I’m not agreeing with the message but thought it was ironic that he’d be so put out by it.
Emmanuel Macron
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
yeah, the billboard owner did not say that and he wasn't even Muslim.
Calling out Macron hypocrisy regarding free speech is fair game and probably just highlight how bad Islamophobia in French are
Well guy himself decided to bring up Charlie Hebdo so I'm wondering where he wanted to go with that.
My guess because Hebdo repeatedly produce provocative content (on everyone tbf) was publicly defended as free speech and he saw what he did is no different
And Charlie Hebdo were and are constantly subjected to lawsuits for that reason, however the majority of them lost their lives for one reason alone and no longer make cartoons of Muhammed for that reason.
Yes and no Muslims have lost their lives because of provocative BS articles, satire, narrative etc.... Oh wait.
Attacking them was horrific, but to pretend those type of articles and narratives don't have any negative impact on Muslims and are perfectly fine is also nonsense.
Did the cartoonists kill people? If Cartoons set off people it probably says more about the people than the cartoons. We are in the 21st century mind you.
Last edited:
I don't know why you keep bringing up the attack on Hebdo as the guy didn't brought this up. It's only you who made the connection.
It's pretty simple, Macron was vocal in his defense of Hebdo as an example of free speech
Macron also doesn't like when free speech is directed to him
In short, the guy was calling Macron a hypocrite. Which should be fair game for any politician
Difference is that Macron was vocal in his defense of Charlie Hebdo because they were brutally murdered. They were also the subject of lawsuits of all several religious groups and politicians. However it is the actual brutal mass murder which brings them more than usual support.
It's fair to troll Macron, but it's also fair for him to work within the law with libel lawsuits.
Well done for totally missing the point he made.
Do you think Islamophobic media and rhetoric may have led to Islamophobic attacks on Muslims?
Is there no research on this?
Get vaxxed French cnuts, then all this will go away, your freedom will return. Filthy feckers
Oh, I never said otherwise.
It's just when Muslims protests about something similar, they were told that free speech is the French way, we don't want sharia and told to suck it up. Macron is a big part of that. Now the one time the foot was in the other shoe, he got butthurt and couldn't accept it.
It's not the fact that he feel he needs to sue, it's the hypocrisy.
Oh I won't deny that Macron and the french can be hypocrites. However what excatly would you like them him to do about Charlie Hebdo etc? Put blasphemy laws into effect? Also being well aware that secular people can't commit blasphemy. Macron and all politicians are fairly regular targets of satire and mockery, so perhaps one reason he's coming down on this one is for the countries covid 19 efforts.
It will be interesting none the less to see where this lawsuit goes as it sets a precedent.
Last edited:
The media in the hands of the wrong people is a much more powerful and dangerous tool than a few brainless loony terrorists. Intelligent and powerful (policymakers, media, journalists) don't have to kill. They are aware of the consequences of their actions and words. The gullible and stupid get played.
Last edited:
Just as the world has lived for eternity with murders related to love, hate, greed, drugs, etc. We're in an unfortunate standoff where we'll just have to live with the consequences. It's pretty much impossible to stop freedom of speech and likewise stop individuals from taking it upon themselves to threaten or kill. We'll just have to hope people use their intellect on both sides of the argument and understand actions written or violent have severe consequences.
Let's take Modi, his government presently in power in India. The policy and agenda that is prioritised by the ruling BJP and its Hindutwa supporters are to stay in power using religion as a tool. I'm just giving you this example of India due to my vague memory of you originating from India and will be aware of the devastation, killings, violence misery, and racism the right-wing ultra-nationalism, fuelled by the media and government circles is causing to minorities?
Let's for example substitute the policymakers, media and those setting the agenda and narratives for Charlie Hebdo. Modi and his fellow MP's are not personally going around killing. Obviously, what I'm getting at is words and actions do have consequences. As you state, we are in the 21st-century and those doing the actual killing says more about the people than the policymakers. However, don't you think the instigators should cop some of the blame or would you just put the entire blame on those simple-minded, nasty and easily influenced murderers?
In Canada recently a family was killed by a driver as they were walking. He just ran them down. These things happen now too frequently. Before that there was the gunning down in the mosque. Many other incidents too.
It didn't happen in the past this frequently. There is a lot of Islamaphobia now. In fact when the Canadian mps wanted to pass a non binding resolution lots of mps voted against it. By the way it was against Islamaphobia and all religious discrimination.
I'm not from India at all. I'm half-Danish half-British, but my british family from my fathers side grew up in China untill they were kicked out during the cultural revolution unto the streets of India(which is where you might have made the connection) where from they made their way back to Wales. I'm not really interested in extrapolating the situation in India unto specific countries like Denmark or France.
A magazine such as Charlie Hebdo is an independent media and punches at pretty much everyone including Macron and Le pen. However we've done this topic several times, I am at fault for re-igniting the debate. So I'm wearied of delving into another Charlie Hebdo discussion. Personally in the case of France and Macron, I think he could more diplomatic, by saying for instance "I think the cartoons are offensive and unfunny, but the free press are allowed by law to mock religion which was a hard won right and there is nothing I can do about it".
At the end of the day, I simply can't say that cartoonists(most of whom were killed and several attempted killed) have blood on their hands. It would be infantilizing the people actually comitting the violence. But the thing is terrorism works. Nobody in the in any fairly well known media wants to potentially live the rest of their lives in fear of being killed for cartooning Muhammed. So despite the fact that it's not codified into law means that it worked. Frankly I wish we can move to towards an era where religious fundamentalism is a thing of the past. I find it rather difficult to see it happening though.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
can't believe I just now saw this title
Well, what was the title then?
Took me a while to realize this was a bumped thread. If you look at the beginning of the first post it looks as it would have posted a couple of months ago.
I dont remember
The hypocrite, the cnut who is trying to win elections at the expense of lives of Ukranians. The f...cker dares to talk about letting the rushist save his face. Unfeckingbelievable. It has been quite a long time since France had a real leader with balls.
Give it to Le Penny til the end of the season?
I was told during the French elections how wonderful he was. And that his statement about not embarrassing Putin was on humanitarian grounds.
In my opinion, no leader of a foreign country should try to tell the leader of that country how much territory it should or should not give up just to appease the aggressor.
Just stick to providing as much support as possible.
No, not really, however, I see where you are coming from. Macron is the lesser of the two evils.
Le Pen and Mélenchon are both pro-Putin, one's even financed by him.
Either Putin is stopped, permanently or there's negotiations to stop it.
Maybe Johnson can be the hitman while he continues to finance Putin with what he's not telling you he's still buying from Russia, not one mention of gold still
Either Putin is stopped, permanently or there's negotiations to stop it.
Maybe Johnson can be the hitman while he continues to finance Putin with what he's not telling you he's still buying from Russia, not one mention of gold still
Yes it's Boris and not that you lot made fecking arse of yourselves again, aided as always by the irresistible forces of time and @Eboue
The Badass Paul The Wolf
oh wait nevermind just saw the thread he started
What's happened to him ?
2018
He went to a walk with his dad?
Ahh context. Makes more sense now. Poor Merkel, getting flanked by those two.
Is Macron the one who's wife groomed him as a kid?