim I've talked to has ever condoned what happened to Charlie Hebdo though.
Loads others feel initiatives like this are more important than ever
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/01/uk-mosques-open-day-tolerance
I'm not saying that Al-Mahajiroun types of Muslims don't exist in England but to put "peaceful, moderate majority" as a question mark, yeah you're going to get push back on that one.
It is possible to be peaceful and moderate to think a cartoon showing the prophet muhammad shouldn't be mass produced, depicted and sold as long as you don't condone violence. I think it's silly obviously, a cartoon doesn't offend me and it shouldn't for others. At a time for racial/cultural tensions this protest wasn't needed, it is wrong in principle as well. Nearly 3 million muslims in UK, the vast majority ARE peaceful and moderate. The 1000s who marched don't represent my view. They speak for themselves and not the muslim population as an aggregate.
Many feel the cartoon is insulting, many do but didn't protest either because there views on Charlie Hebdo fall on a spectrum. No Muslim I've talked to has ever condoned what happened to Charlie Hebdo though.
Loads others feel initiatives like this are more important than ever
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/01/uk-mosques-open-day-tolerance
I'm not saying that Al-Mahajiroun types of Muslims don't exist in England but to put "peaceful, moderate majority" as a question mark, yeah you're going to get push back on that one.
It is possible to be peaceful and moderate to think a cartoon showing the prophet muhammad shouldn't be mass produced, depicted and sold as long as you don't condone violence. I think it's silly obviously, a cartoon doesn't offend me and it shouldn't for others. At a time for racial/cultural tensions this protest wasn't needed, it is wrong in principle as well. Nearly 3 million muslims in UK, the vast majority ARE peaceful and moderate. The 1000s who marched don't represent my view. They speak for themselves and not the muslim population as an aggregate.
I think I agree but it's more along the lines of "freedom of speech but...." and variations of that. Many think freedom of speech is perfectly fine but that religious themes, symbols, icons, ideas should be off the table. In an iconoclastic country like Britain that's obviously a problem. And hence the culture clash. But what worries me is that there are a few jihadis who think we're in a cosmic war. To suggest that those who are religious conservatives (and you wouldn't find the Muslims here, the type who protested, that much different to your average bible basher in the states)
But jihadis are criminal. And we need to root them out. And working with the peaceful, moderate majority is the way to that. Thinking that religious conservatism and jihadism is interlinked would be nice and easy but its not as simple as that unfortunately.
But that's not freedom of speech. It's a ridiculous idea on its face. (I realize you aren't saying you personally believe this)
Freedom of speech isn't subject to the sensibilities of the religious. It's non negotiable and if Muslims wants to live in the west (and I want everyone to feel welcome here), they're going to have to accept that with no "but..." on the end of it.
Yeah absolutely I don't agree with it.
I think from what I understand, being devil's advocate for a moment, is that anti-semitism would not be allowed, saying the n-word would be frowned upon, and there are things like libel laws. And so to them they say freedom of speech isn't absolute, you couldn't get away with insulting someone's mother (to use the pope's analogy)
The trouble is that one side sees this to mean a group of people getting overly sensitive about a fictional man, and antiquated rituals/ideas. Which it clearly isn't to the other side.
I'm always on the side of freedom of speech and I think if you don't want to view something then you don't have to and religious ideas coming under scrutiny is part of western culture.
But like I said though its religious conservatism that's the problem with Muslim, and indeed many believe in abhorrently backwards cultural ideas too. But we have to make that distinction between having religious conservative (and in my opinion wrong) ideas and jihadism.
And there isn't a monopoly of ideas within the Muslim community, there is diversity there. Many commentators try to argue there isn't through polls (saying but look this much percent of Muslims believe in this about this thing) but those stats do not capture the subtle differences about those ideas which are actually critical.
It is possible to think printing cartoons shouldn't be a thing (legally, actually) and still oppose fully gunning people down who do. I've known the majority of muslims think prophets shouldn't be depicted, it doesn't mean they're no longer peaceful or moderate. It just means they're wrong. In the same way those who protested Life of Brian did. Of course terrorism is another matter.
You do have the right to insult someone's mother, yeah they might punch you, but you have the right to do it. They also would then be open to being charged with assault, since they well assaulted you.
Some things are frowned upon, yet still very legal. Yeah you can say the n-word without going to jail just for saying it.
There are limits on free speech, there are libel laws, but if it is just a matter of finding something offensive, well the very existence of free speech means that at some point you are going to be offended by something someone says or writes.
Some things are frowned upon, yet still very legal. Yeah you can say the n-word without going to jail just for saying it.
There are limits on free speech, there are libel laws, but if it is just a matter of finding something offensive, well the very existence of free speech means that at some point you are going to be offended by something someone says or writes.
In countries with true freedom of speech, you absolutely can get away with insulting someone's mother. You can say the N-word, you can be anti-Semetic.
But even put aside the fictional question, people need to learn to deal with speech they don't like on all issues. Even towards living people they respect. I'll go first, Neil Young is a crotchety old bastard with horrible hair and a voice that would get laughed out of high school choir.
If you go into the religion thread in this section you will find lots of comments that people might find offensive but to others the comments represent the truth. Was it in that thread that @Mockney called God a cnut? Some people might find that offensive, others laughed (it was a great GIF). That I know of nobody threatened to kill Mockney over it.
One member actually asked for his CE event access to be removed because of it. Multiple laughs were had.
FWIW I do agree with the both of you. And that is the argument we should be having with regards to this. It's one thing to debate with or call someone silly/wrong for being a religious nutter. Totally different to the "well if they dont like it they should feck off home" vibe you get from the Daily Mail UKIP types.
As I said, the Muslim reaction you see in the main with regards to Charlie Hebdo is similar to fundamentalist christians who opposed Life of Brian, the last temptation of christ etc. Of course the Charlie Hebdo massacre and Salman Rushdie affairs were different and we need to be absolutely firm on not letting death threats deter freedom of speech.
But to make broad generalisations and calling Muslims a uniquely destructive cultural force doesn't do anybody any good. Lets debate these ideas but lets acknowledge that Birmingham isn't a no go zone and sharia law isn't actually creeping that much.
As I said, the Muslim reaction you see in the main with regards to Charlie Hebdo is similar to fundamentalist christians who opposed Life of Brian, the last temptation of christ etc. Of course the Charlie Hebdo massacre and Salman Rushdie affairs were different and we need to be absolutely firm on not letting death threats deter freedom of speech.
But to make broad generalisations and calling Muslims a uniquely destructive cultural force doesn't do anybody any good. Lets debate these ideas but lets acknowledge that Birmingham isn't a no go zone and sharia law isn't actually creeping that much.
Birmingham is not a no-go zone, unless you are a brain dead FOX NEWS anchor, then they do not want you.
But it is creeping? That can't be good.
Dunno how much but doubt it personally, tough to fact check these things. The Trojan Horse scandals and Ofsted reports on schools was probably overblown but still pretty scary though.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-sharia-law-uk/18486
I did.
As a Muslim myself, I can say that the ones you find in the UK (that have grown up/established themselves as people of the UK, like most of those pictured) are quite unlike anything else in the world. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I just mean they do not represent the rest of us, even if they managed a large turn out. They managed to gather a large number of people in the same way a BNP supporters' protest against foreigners will - there may be thousands there & it will be what attracts the cameras, but it cannot be used as a sample for everyone else.
Except there are similar demonstrations in Australia and Turkey and Pakistan and Iran and Russia and Niger and so on
You're not wrong. My point is that, no matter what, it will only make sense for the media to show the protests - you will make no money televising an average Muslim family sitting at home, disagreeing with the killings in Paris, watching western TV wearing western clothes. The vast majority of Muslims are against Charlie Hebdo and what they did - it was disrespectful, free speech or not. That same vast majority (and then some more on top of that, probably 99%) were even more against the terrorists that came into the HQ and killed the 12 people at Charlie Hebdo.
Do not confuse opposition to Charlie Hebdo's actions with supporting terrorism.
I don't think I have, at any point.
The movie so funny it was banned in Norway!
Don't misunderstand me - i'm not insinuating you did. In fact, I wasn't really directing it at you in specific (perhaps I made it seem that I was). I am just trying to say that I think a lot of people are mistaken about our (Muslims) stance on it. I'm just trying to shed some light.
They'll protest a cartoon but not the murder of a dozen people. I'll say it again, utter, utter wankers, even single person at that protest.
Suck it up. If you can't deal with freedom of speech (peaceful protests) then feck off.
I'm exercising my right to freedom of speech by calling them wankers. If you can't deal with it then feck off.
And now you understand why there is no difference between you and them.
What are you talking about?
Seconded
Seconded
Seriously? Are you going to quote me every time I make a post and claim you don't know what I'm talking about?
Who started the: You can't be upset about freedom of speech, you have to accept it, basically suck it up or feck off? Well, guess who's upset now.
I have always had the position that: No, if you don't like something, no matter what it is, there is no problem with expressing your anger/emotions, however, you have to do it in a civilized and peaceful way. Hence why I have no problem with him or the protests. They're merely expressing their emotions/opinions in a peaceful way.
As for the difference (why protest now in masses, not then), it has nothing to do with murder, or "lives". I could also call the protestors in Paris "wankers" because they only cared about 12 dead people, but not millions others who are killed across the world. Those protests in Paris weren't about the "dead" but about a principle, 'freedom of speech'. In the Muslims' case, similarly the principle was about their 'faith, and respect'. It's not a competition of "who doesn't care about lives more", it was about expressing two different opinions of two groups of people, and making a stand about it.
Did soap call for the protesters to be murdered or arrested? No he didn't. See the difference?
If you don't like something you're well within your right to say so. That's how freedom of speech works. They have the right to protest freedom of speech, and we have the right to call them "wankers", "fascists" and "assholes" for it.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Have I done that before? I like you danny. I'm legitimately asking what your point is.
I think that's an unfair comparison. The cartoons and the murders are directly linked. The "millions of deaths around the world"...what is the direct link?
The Muslim protestors didn't either. There was 0 violence or arrests. Not sure why you are making the comparison.