UKC

Please show solidarity for all our friends in France(including Bruce) by penning here:

Je Suis Charlie

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie aussi.

I nearly started a similar thread yesterday but I wondered whether it would be too much of an empty gesture. However, seeing that no-one else has responded in over an hour I've changed my mind.

I was just having a look through the original Danish cartoons. Perhaps we should have a gallery? My favourite is the beardy guy who might or might not look like Mohammed (since there are no pictures of him of course) with his eyes blacked out while the eyes of the two burkaed women behind him are the only parts visible.

It works better as a cartoon, which is kind of the point.

In reply to mypyrex:

Can we just please ensure that Jesus and Mo goes viral.

Mohammed, folks! in bed with Jesus! How bad can it be??!!!

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

In reply to mypyrex:
As a Frenchman away from home, "Je suis Charlie" too.

The show of solidarity all across the UK has really been fantastic and heart-warming, Glasgow City Chambers was flying the French flag at half-mast today, there was also a small gathering of support with Frenchies and Scots in Edinburgh, despite the pouring rain.

My favourite cartoon from Charlie Hebdo is this one, by Cabu:

http://www.lepoint.fr/images/2015/01/07/3044286-2057904089-jpg_2649905.jpg

The headline is "Muhammad is snowed under with extremists", and the prophet saying "It's hard to be loved by all these f*ck**g idiots"

I think it's a perfect example of his work, yes it's insolent blasphemy for some, but it ridicules the extremists without ever resorting to racism or prejudice, something he was truly incapable of anyway.

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie.....

In reply to All:
Well done folks; keep it going - Je Suis Charlie!

In reply to mypyrex:

Moi aussi: je suis Charlie

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie!

I hope that this tragedy doesn't stop this type of cartoon being published. Free speech for all.

In reply to Niall_H:

et moi. Je suis Charlie

In reply to mypyrex:

Moi aussi: je suis Charlie

In reply to mypyrex:


Je suis Charlie!

In reply to PeterM:

Je suis Charlie!

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie!

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie

In reply to mypyrex:

How about je suis Ahmed.

The policeman murdered by them was a French Muslim.

I think it is important to remember that these nutters are not representative of normal Muslim people, most of whom are quietly getting on with life just the same as you and I.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/jesuisahmed-twitter-hashtag_n_6438...

In reply to marsbar:

+1

notenoughchars

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I made an extraordinary visual Freudian slip when I saw the first posters coming out of Paris that said "Je Suis Charlie". All the block capitals were crammed together and I misread them as "Jesu is Charlie"!

In reply to John Stainforth:

Je suis Charlie

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie aussi.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Intriguing response on FB for Jesus and Mo, at least within my very limited sphere.
Lot's of folk stating the generic Je suis Charlie, lot of posts of the various response cartoons, all with lots of "likes" and supportive comments.
I post the current J&M front page Je Suis Charlie cartoon, as I see it as the best representation of what the Je Suis Charlie actually means, we must continue to have freedom to satirise ideas we disagree with, no matter where they originate from.
The FB response is an obvious and complete silence, which in contrast to other posts, seems odd.

In reply to Moomin.williams:

Same for me

Anyone else from UKC going to be at the "marche républicaine" in Paris on Sunday ?

(La manifestation partira à 15h de la place de la République vers la place de la Nation)

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis charlie et ainsi est ma femme

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie.

There was a vigil in Birmingham last night too

Je suis Charlie - I think it's been a touching show of solidarity for something that represents more than the murder of 12 people.

I was in London when this happened (British, but live in France) and drove home from Lyon airport late last night through deserted motorways, and all the overhead warning gantries had been changed to simply read 'Je suis Charlie'. It was quite evocative on dark and lonely roads.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


They're not in bed in bed - it's Morecambe and Wise!

Nous sommes Charlie Hebdo:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2015/01/08/nous

In reply to yorkshireman:

Chapeau.

In reply to Doug:

I would normally but I've got a bad dose of rhinopharyngite so I'm not sure. I'll see how I feel.

In reply to mypyrex:

I am not Charlie. Charlie deliberately profaned religious sensitivities. I don't do that.

UKC will now attack me as if I'd murdered puppies and peed on Diana's grave.

In reply to Jamie B:

The #JeSuisCharlie isn't condoning the cartoons they produced, it's showing respect to the 12 people ruthlessly murdered by a group of people hell-bent on spreading fear through the western world.

If you think we shouldn't use the hashtag you should read a few opinion pieces on the web.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I think that distinction is being lost amid the hysteria.

In reply to mypyrex:

Maybe me, but when I see the "Je suis Charlie" image, I see the word "Jesus" standing out from the letters.

Just an observation, thats all..

In reply to sbc_10:



TBH that's what I saw too. I think that's part of it but it could easily be coincidence

In reply to Jamie B:


You are probably right.

In reply to Snoweider:

Ahmed wasn't the only one to die at the hands of these terrorists. I think to use the hashtag #JeSuisAhmed denigrates this fact. I'd like to suggest a more neutral hashtag - #JeSuisHumain

In reply to Jamie B:

Why should we be sensitive to religion? Religion does not deserve some special pleading that would not be granted to any other.

A lot of very naughty people are doing things (or have done) in the name of their religion, as if it makes those actions beyond criticism. Salman Riushdie's comment on the Hebdo affair is pretty much bang on.

and you are entirely free to express your thoughts on all this Jamie, that's the whole Charlie thing is about.

In reply to Jamie B:


You could easily do it accidentally, some people are very touchy. And there are a lot of sacred cows belonging to different religions, so you'll need to be careful where you tread.

Have you looked at the cartoons? Which ones do you think deliberately profane religious sensitivities (bearing in mind that the three that caused most of the fuss weren't published by Charlie Hebdo added later by activists deliberately trying to provoke a protest and even one of those was a bad photocopy of something utterly unconnected with Islam)?


Maybe. Unlikely that anyone will come round and shoot you though.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

You can use whatever hash tag you like, it won't make any difference.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Can you do something deliberately and accidentally at the same time?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

This, although for what it's worth I do condone offending religious sensibilities especially of the sort that Charlie Hebdo lampooned.

I've had an interesting/depressing exchange with someone on facebook who kept reminding me that while murder wasn't justified, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were extremely offensive. So, one single tiny example to put this in context; yesterday it was reported that a Saudi blogger was sentenced to 1000 lashes at 50 a day every Friday for 20 weeks and 10 years in jail, and his lawyer has been sentenced for 15 years. Maybe I'm just weird or intolerant but this is way more offensive than a cartoon which takes the piss out of it. Should we also stop making barbed comments about Catholic paedophiles, ignorant drunken orangemen and murderous zionists in case we offend their deeply held beliefs as well?

In reply to Removed User:


Frankly yes - most Catholics aren't paedophiles, most Orangemen aren't ignorant drunkards and most Zionists aren't murderous.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Touche

In reply to Removed User:
Nope you ain't! I'm pissed off with the media replaying slowmo footage of the poor police officer being executed, and seeing it on the front page of newspapers.
'Sensitivity' my fekin arse.

In reply to Jamie B:

look at the company you'll be keeping - Jean-Marie Le Pen for one

In reply to Jamie B:

Do you not think that it is precisely because people didn't question and were deferential to "deeply held" beliefs that, for example, Catholic priests got away with it for so long?

In reply to Jamie B:


and most muslims aren't jihadists!

In reply to Jamie B:

Indeed, just as most Muslims aren't shouty beardy murderers with a fetish for flogging, AK47s and enslaving women. (I suspect that most orangemen are in fact ignorant drunkards but I won't labour that particular point).

However, ridiculing/being critical of unacceptable practices done by the minority; ususally a minority who claim to speak for all and are in a position of power, is fair game imho, in fact I call it a duty. Have you seen the cartoons? Aside from the making an image of Allah thing, I fail to see what is offensive about them (except maybe the one about him having sex with a pigs head...)

In reply to mypyrex:

and Je suis Charlie, Ahmed, Clarissa Jean-Philippe and the other policeman whose name I can't find.

In reply to Jamie B:


How can you avoid it? It would be hard enough if there was only one religion but there are hundreds and they all have different sensitivities.

As for nobody being allowed to draw pictures of Mohammed because it might offend religious sensitivities we have variants of protestantism which also forbid pictures and statues and even religious music. Their churches don't have any. But they don't get to tell the Catholics and Anglicans not to have statues, stained glass windows and singing in their churches.

In reply to mypyrex: je suis Charlie!
I might not agree with all the cartoons produced by the artists who were murdered, but I do believe in the freedom of speech, and this is the message behind the above statement.

In reply to Removed User:

I think Stephen Fry hits the nail on the head here -

http://www.stephenfry.com/2015/01/10/you-must-mock/

In reply to mypyrex:

But was it worth it? Totally innocent people died because one person exercised 'freedom of speech' to a narrow group of readers sharing his views, and knowing a strong reaction would be provoked.

In reply to Jamie B:


It's an interesting question, and I think that while free speech comes with responsibilities and is a qualified right, I don't think that the Charlie cartoons crossed that line. For me, public ridicule or of course inciting hatred on racial etc grounds, is unacceptable and can justly be censored. But religion doesn't hold that privilege: it's something you choose, it's beliefs you hold and behaviours you practice and is therefore fair game for ridicule. It's traits that we don't choose like race, gender, disability, etc that should be protected (as per Human Rights legislation).

Je suis Charlie, because I love lots of art, comedy and public discourse that holds the establishment, religion, and power in contempt and ridicules and criticises institutions. Much of it would cause offence and I'm not prepared to sacrifice it.

Do the Charlie cartoons fail to live up to the responsibilities attached to free speech? Not for me, no, they're just a bit brutal and rude, and that's not crossing the line.

In reply to altirando:


Innocent people did not die because someone exercised freedom of speech. If those cartoons had never been drawn the terrorists would have killed someone else with a different pretext : for example being in a Jewish supermarket.

In reply to Jamie B:

Bully for you.


Showing your age there, peeing on Di's grave is so last century.

In reply to mypyrex:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/10/this-is-how-to-deal-with-people-who-blame-mus...

Pretty awesome response to an idiot concerning this.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


They DO get to tell Catholics and Anglicans not to have statues etc, they just dont get to gun down the Archbishop of canterbury.

In reply to mypyrex:

Thank you UK climbers. Thank you for your compassion.
What happened in Paris is so painful for us, so sad. The fanatics wanted more than killing Charb, the cartooner. They wanted to kill the newspaper called Charlie Hebdo. They want to kill free speech. They want to kill freedom.
Thanks.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

He's right about the weasel word "inappropriate". To me it's just a modern euphemism for "wrong".

In reply to Removed Userchacha:

We are thnking of you.

Please remember that there are many good Muslim people in your country too. These extremists want to spread hate and fear and keep people separate. Please don't let them win.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

No it doesn't or it is not free speech. No-one has the right not to be offended.


So you clearly do NOT believe in free speech, you believe in censorship and conforming to orthodoxy, as long as you are doing the censoring and it is your orthodoxy.


Tu n'est pas Charlie, tu est un hypocrite pompeuse.


So would you refer to the "prophet Mohamed"? If so, you fail the test and in the inevitable conflict to defend liberal democracy, you will not be onside and frankly appeasers (appeasers and cowards at best, quislings at worst), like you would not be wanted and would be worse than useless, perpetually crying out for surrender to the enemy - brutal, primitive, murderous and intolerant enemy, which is nonetheless able to :

"made its dark age more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science"

The ideas of Islam and Islamists may be primitive in the extreme but they should never be thought stupid and they LOVE technology - but only when it can be used for suffering and oppression.

In reply to marsbar:



Seconded

In reply to All:
I started this thread intending it to be a good natured show of compassion and solidarity for the people of France following the terrible events of last week.

I am sad to see that it has gone the same way as many threads on UKC; it has been hi-jacked by others wishing to pursue and argue their own agenda.

I regret it deeply.

In reply to mypyrex:

Seems like a healthy discussion to me. What do you object to?

In reply to mypyrex:
The reason we should show solidarity is because there are far too many arse pellets like Ahmed who works at the University of Huddersfield who randomly appeared on my FB page.

Apparently the reason there is no reference to Ahmed Merabet or the muslim guy who hid the people in the supermarche is that they are Muslims and the media is controlled by the Jews. He got three likes from a bucnh of equally retarded bilemunchers.

He is so twisted in his dogma and hatred that the fact both are on the front of the BBC, ITV, Telegraph, Murdoch press and media, even Fox FFS.

That's where some people's deeply held religious beliefs get us and they deserve as much ridicule as we pour on them.

In reply to mypyrex:



I find the whole "Je Suis Charlie" thing in the UK quite trite. For the last 9 years not one part of our "free" press has "Been Charlie" and they can not claim otherwise now. Some of the people I know now saying Je Suis on social media etc where quick to condem the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in 2005. They are not Charlie either. I have no doubt they feel strongly for those affected but it doesn't excuse them from hypocrisy.

In the UK we have been busy trying not to upset those who seek to subvert democracy by violence, and it has been working - our press is no longer free in practice if not law.

In reply to wintertree:

Very well said. Nick Cohen's article in the guardian today's well worth a read on this point.

In reply to Simon4:

Simon, your view is impossible to take seriously.

You are defending a position in which one can incite murder with impunity, it's just thick. You could destroy someone's life with lies without recourse. Anyone who believes in free speech with no qualification simply doesn't understand what that means, presumably because they're thick.

Would I refer to "the prophet Mohammed"? What are you on about? Of course I think the whole of Islam is a pile of crap, just like every other religion. I'm not a huge fan of Judaism either, quite a similarly inflexible religion utilised by a minority for the purposes of implementing suffering and oppression on other racial groups.

I don't expect you to engage in this discussion, because I don't believe you're capable.

In reply to Jamie B:

Yes they do deliberately upset religious sensitivities, not everybody has to agree with it.
But #JeSuisCharlie is about defending their right to do so, without harm, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. — Voltaire

In reply to wintertree:

I think the Charlie "movement" means different things to different people.

On my FB feed it's a mixedbag. Some seem to have missed the whole situation and are happy positng pictures of their tea and jibbering on a bout their kids.

Others are outraged and generally trying to figure it all out.

i made the mistake of wading in to a load of randoms claiming, on external posted articles, a black flag operation or it "was the Jews, innit". I've also incurred the wrath of some Britain First idiots. I have the Charlie statement as my profile pic and yes, you're right - it can be trite, but then again, it is an opportunity to take the argument to fundies and racists and HTFH.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:



Ho god I was wondering how long it would take before the conspiracy theories started to emerge. Didn't take long apparently.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Apparently Ahmed is not dead and it's all a government / Mossad / Illuminati set up. No evidence of course to back this up.

The usual freaks and wierdos, probably still think the moon landing was faked even though the Chinese photographed the lander.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I've seen a few of these videos on youtube and think they are bonkers.

One video I saw though showed a man on the rooftop wearing what appeared to be a protective vest of some kind so I searched (youtube admittedly) for a "more reliable" video and found this on the BBC channel.

youtube.com/watch?v=mpvz7w6ilNk&

At about 7 seconds it does indeed show a man in a blue shirt wearing what appears to be some kind of protective vest.

In reply to Simon4:


Tu es un hypocrite pompeux.

In reply to mypyrex:

The crowds in Paris are amazing.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Tu es un pédant, monsieur.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I'm not saying it was aliens or anything, but...it was aliens wot did it. (probably illegal ones. From that muslamic place called Islam)

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I never forgave Labour for letting them muslamians in. Everyone forgets they killed our lord god Jesus and sold him out to the Romanians. And they smell.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I don't think the "un" is required, just "Tu es pédant" would be better, but I stand to be corrected.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Both ok

Gathering in Paris is amazing. Let's hope it all goes without incident.

About 500 people gathering in Edinburgh in front of the French Consulate at the moment, lots of French expats but also lots of Brits and other nationalities showing their support.

In reply to mwr72:

Speaking of conspiracy theories, there are a few oddities though. At first we were told that it was a smoothly done operation by well trained specialists, and the way the massacre was carried out seemed to concur... Then it turns out that they had left one of them's identity card in the abandoned car! Does an expert take his French ID card with colour photo with him out on a mission? Did they want to be identified?

Well it looks like all the heads of states are safe out of it but I bet their security staff were sweating so it looks like my fears that the first attacks, "s" because their were two independent attacks, or even a third if you count the Montrouge killing were to set the basis for a second wave attack on a bigger target were unfounded. Oof! 3 or 4 dozen heads of state all walking slowly along the street, totally in the open, it would have been on another level.

So coming back to the ID card I think it just proves that they weren't a highly trained team of assassins at all, just three screwed up and brainwashed petty delinquents following a plan that had worked better than they dreamt it might have and who had no idea what to do with all the arms they has left - thankfully the sticks of explosive and rocket launcher weren't used. Which in some ways is even more worrying because there are hundreds and hundred of such people in Europe and, we are told, arms are freely available - the price of a Kalachnicov in France is around £1000 apparently - if these three "thickies" could create so much mayhem what could happen tomorrow?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I got the feeling they were intent on being 'Martyred' so their identity isn't that big of an issue.

In reply to All:
I stand by what I said earlier about this thread having been hi-jacked by those seeking to pursue their own agenda and I am not going to labour that point. What I will say, however, is that I do not think that the people massed today in Paris or elsewhere are necessarily demonstrating in support of Charlie Hebdo or its agenda. I would like to think that they are trying to make the point that they are not prepared to see their freedoms and standards eroded for the sake of a few crazed idiots wielding kalashnikovs in the name of whatever cause they claim to support.
End of.

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie.

Pete

In reply to Pete Ford:



Merci

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

True, but dropping the card in the stolen car, it would practically requier and effort to do it!

And if they really did want to become martyrs, why make an escape, change cars several times, get about 100 kms from Paris to the NE then turn around and head back.?.. perhaps they ran out of a reflex, then changed their minds, not exactly a smoothly operated plan. But in Britain you get better info than we do in France on the subject to some extent and perhaps we'll get a few answers in the days to come.

In reply to mypyrex:

Well done for noticing that!

In reply to mypyrex:



Who is saying that it's in support of Charlie Hebdo? anyone who thinks this is wrong on so many levels.

In reply to the thread:

My take: https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/je-suis-charlie-the-moral-duty-t...

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Some seem to consider it so.

In reply to mypyrex:

Who though? have you got examples?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Well that was the impression I got from some of the media coverage, particularly earlier on.

In reply to mypyrex:

At least two millions of people walking quietly in France today in the memory of the 17 people who died.
In Paris it is certainly the most important gathering we'd ever seen !!

In reply to Removed Userthe thread:

Presumably drawing Allah is even worse than drawing Mohammed?
https://twitter.com/eottolenghi/status/554037062727651330/photo/1

In reply to mypyrex:

That may be, but I don't think there's many on this thread that think that so I can't see how you think the thread has been hijacked considering we are still on topic and it hasn't denigrated into a flame war (yet).

In reply to Coel Hellier:
One of my favourite from Charlie Hebdo, by Charb, one of the victim:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzDJBUoIEAEXGlu.jpgarge

Headline : "What if Muhammad came back..."
Muhammad : "I am the prophet. Idiot !"
Terrorist (whilst slicing the prophet's throat): "Shut up, infidel !"

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Nice work Coel. Very well put.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

He's right. Half the people swanning around with Je Suis Charlie T shirts will think they are supporting the magazine's right to print what it wants. And why should they believe otherwise?

In reply to higherclimbingwales


Your not entirely right there, Charlie Hebdo rather the cartoonists like Wolinski are such institutions in France, he must be 80 years old and some of the others aren't far off, that their death really is shock, something like when you hear of an old friend's death that it is really personal. There are all the abstract and high motives but for me and many others, it's personal.

The first feeling was that and the second is one of anger that a pair of idiots should just slaughter all those people, in their offices, at work, in Paris, by what right did they cut off all those lives? Saying it is in support of Charlie Hebdo is, of course, a simplification but isn't entirely false either - even for those who hated Charlie many liked the murdered cartoonists and the whole notion of wiping out a whole magazine with machine guns is unknown until now.

In reply to Removed Userchacha:

Just back from Paris, was at the Gare du Nord for about 2.30, arrived at Republique after 5. I've been on some demonstrations which seemed large (anti Iraq war, some of the CND marches in the early 80s) but this was another magnitude

Je suis Charlie

In reply to Doug:

There was even one in Aberdeen; my wife was there.

In reply to Doug:

They're talking of 2 million but all these estimates are to be taken with a pinch of salt. The best is to use the figures as way of comparing, and by this yardstick it is, not was as it's still going on, a very big one. On the other hand it was static for much of the time, my sister in law just phoned to say you couldn't move. The planning seems to have been poor, things were blocked by the head of states symbolic participation - 300m then back in the coaches, they were herded about like Happy Holidaymakers. Quite what impact it'll have on those training in Yemen or Syria is another question.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

'Quite what impact it'll have on those training in Yemen or Syria is another question.'
Yes, I think that's right. Whether a million people milling about and a few 'oh why can't we all play nicely' posts on UKC is any substitute for a long term coherent strategy is THE question. So I've started another post, obviously that WILL change the world.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Not sure how they could have estimated the N° of participants, & not sure they could have refused that the 'heads of state' participate but it does seem odd that everything was so slow - as I said, we took over 2 hours to get to the start from the Gare du Nord- normally about 10 - 15 minutes & came home at that point. Seemed that much of the place was filled with vehicles (police & press) - don't suppose that helped.

But glad I participated, even if I only got to the start

& Doug - glad to hear that Aberdeen (which was my home for about 10 years) joined in

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Very well put Coel.

Let's hop this ground swell will carry over and push forward the search for the Nigerian schoolgrlrs still in the hands of Boko Haram. Indeed, bring to the fore the tragedy of the thousands in central Africa dying at their hands.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I can't see one reason why this demo will help the kidnapped Nigerians in the slightest unfortunately.

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Ahmed.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


This.


In reply to Coel: brilliant blog post, I've shared it on my facebook.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


This.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Or is this just another 'Princess Di' moment when people think they have to do 'the right thing' without actually understanding any of the issues?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

We may not be able to impact on them, but if I can impact on even one of those who thought all Muslims are fair game for having a go at because of this then its worth me saying my piece. If just one person changes their view just a tiny bit when they realise that a Muslim police officer was shot, or that it was a Muslim that saved a number of hostages in the Jewish supermarket, then I will keep saying it.

If we allow Muslims to be persecuted, we help those who radicalise.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-shootings-muslim-man-h...

In reply to marsbar:
This is interesting




http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/these-crimes-have-everything-to-do-...


ETA:

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Charlie.

Coel - fine blog post.

jcm

In reply to Removed Userthe thread:

Poll: "Should newspapers have published the Charlie Hebdo cartoons?"

63% yes, 22% no, 15% don't know.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/publish-the-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-of...


Thanks all.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I read your "Compatibilism for incompatibilists" and replies and now my head hurts. Did I choose to read it because I had porridge for breakfast this morning?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

And a link to an entirely unconvincing and spineless argument from Will Gore in the Indie as to why they, nevertheless, won't publish.

I suggest that all the UK dailies pick one of the original Danish cartoons and, in the context of illustrating a convincing argument why religious minorities shouldn't be allowed to exercise a veto, all publish on the same day.

Of course it can be argued that it's irresponsible to publish given the risks to individual employees but, once we accept that, we are encouraging every random nutter who disapproves of anything to issue death threats to get what they want.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I just happened to listen to this while cycling home from town today http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/docarchive/docarchive_2015... I'm sure its just happenstance as i think World Service originally broadcast before the Paris attack, but its fascinating because its about cartoons that are illegal here but are not currently in Japan. Is that free speech?

In reply to TobyA:

The Anime stuff? I think that is free speech moderated by laws against depicting children as sex objects

They aren't banned here because of what they say, but because we have stricter laws concerning peadophilia and sexualisation of children

In reply to Dave Garnett:




That's the line taken by Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper which published the original cartoons in 2005. They decided not to republish any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, citing security concerns. They can hardly be accused of giving into the random nutters, but given that they've seen their French counterparts murdered, it's hard not to be sympathetic to their take on it. It's very easy for internet posters to make demands of their press, but you and I are not likely to be the targets for murderers.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Many of these Charlie Hebdo Cartoons are very insular, they just don't work or are not understandable easily outside of France, because the type of humour relies heavily on the particular context at the time they were published, so I understand why they wouldn't want to publish them in the UK.

But they should be allowed to do so of course, and more importantly they shouldn't be scared to. Which unfortunately, and understandably, they are.

In reply to tony:


So, despite all the easy 'je suis Charlie' stuff, the extremists have won.

Actually, I don't believe in deliberately causing offence to anyone just for the sake of it and, despite the fact that in any normal context reportage would certainly have included an example of the image under discussion so that readers could make their own minds up, on reflection, perhaps republishing the original cartoons could be seen as pointlessly provocative and repetitive.

However, I do think that the reputable papers should encourage their extremely able cartoonists each to produce their best pithy, funny and relevant cartoons on the subject and publish them irrespective of whether they contain any bearded figures.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


And maybe make sure they simultaneously publish a cartoon taking the piss out of God, Christ, Yahweh, Bhudda, etc etc rather than focussing it all on one religion?

And maybe link it to an explanation of the vilification and sacking of Nicolas Anelka for a physical gesture that no-one actually understood as opposed to a series of cartoons that exercised the freedom to mock the beliefs of others. If the mocking of the beliefs of muslims is OK then everyone else should just man up and prepare to be mocked.

For a relatively objective reaction I recommend http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30769192

And, lest we forget, 141 schoolkids and teachers were killed in Peshawar not so long ago. That's one hundred and forty one. Should I repeat that? One hundred and forty one. Not four cartoonists. Nearly ten young lives and their teachers snuffed out for each single person in Paris. Not many marches or vigils in European cities as far as I can recall. I know it hurts when it happens to 'us' but 'we' really do get off lightly compared to the shit that happens outside Europe..

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Exactly, the "the humour doesn't translate" excuse doesn't work, since there are plenty of cartoons by English speakers that the papers also avoid, just because they depict Muhammed.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


No, they haven't won. We still live in a liberal democracy, retaining all the values we did this time last week. The extremists have made no inroads into those values and won't do so by murdering people as they did in Paris.

One thing that's a bit sad is that the murder of 2000 villagers in Nigeria by Boko Haram has had so little coverage, and for all the howls of outrage about freedom of speech, the flogging in Saudi Arabia of a blogger who runs a pro-freedom of speech website hasn't attracted the same attention. Je suis Raif Badawi anyone? We can be very fickle about the things we get worked up about.

In reply to tony:

We can be very fickle about the things we get worked up about.

I don't think its fickle really. France is very close, has a long-standing tradition that was threatened, and we can all imagine something similar here. Nigeria and Saudi are distant, have traditions of violence and repression and still what is going on there is still a long way being possible here. Hence events, while horrible (and reported), aren't so newsworthy or important to us.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I think we should point out the possible elephant in the room here.

There is a very large possibility, that the reason the UK national papers, and many others, have chosen not to reproduce the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, and also tend to generally refrain from publishing any cartoon depictions of Islam, is nothing to do with religious sensitivities, but more likely that they don't want to be shot or bombed.

Therefore the decision to not publish, might well have been made on health and safety grounds, not moral grounds.

In that respect, the extremists have possibly delivered a blow to freedom of speech after all?

In reply to NigeR:


Absolutely, true! But if that is the case then THEY SHOULD AT LEAST SAY SO instead of making weasely excuses.

Nick Cohen on this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/paris-attacks-we-must-...

In reply to andyathome:


Indeed. The poor buggers are returning to school today, I have no idea how they are coping. It would have been incredibly impressive if there had been such a large amount of support following the Peshawar attacks.
What exactly are we trying to show with these marches and "je suis Charlie" posts? Support for the victims? That's quite nice. A stance of defiance against extremists? You have to be kidding me.
If anything the march just demonstrates the enormous divide between the west and everyone else.

These "tribal" divides have gone on in one form or another ever since the dawn of humanity and it seems that even now, with all our modern knowledge, we're still screwing it up.

In reply to tony:


It's not an either/or situation. Many people in Europe have expressed their outrage at what happened in Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi. At least in the case of the first two, so did many citizens of those countries - and they are the ones who really count because if enough of them feel sufficiently strongly they can actually make a difference. Just as in Europe, we can really make a difference.

Saudi seems to be a different situation, sadly.

In reply to Jamie B:


Fair point, but I think the overall point is that they have the right to profane religious sensitivities without being murdered.

In reply to mypyrex:

Also worth noting that South Park had Mo' flying around for a full 21 minutes in an episode years ago and no one thought anything of it. Have sensitivities changed so much in the last 7-8 years?

In reply to mypyrex:
The first page of next edition of Charlie , by Luz (one of the survivor) has been published online. They nailed it again.

"Everything is forgiven"
http://md1.libe.com/photo/707192-une-charlie-png.jpg?modified_at=1421099764...

In reply to andyathome:


This thread has taken an amazing turn, for memory 17 people were murdered, 12 at Charlie Hebdo (there were more than 4 cartoonists) , 4 in the cacher supermarket and 1 policewoman in Montrouge and it's not about deliberately offending anyone it's about making pointed comments on the behaviour of certain people, in this case certain Muslims but the Pope and paedophile Bishops or corrupt politicians come in for the treatment too. It's also about defending a free press - if wiping out a whole editorial team, various auxiliary workers and two policemen doesn't shock you then I can only suppose you don't really grasp the consequence if any pressure group could prevent their activities being criticised by large scale murder.

Satire is not making fun of people without reason it is doing this in a particular way to denounce particular things. The French cartoon tradition may be somewhat different to the British one - take a look at Rabelais's efforts centuries ago - but this maybe because Britain has become more prudish, look at some old British political cartoons compared to most modern ones! but it's not the end of the world for a normal person. Anyway nobody forces anyone to buy the magazine and look at the things if you are a sensitive flower.


BTW this week's issue will come out as planned on Wednesday, at least 1 million copies are going to be printed. I will buy one even though I don't usually as the money is really needed to keep the magazine going and because a free press is important, or at least would be if we really had one but that's a different debate.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Looks like no UK major newspaper will have the balls to show it, we'll see.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Anyway.. it's all down to immigration.. Farage says so...

He's losing it...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907116/Farage-says-West-bares-culp...

In reply to IainRUK:

In fairness, he does cite western foreign policy as a major driver too.

In reply to cap'nChino: Everyone has the right to question any religion. If they can't stand scrutiny or humour they shouldn't make such ridiculous claims. Oh, my mistake.

Andy F

In reply to RomTheBear:

The Guardian has. Can't see it in the Telegraph or Indy. Can't see Times

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-p...

In reply to RomTheBear:


This is what grinds my gears. Our papers talk a good talk but they are un willing to stick their neck out. It's almost become the industry standard not to show cartoons of mo' where as ten years ago it wouldn't have been a question. If this isn't an example of terrorist winning a battle then I don't know what is.

In reply to MG:

Fair play to the guardian. Though it came with a warning, which seems a little bizzare. I'd like to see the Mail step up.

In reply to cap'nChino:
The "which some may find offensive" warning seems fair to me; some may.

What did seem a bit mealy to me though was the "The Guardian is running this cover as its news value warrants publication." How about running it because it's simply the right thing to do?

It'd be nice to see all the UK papers step up and include it in their print editions, but somehow I doubt they will. Time will tell...

In reply to deepsoup:

Agreed-seems defensive. But at least they gave published. I hope others do as it manifestly is newsworthy. Also a remarkably poignant cartoon, I thought.

In reply to mypyrex:

Je suis Frosty

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fa...

In reply to MG:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlies-back--and-controver...

Indy have published, rest of the article gives an indication of who else the cartoonists have in their sights for this edition

In reply to ericinbristol:


Loved this comment, interpreted as support for the fatwa but surely ironic... please, please, let it be ironic.

Munajjid had some supporters however. “It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism,” one wrote. “May God preserve the scholars, for they enjoy sharp vision and recognise matters that even Satan does not think about.”

In reply to ericinbristol:

Saw that yesterday. I think they've lost it.

In reply to cap'nChino:


Looking online looks like they decided not to along with the telegraph (who just cropped it to not include the cartoon).

In reply to RomTheBear:


The Guardian and the Independent both have it on their websites. I haven't seen the print editions yet.

In reply to deepsoup:

Isn't it the right thing to do because it has news value, so to not post would be giving in? If it had no news value why publish?

Don't agree with the warning but fair play to them for publishing.

In reply to ericinbristol:



I saw this on an Arabic website, It read like a Daily Mash article.

In reply to andyathome:


I'm sure he'd be absolutely thrilled to have his memory appropriated by a man who fantasised about blowing up the Israeli Embassy in London.

Of course the difference between killing Jews in London rather than Paris would be completely comprehensible to those 'understanding any of the issues'.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


yes but also including immigration just stirs up further hate..

In reply to cap'nChino:
The more extreme religion gets, the more difficult it becomes to tell it apart from satire.
(Poe's Law?)

In reply to deepsoup:




>> You have got to allow them some leeway, they don't have to make themselves potential martyrs.

In reply to IainRUK:


I don't see how you can deny that immigration is involved, all three killers were children of immigrants, born in France, with French nationality. No one in France denies that the problems of integration, alienation and social problems in the Parisian suburbs are a major cause. It is often said that France has failed in its integration policy, if there can even be said to be one, unemployment in this segment of population is something like 40%, petty crime is the common way out. The other main factors under discussion are the way prisons encourage the spread and intensification of islamic extremist ideas and the ease with which weapons are available.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Interestingly, the Turkish president ,Tayyip Erdogan has struck a much more confrontational tone (since the Turkish PM attended the unity march in Paris)

“The duplicity of the west is obvious, As Muslims we have never sided with terror or massacres: racism, hate speech, Islamophobia are behind these massacres.The culprits are clear: French citizens undertook this massacre and Muslims were blamed for it,”

It is reported that conspiracy theories are now abound in Turkey and Russia blaming it on security services (Mossad and US)...i.e a false flag attack.

With this sort of denial, its hard to see the path ahead

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Just the other day the front page of Komsomolskaya Pravda carried the suggestion that the USA was behind the attacks.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Why? Freedom of expression is normally understood to mean you can express anything to those who want to see it, not that you can harass people who don't want to know about your point of view. Given this cartoon is guaranteed to offend many, isn't it polite to highlight what is coming?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
There is no doubt that poor integration has created a fertile soil for this to happen. However I think the problem transcends immigrant communities now.

I have to admit I refused to see the problem for a while, and often refused to believe some of what you said about Islam in France in previous debates. Because of my upbringing and being away from it all I guess, living in bonny Scotland now, where we have Muslim communities but mostly well integrated.

Following several recent trips back to France in the suburb where I grew up, and now seeing the facebook/twitter reactions of some of my Muslim friends from France which I found really hard to take, I had to finally realise, with shock and sadness, that things have changed.

The Islam I knew in my rather low key French suburb has been contaminated by an intolerant, ultra-conservative and backwards cult. At the time you could see a few head scarves, my mates were fasting during Ramadan, overall this was just a few difference of traditions and that was it, and in fact, it was probably enriching, and a nice bit of fresh air from the catholic school my parents put me in.

When I go back to my neighbourhood, there are still a few people in the building who speak to us, they immigrated in the 60s and are very moderate Muslims and run local businesses, they practice the same kind, tolerant, and open Islam I knew, mostly a spiritual backbone helping them with life, not a political ideology.

But the new families that have moved in are ultra-conservative. Women are all wearing the Niqab, if you see them in the stairwell and say "Hi", they look away and almost run away, as if they feared something. The men sometimes say Hi but never engage in conversation, even if you try, they ignore you as if you were not worthy.
Most worryingly, I noticed on my social network that a few friends I grew up with have been more or less justifying/supporting the acts committed last week. I had just no idea that these people I had fun with as a kid and teen (and got drunk and smoked drugs with, contrary to their religion) now hold this kind of views.
Now let me be clear this is not the majority by far. But it's not a negligible proportion anymore.

Now of course everybody is free to have whatever views they want to have as long as they respect the law of the land, which most do. But I'm not going to refrain from rejecting fiercely and criticising their twisted and backward view of the world just because it's "their sacred belief".

I just hope that not too many French people will turn to the Front National, which are basically promoting their own backward and intolerant ideology - another side of the same coin.

In reply to MG:


But this morning's cartoon is really not very offensive, except perhaps in a rather unexpected and quite subtle way. It says 'All is forgiven', including what has been done by extremists in the name of Allah. Mohammed is even shedding a tear. What was so unexpected is the completely Christian tone of the message - and I suppose that could offend some Islamists. It seems to be saying, 'in place of the Islamic idea of avenging Mohammed, we put forward the ideal of forgiveness.' It's also got him holding the placard, Je suis Charlie, as if he too has embraced the ideal of freedom of speech.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Interesting post. I have seen similar in my childhood haunts. I personally doubt you and I are in the minority

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Not offensive to you or me maybe (and I agree remarkably forgiving). But, if you have paid any attention to this debate, you will know it will be highly offensive to many Muslims.

In reply to MG:

Well, perhaps they could agree on what Mohammed looked like and supply us with an approved image of a beardy man that could be used for satirical purposes on the understanding it wasn't Mohammed but someone more or less contemporaneous with him.

What we need is an Islamic Brian.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You mean apart from being a representation of Mohammed which, in any context, is a no-no for many Muslims particularly Sunni?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Isn't the "approved" image a piece of calligraphy? Not sure this is sufficient for cartoonists!

In reply to MG:

Then they'll just have to lighten up:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/the-daily-mash-guide-to-sa...

In reply to MG:
The cover is actually soft touch for Charlie and sends a message of forgiveness and depict the prophet (or whoever you want it to be) not as evil and vengeful, but as a forgiving and empathic being, on a green background (symbolic of hope).

Apparently according to Anjem Choudray "it's insulting, it's ridiculing, it's provoking" and an "act of war".

Well he can F off.

I am glad that many Muslim leaders in the UK have reacted positively to the message of the cover though, (without of course endorsing image of the prophet).

In reply to RomTheBear:

I wish people would stop asking that absolute cockend what he thinks about anything.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Welcome to the brave new world I know what you mean, there has been a change of attitude, and not just new people moving in the same people have often changed their habits. Whereas before a beer in the garage was fine, for the men anyway, now people who liked a drink before are more wary and a distance has grown, a fear to be seen acting in the wrong way... it's pretty scary really, you can imagine that it must have been a bit like this in Germany in the 30s, a lot less so thank goodness, but there's the feeling that some Muslims feel the need to conform more and more and conform to a reactionary form of Islam, they seem to be looking over their shoulders to see who's watching.

On the other hand where I live it's been nascent for a long time, my son was in "college" (ie. younger secondary school) when the World Trade Centre was destroyed and he told me many of the kids in the playground were pleased as punch, it was a great joke that the USA had been punished. In his school I think about half the kids were from Muslim families and I'm sure they were only repeating what they heard at home.

As you say even for this attack there have been some, but I think fewer, reactions of the kind - several schools in Seine St Denis, a poor suburb of Paris with many Muslims, they were not able to hold the minute's silence because of the whistles and remarks of some of the children. I don't think this is the majority reaction though and I think one of the conclusions of the government committees working now will be the need to bring the political battle to conservative Islam, not just leave the ground clear for the Salafists and their kind.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And they could have come over anyway .. We also see more violent murders in areas of little immigration..

In reply to IainRUK:


Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Terrorism happens with home grown people.. 7 7 for example..

In reply to MG:

It's on the BBC website;

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80230000/jpg/_80230430_img_2454.jpg

In reply to IainRUK:

These people were "home grown" too... Where are you posting from not to have heard this? But like the other recent terror attacks, Merah, Nemmouche these killers have a similar background, unless you suggest this is just a coincidence? In fact all six have a similar profile, born in France of immigrant parents, so under French law they are citizens, from poor backgrounds, Muslims, slipped into petty crime, in prison radicalised, training periods in the middle East, return to France, lying low for a bit then bang!

In reply to MG:

Our local rag has it; halfway down the page;

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/charlie-hebdo-front-page-to-feature-p...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So we ban immigration... Then what?

Maybe they hijack planes and fly over,..

However it's also just bollox, there parents are from countries where we already have the strict immigration rules garage proposes.. Immigration is already controlled out with the EU..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


For memory it was 141 young people and teachers in Pakistan. Not 17.


That's just a bit incoherent. Which particular Muslins were singled out 'for the treatment'?

In reply to mypyrex:
Anyone else tweeted the cover? I have FWIW.

Daily Mail has had 15,000+ Likes on this comment;

In reply to stroppygob:

Well done. A blow struck. Them buggers will think again now.

In reply to stroppygob:


Britain First has 600,000+ likes on Facebook... so lets send them all home..

FFS..

In reply to IainRUK:

It may be very juvenille but has anyone turned the cartoon upside down?

In reply to Dave Ferguson:


Yep! Brilliant bit of subtle pisstaking going on there,by the cartoonist.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
excellent commentary Coel

it has been disappointing that in the mainstream commentary on events, there has been lots of talk of the importance of free speech, but little if any discussion of why it is important. it is as if its part of western culture just to be offensive to people for the sake of it, and i can see how that could be difficult to understand to people from outside this, and for it just to appear spiteful.

you very clearly articulate the reasons why saying things that may cause offence is actually vital to the health of society. Not because the offence is an end in itself; but because power structures in society, such as political parties, or organised religions, will behave badly if allowed, and need held to account. And ridicule has proved to be an effective way to do this for hundreds of years now.

it would be good to hear David Cameron, or one of the other party leaders come out to say this; or to see a leader article in the mainstream press (there may have been one but ive not seen it if there has been). if we cant explain our principles and the reasons for them, then we will lose the argument, and those that wish their organisation to be free from scrutiny and challenge will win,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to IainRUK:

You don't seem to get the point, these are just facts, at present, in France, there have been a series of serious crimes committed by people with a certain profile. As we know that there are quite a few others with the same profile, 1 to 2 thousand are the figures bandied about and as the present geo-political situation is as it is - various Islamist leaders are calling for reprisals to be taken on France, for example, then the police might be well advised to look in a certain direction. In fact they already were, all these criminals were on file but, as the PM admitted on the TV the other day, the information was not used efficiently.

Concerning stopping immigration, it would clearly have no effect as the parents of these people came to France decades ago when French industry was short of labour, but as it has had chronic unemployment for decades the original immigrants and their children are often out of work and some turn the way these six did.

I don't understand why this seems to pose such a problem for you? A similar figure came out during the hours of TV reports over the last few days is that the prison population has a much higher percentage of inmates from this sort background than their statistical presence in the population, to the extent that the government announced measures tonight to separate them in prison - up until now they were allowed pray and plot together, amazing as this may seem. Again simple facts but which enable counter measures to be taken to prevent similar atrocities in the future, it might also save a few of these rather dumb youngsters from an early death too. How do you feel about this? Makes sense, doesn't it?

In reply to andyathome:


We are talking about what just happened in France, people here are a bit miffed about it.


If you buy Charlie Hebdo tomorrow you'll find out. Are you deliberately being thick or something?

In reply to Dave Ferguson:


That's Charlie Hebdo, juvenile humour is their speciality, more pricks per page than any other paper! It's not just humour though, there is a political content but this clearly goes over the heads of some of our posters

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Dunno. I reckon they should ask him but then dont publish the answer. A publicity whore like him should get nicely wound up.

In reply to IainRUK:



What's your point?

In reply to stroppygob:

just because a lot like it, it doesnt mean its right..

It's a fairly right wing paper... you get right wing readers in general, its also one of the biggest news websites in the world..

I admit I read it as its free and gives news, you just have to cut through the shit and not believe their take on things.. and never read the bloody comments..

Every girl is too fat.. or too thin.. or looks like a man... every footballer is spoilt prima donna.. everyone else is a bloody liberal...

In reply to Dave Ferguson:


They're going straight to hell for that one
youtube.com/watch?v=GRysrnWZ1SI&

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Same in the US.. the white have generally down trod other races.. that wasn't to do with immigration.. that was policy and racism... 1 in 20 black american men are in prison compared to 7 in 100 white american men..

In reply to IainRUK:
So when 15,000 people (now 17,400) tell them to;


What, I ask again, seeing as you are so opposed to the paper, is your problem with that?

In reply to Dave Ferguson:


Sheer gold!!!

In reply to stroppygob:

Wow, you aren't the sharpest tonight.. there are a lot of dumb ignorant racists around easily fooled by such statements.. just like back in the 1930's Germany.. it's easily done and we see it time and time again.. blame others.. the old tactic...

In reply to MG:


Honestly it was just the thought that came to mind, mostly I was impressed they published it at all. Lots of things will offend many - pictures of two gay men kissing or a woman breastfeeding for example. We don't warn for those, the Guardian specifically doesn't warn for those. Is this different somehow? If they're treating Islam as a special case it's either because they're afraid or because they're choosing to treat Muslims with more respect than others. Either one I'm unhappy with.

It's a good question though. When it comes down to what we warn for or not there is no real logic behind what we choose to warn for, it's just stuff people get bothered seeing (sex/violence generally - not religious rules). I'm happy to accept that some of our values can't be argued for, it's just what we think. Politeness is part of that, what's polite here won't be polite elsewhere, and here it's against our values to treat one group better than others.

In reply to IainRUK:


What are you going on about? Who is fooled by these statements?

Who is being blamed? For what?

17,500 people are telling the Mail, every lefties favourite hate, to "man up and print the cartoon"

Again, what is your problem with that?

Maybe I am being thick here, but I cannot see what your problem is?

And WTF has this to do with 1930's Germany?

In reply to thomasadixon:


Yes of course it's different. They've just seen some of their journalistic counterparts murdered for publishing similar types of images, so it's not surprising they might be a bit wary.

In reply to tony:


Or a bit cowardly?

BTW, just went to buy a copy of Charlie and as expected all sold out, and apparently it's the same all over so that's 3 million copies instead of the usual 30 000. Normally more copies are being printed, even for the Canard Enchainé, more like Private Eye, lots of text, I got the last copy. It makes you realise that the printed press is a bit like country trainlines and high street shops if we don't use them it'll be no use complaining when their gone.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Cowardly for being scared of being murdered? It's a possibility, notwithstanding the fact that they did publish the image.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I'm with you Jaimie, why does any follower of any religion with an all powerful 'leader' need to take offence on their behalf ? (they are all-powerful after all)

Presumably, if I offend any one of these, they will take retribution on me directly, and do not need any mear mortal to fight their battles for them.
(being all powerful it would be a small inconvienience in their day to bring them to heel)

As yet, I have not been struck down by lightning (or any other 'act of god', so I either must not have offended them, or I will be getting sorted out after my death.

In reply to tony:

Or maybe they just don't want to offend people.. It may seem strange that people are offended, but they are..

In reply to IainRUK:


Susan Boyle and everything Simon Cowell related offends me. I've complained numerous times, but they keep appearing on TV every year and torment me.

In reply to cap'nChino:

Have you considered shooting them? I know everyone was outraged at the Charlie Hebdo massacre, but they'll probably make an exception for SImon Cowell

In reply to cap'nChino:
Which is fine... But to say it's just cowardly not to is rather idiotic.. If you want to see it it's easy enough. I don't really have any interest..

It's rather ironic people are protesting about Charlie hebdo by trying to force a paper to do something it doesn't want to...

Slight change of theme, has anyone else seen that an orthodox jewish newspaper has 'removed' all the women from a photo of world leaders on Sundays march ?

http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/01/14/machomarche-contre-la-terreur/...

In reply to Doug:


Yes, I'd seen that. Apparently they have a long track record of removing women from pics unless the woman is Golda Meir.

For those who don't speak French, here's another report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30798061

In reply to Doug:

Jeez, it makes you despair doesn't it?

In reply to IainRUK:


Sorry to repeat myself but the aim of a satirical newspaper is not to offend people, it's to make them laugh and also to make them think, make a point. Do you really not get this? I realise some humourless religious bigots never will because they think everybody is out to get them but I hadn't put you in this category up to now.

In reply to Doug:



Wow, that's pretty f^cked up.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Why do think Iain is a "humourless religious bigot" for suggesting a reason why a warning was given?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Yes.. And the mail isn't one of them...

If the mail wants to publish it can.. But I also understand why a more mainstream newspaper wouldn't without lazily calling it cowardly.. And I also think it's pretty ironic to try to force it to by insults..

I don't think I ever attacked CH for publishing pictures..

In reply to MG:


I didn't, I said that I hadn't seen him as one up to now... Please read again.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Right, thus implying you now do.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

How is it bigoted to believe that they should do what they feel is right??

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Have you forgotten how English works? The words you're using have a pretty clear meaning.
jk

In reply to IainRUK:

It seems quite obvious to me that any reader of a British newspaper who might want to understand what all the fuss was about an, like most of the planet, had no access to Charlie Hebdo, would be in need of one vital bit of information - what the cartoons were actually like. I suppose a long description might suffice but as all is in the detail it wouldn't really, so any decent newspaper that wanted to inform their readers has really no choice but to show a copy of the cartoon. If they don't they are failing in their duty to inform, something the Guardian always prides itself on doing.

So now they have but with a totally unnecessary "warning". To me it looks cowardly, especially a few days after the massacre of their French colleagues - I would have thought they would be only to keen to show terrorists that their efforts to gag the free press were in vain? Seen from France the attitude of the British press doesn't seem to show a very high level of solidarity or courage, and as for the US press with the images all pixelled out, they are a disgrace.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And it's easily seen of you want to.. Some may not.. Some may be offended

Yet yours and strops approach is to support bullying the press to do what you want.. To show support for press who were bullied for doing something which people disagreed with...

Yeah good stance...

In reply to MG:


No it doesn't. Anyway can't he speak for himself, he usually does.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I heard on R4 earlier that a Turkish daily has printed small copies of todays CH cover in a couple of it's columns for the very purpose you describe. Interesting after Erdogan's earlier ironic comments.


Totally agree.

In reply to IainRUK:


So I'm bullying the press!? Posting on a forum is putting too much pressure on the poor defenceless lickle newspapermen? Do you think they are in tears?

They can, and will, do what they like but that doesn't stop anybody saying what they think of their attitude which IMO is often weak and lacking in courage, especially at a time when a firm front of all the press is so obviously required. Charlie Hebdo is a small marginal weekly, read by very few, what has happened to them today could happen to the rest of the press tomorrow if they don't show a courageous united front.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
For simply relaying the Charlie Hebdo cover on my Facebook today, without any other comment, I received a string of abuse from a few of my Muslim Facebook "friends" (well I thought they were), and even some sort of subtle threat of "consequences" from one of them.

So I understand some newspapers don't want to take the risk. The world has turned to shit it seems, and people have turned mad.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I can understand, of course, but sometimes life requires taking a small risk, war is war.

On the subject of threats I got one from someone on UKC once, what made me jump was that it was my family who were threaten.... nothing happened but it does make you jump.

Off subject, but have you heard the news that during the march Hollande was victim of an air born attack? He was struck by pigeon shit, which is why he was looking up in the air all the time. It's said to bring good luck but it seems to me security was pretty poor.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Where is the GIGN (Guano Intervention Group National) when you need it

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I totally agree with you Bruce.
Without solidarity and a courageous front, what happened with Charlie Hebdo last week can happen again. For example, this week's Canard Enchaîné (the other satirical French newspaper) says that they have been sent some threats of death last Tuesday. We do need to be brave in order to save free speech and democraty.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No but you think they should post to appease the people like stroppy.. some wont want to see it..

In reply to IainRUK:




LOL!! I thought my trousers would never dry.

IainRUK comes out in support of the poor benighted Daily Mail, as it is being "bullied" by nasty people clicking a "like button" on a post telling it to "man up and print the cartoon"

Things you never thought you'd see on UKC; No 4.

In reply to Removed Userchacha:

No, its keeping on with your life.. doing what we have always done.. just get on with it.. let satirical magazines do what they have always done.. I really dont think there needs be some huge solidarity display tbh.. all this anti-immigration talk plays right into their hands by alienating populations and groups.. turning groups against groups..

Britain First are always trying to show Sihks as some peaceful loving group and almost trying to turn them on the muslims.. not realising its the classic old poem...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Lol have you seen this on Sky News ?

youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI&

The Charlie Hebdo girl being interviewed tries sneakily to show the cover on live, camera drifts away and cut !

In reply to Removed Userchacha:

I've thought about this a bit and yes, obviously it can seem cowardly to not rush to publish cartoons of Mo straightaway..

But there isn't a great principle here, it's not as though the newspapers would be making a stand against their government or anything; the only people that are going to attack them are a few total nutters, everybody knows they are nutters, and I'm not sure it's worth making yourself a target for.

I did wonder about getting Jesus and Mo T-shirts and wearing them prominently round Cardiff, but what would be the point? I would be drawing the self righteous ire of a few wackos, might get myself badly beaten up or worse and it just doesn't seem worth it. Any of the critics prominently wearing Jesus and Mo T-shirts? Thought not.

In reply to IainRUK:


For Christ's sake (if I may) there has been absolutely no anti-immigration talk, none, not a bit ... that's your problem, and it is a big one, you see anti-immigration everywhere. Saying who the killers were, all 5 of them is not anti-immigration it's absolutely necessary to understand their cursus, to know where they came from, how they got there is essential to prepare for future ones and try and head them off, because there are an awful lot in the pipeline, all with the same background and all under the same nauseous influences.

That's the reality, everyone knows it, France has whole areas which have been allowed to go downhill, endemic unemployment, dealing the only way out. Add to this they are flooded with firearms, not just shotguns, heavy military automatic rifles as were used here, they even had a rocket launcher. The situation is nearly out of control in places like Marseille. That's the way it is, a lot have no work, never will have - no SS payments here to speak of either - and the extremist preachers show them what they see as a more attractive future than the one society offers.

So please stop seeing racism and prejudice everywhere and come down to earth, there are several hundred screwed up fanatics ready to go in France, and elsewhere, it time to speak like grown-ups.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/je_suis_charlie_european_leaders_must_take_...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30776186
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/farages-exploitation-charlie-h...

No not one...

Make it harder to piss on your arguments.. I'm bored.

In reply to IainRUK:

Those links aren't to this thread, that's where the discussion is.

I don't know where you are or if you have seen the hours of discussion, debate, speeches by PM and President, heard the relatives of the dead and the traumatised witnesses, the mother of the unarmed trainee policewoman, 26 years old, shot in the back... seen the films of outright battles in streets I know myself. You may be bored but after what so many people have gone through this last week I'm afraid that comment makes you sound like an unfeeling arsehole. Can't find a better word.

When was the last time the whole edition team of a newspaper was wiped out?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Again you move the

what have you gone through?

How am I unfeeling?

That I think we should get on with our lives, not let terrorists win.. fly after 9/11.. use the tubes after 7/7.. run marathons after Boston... let the press do what they want after this...

You really are a f*ckwit..sorry can't find a better word.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
As ever you also speak rubbish and contradict yourself..

So we all should see the images.. we broadcast them all over the UK.. why?

To make sure we've alienated every bloody muslim in the country.. obviously depictions are a contentious issue...

That it leads to deaths is horrific.

But beneath those few at that extreme there will be a pyramid of people increasingly unbothered.

But why make sure we offend everyone, that's the point of comedians and satirical mags, if we want to laugh at their contentious jokes, we go and watch them, we go and buy the magazines.. You don't go to watch Ricky Gervais if you are sensitive to the mocking disabled people..

You speak about a lack of integration.. then a wont to actually offend and alienate every muslim who is opposed to the depictions.

The cartoons are so common now all you have to do is google, the idea that the mainstream press should all publish them is just bloody ludicrous...

In reply to IainRUK:

I don't think you'd find many people who agree with your line of argument in France at the moment, not that you have given one yet... at least two posts have been totally incomprehensible.

Getting on with our lives is just the problem, and that's for the average person, many of the 1/2 a million Jews in France who were clearly targeted in the third attack are talking of packing their bags and going to Israel, with the rather clumsy encouragement of Netanyahou. So they feel the situation bad enough to be ready to head off to a war zone. I don't think you quite realise what is going on.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You see how that's france.. not the UK.. you have spoken about the integration issues.. so why try to further offend British Muslims?

In reply to IainRUK:

You really are out of touch, there were thousands of Muslims in the march, some didn't like the cartoons but they didn't think this was a reason to murder people - they were grown ups.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Wow.. I never knew muslims were against the killings?

I thought they all felt the same as the murderers, plane hijackers, bombers and kidnappers...

In reply to IainRUK:


I knew I'd read this somewhere before;


Basil: This is typical. Absolutely typical... of the kind of... @RSE I have to put up with from you people! You ponce in here, expecting to be handwaited on hand and foot while I'm trying to run a hotel here! Have you any idea of how much there is to do? Do you ever think of that? Of course not! You're all too busy sticking your noses into every corner, poking around for things to complain about, aren't you? Well, let me tell you something - this is exactly how Nazi Germany started! A lot of layabouts with nothing better to do than to cause trouble! Well, I've had fifteen years of pandering to the likes of you, and I've had enough! I've had it! Come on, pack your bags and get out!

In reply to RomTheBear:




Dispiriting how the presenter in a panicked voice apologises for any viewers who may have been offended by the brief glance at the top half of a cartoon, but didnt apologise to all those who were offended at the decision to censor one of the most important news stories in recent times.

I really hope sky news didnt claim that ils sont Charlie

In reply to IainRUK:

Did you read coel's blog post linked upthread Iain? It explains it better than I can why it is important that the freedom to express ideas is upheld, and that means freedom to express ideas that will offend- the freedom to express only ideas that everyone agrees on already and finds palatable is no freedom at all.

Or read Yasmin alibhai-brown in, or all places, the daily mail, for an eloquent criticism of the wrong direction that her faith is taking, of which this is a symptom.

There should be a clear explanation of why they are being published- that its not a puerile desire just to cause gratuitous offence, or to be provocative for the sake of it, but instead to show that satire is one of the means western society uses to challenge vested interests and institutions, and that it is a fundamental cornerstone of our culture- but they should be published

Best wishes
Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Yes.. I've never attacked the freedom to offend.. and i dont think I have here for one millisecond..

I agree with some of it but I also believe free press is free press.. another core principle of the western world..

So publish if they want.. don't if they don't.. They have the freedom to do so and as a reader of viz, private eye etc.. find a lot of such humour funny but I also see that some won't want part of it, and that's their call.. and I dont think now is the time to call a paper coward or any other sort of abuse because we don't like the stance..

Do you not see the huge irony in that?

Stroppy has lost it again.. he's getting old.

In reply to IainRUK:



A sure sign that, yet again, Iaini's arguments have been shown to be nothing but bluster.

He resorts to insults.

Still awaiting answers to this;



What are you going on about? Who is fooled by these statements?

Who is being blamed? For what?

17,500 people are telling the Mail, every lefties favourite hate, to "man up and print the cartoon"

Again, what is your problem with that?

Maybe I am being thick here, but I cannot see what your problem is?

And WTF has this to do with 1930's Germany?

In reply to stroppygob:

Wow.. it's blaming others.. turning groups against each other.. so look at Britain's First FB page.. lots about how good sikhs are, dont confuse them with muslims..

re the 17,500.. it's people liking a comment insulting a paper for not doing what they want... jesus if you don't see the irony in that...

Yes you are thick... night..

And don't play the precious 'you insulted me' soft lad.. you give it back so dont get all soft on us.. man up as your hero said..

In reply to IainRUK:

Ok, so 18000 people telling the Mail to "man up and print the cartoon" is all about "turning groups against one another". So you do not believe that Charlie Hedbo should have published the cartoon, and that no other papers should have republished it.

I disagree, but accept your view point as genuine.

I'll ignore the Britain's First [sic] strawman, as that's unutterably weak, even by your poor showings.


No, they are not insulting, it's called "feedback." The Daily Mail ran (several) articles on the new Charlie Hedbo magazine, each article, has a comments column. The mail, rightly I think, got slated for it's hypocrisy.


Sleep tight Iain


You're right, someone insults me I give it back, that's always been my modus operandi. I'll go gently on you though, as you're obviously not well at the moment.

Now then, you said;


Can you explain to poor old thick me, how the 17,000 negative comments on the Mail webpage, are" like 1930's Germany", I just cannot see it.

Were newspaper columns then getting slagged off for not printing cartoons.

Or shall we take that, once again, you've sh@t the bed and aren't able to admit you've made an error?

In reply to IainRUK:
Surely, free speech allows people to call a paper 'cowards', just as much as it allows us to call something published distasteful? I understand the motivation might be fear, but that simply makes the comments literal. The stance is not against newspapers being criticised for their actions, or having a controversial policy, it's about resisting the threat of death and terror in the name of free speech. I'm not sure how the like button on a comments section is particularly ironic or egregious in this sense.

In reply to IainRUK:

Nope, help me out here? It is perfectly reasonable to ask a paper why they are doing something and to complain if you dont like it eg if you find a cartoon blasphemous. What isnt reasonable is killing them.

In the Mails case they have been banging on for a while about how press freedom is sacrosant and how any restrictions on what they do, eg any regulation worth a damn, is wrong because it will stop them holding people to account.
Well unless those people say sod the law and use direct threats.

In reply to dissonance:

What I would like to know is whether they don't publish it because they are scared shitless or if it's because they think it's unnecessary offensive to their readers.

Regarding the Daily Mail I am guessing it has to be the former because they haven't refrained being unnecessary offensive in the past, and they probably don't have many Muslim readers...

In reply to RomTheBear:


?

look I;m wrong.. my view that people should do what they want is f*cking disgusting.. I hang my head in shame..

In reply to RomTheBear:
I think it's partly fear but more politically correctness, they are like Iain they don't see what all this is about, as if these cartoons and defending the right to publish them is somehow anti-Muslim.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

yeah..

or i believe in free speach.. in all its forms.. the right to speak, the right to be offended, the right not to speak..

I know very well what this is about, but yet again we are at the old.. Brucey babes way or you are wrong..

I am not against publishing the cartoons.. I just respect a persons decision not too.. yet that entirely moderate liberal view is the extreme view..

In reply to stroppygob:











haha brilliant strops... its the old first they came for the jews poem.. it wasnt just about that, this was also about the anti immigration stance and the alienation of people, which bruce thinks is the root of this, yet that every paper should publish an image many muslims find offensive...

In reply to IainRUK:

The problem..is that there is a..perception that media are refraining from publishing the..cartoons because they are..worried about..reprisals rather than out of..politeness. It isn't freedom of speech if you say "you can..print what you want, but if you print that..you'll be shot".

In reply to IainRUK:



You misunderstood, I completely agree that they should publish / not publish what they want.
Equally others have the right to point out that this sudden newly found political correctness is a bit risible.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't think there is in the UK..

hundreds of media outlets did publish, many understandably did not..

"Executive editor of The New York Times Dean Baquet explained his decision to characterize the cartoons in words rather than show them: “We have a standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these [cartoons] are gratuitous insult.”

In reply to IainRUK:

It would be interesting to know what other images haven't been published under that policy, if any.

In reply to RomTheBear:
I'm not sure it is new found.

I do love Bruce only he could complain about the lack of Muslim integration in France as a root cause of this.. And then want every paper to publish the images.. Causing further alienation.. Playing right into the terrorists hands ..

The anti Israeli occupation.. Pro Russia in Ukraine.. Pro china in Tibet stance..

Strops the anti immigration immigrant... Complains he's insulted yet freely insults..

A wondrous lack of integrity in both..

Often a response resembles an iceberg, we see the extreme tip, there is clearly an issue with the images many find offensive..

The way to combat Isis is pro-integration.. Not alienation..

In reply to IainRUK:


Now I understand, you're stoned! I thought soemthing was different, I didn't say immigration and alienation were the only causes.


Have you actually seen the pictures? They are only offensive to those who want to be offended and the extremists they target - they don't target ordinary muslims at all. Like many I would have liked the British press to show a little more solidarity after such a massacre. AFAIK only the Guardian published the front page and that tiny, way down the article and with a health warning... It's not what you could call unreserved support, is it?

Even Cameron made a better effort than the world renowned free British press... sickening.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, do you think Dieudonne should have been arrested for his statements on this, or banned from performing his 'anti-Zionist' works in my places? I've seen no "Je suis dieudonne" flags in solidarity with him yet. I'm struggling to think why his offensive arm gesture "joke" is so different from CH's deliberately offensive provocations.

In reply to IainRUK:

One paper chose to publish the cartoon in the UK. In a major news story all the others failed to show the item that ostensibly led to 17 deaths, now you may choose to believe that the Daily Heil, among others, has suddenly had a crisis of conscience and longer wants to hurt anyone's feelings, but I'm a little more sceptical.

In reply to TobyA:
Dieudonné still has some support but for many of his old friends he has gone too far. He has been targeted by the government and the judiciary to an extent only surpassed by the way they have attacked Sarkozy Now he has fallen foul of a new law, tailor made for him, it came into force a few days ago and could send him to prison... which is obviously the only place for blackies who take humour too far. It seems incongruous to many that just when millions are in the street and all the establishment is crying crocodile tears for people who they were dragging to court not so long ago the same "freedom of speech in a humoristic context" is no longer valid for others. We are heading for a French style Patriots Act it seems, I may even need to be careful what I post the way things are going

CH's humour isn't deliberately provocative, except towards the b*stards it aims at - extremists, establishment hypocrites, etc. not in French cultural terms anyway. Maybe for people living in a religious dictatorship or who would like to set one up where they live it's shocking but otherwise it's all rather adolescent piss taking IMO.

PS. Forgot to answer, no I don't think he should have been arrested.

In reply to mypyrex:
Reaction from Muslim cartoonists:

http://fluctuat.premiere.fr/Diaporamas/Les-reactions-des-dessinateurs-musul...

In reply to Sir Chasm:
It's easy to see it..

But a lot of this is faux out rage.. Like an attack on the free press was a new step by Islamic extremists..

It wasn't, it's been a core part of their approach for a long time, from inprisoning journalists for simply reporting, to kidnapping and beheading, to attacks on press offices.. Yet Bruce wasn't so upset then...

It's set this current conflict apart from previous ones because the press have been targeted for a long time now.. This wasn't some unique new step that's it's made out to be..

In reply to IainRUK:

Well I think you guys are just misunderstanding each other. From what I understand Bruce says that poor integration of immigrant communities might have created a fertile soil for extremism to grow - not that this is the root cause.

Suggesting that this is the root cause would be ridiculous anyway as there has been immigration for many decades with various issues/benefits, but religious extremism is a new thing affecting not only migrants or second generation migrants communities.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You can follow me on strava brucey.. I was just back from an early morning 4 miler..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I thought the times showed it?

In reply to IainRUK:





Sorry, I don't really follow what you're trying to say here, that we should put up with attacks on media in the west because they've already been attacked elsewhere?

I don't think the Times printed http://uk.businessinsider.com/papers-that-published-the-charlie-hebdo-cover...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Eh?

How can you take tolerance from that?

Just that it's nothing new.. My take is always life should carry on, encourage integration, these fanatics want a west against Islam world...

In reply to dissonance:



which is fair enough, isn't it? The Mail's defense of the freedom of the press is entirely consistent with them not publishing the cartoon for fear of getting shot. They're saying "we'd like to print what we like without being arrested (or shot)"

[i find myself in the odd position of defending the Mail]

In reply to IainRUK:

You're in a hole but you won't stop digging - you'll meet stroppy face to face if you carry on!

So this atrocity was so banal that 4 million people marched in France and others all over the world, accompanied by several dozen heads of state, including Muslims - something totally unknown AFAIK? Apparently they didn't think it was banal, and accepted what might have been a real personal risk all in aid of a bunch of marginal cartoonists whose humour few of them would appreciate and at whose pens many of them had been victims? Netanyahu walked just a few metres away from Abbas, do you see that often?

Don't you think there might just be something you are missing?

In reply to the thread:

Cartoon:

https://twitter.com/CEMB_forum/status/555751748040945664

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
So I'm right...

It was just this attack was in Europe..

I suggest you start watching some news..

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/oct/19/victims-of-isis-non-...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Good cartoon, I hope Iain looks at it..... and understands it, which may be harder in his present tack.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Brucey babes care to explain how I oppose that view..

However when it's US journalists being attacked you are strangely quiet...

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Not really. Since they want to be the fearless defenders of democracy up until the point they feel the slightest bit threatened eg when you actually need those defenders.
Whilst using the defence to get away with publishing absolute drivel.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


It's the sidebar of semi-nakedness, gets blokes hooked.

In reply to dissonance:

Ok let's drop the mail.. There's still many news outlets who chose not to.. They reported the mechanics of what happened but opted not to show the cartoon .. Isn't that free press,?

Or are you and the old man convinced everyone are just cowards?

The cartoons are close to the bone humous hence why they are found in satirical magazines.. Is it really that surprising most mainstream outlets opted not to publish?

In reply to mypyrex:

Hasn't this been made a bit of a mockery when you look at this :-

<Couldn't post Ebay link - but try this>

navigate to Ebay UK
type in the search "Charlie Hebdo"
Sort by "Ending Soonest"

There is roughly 1 copy every minute being sold for prices in the range £50 to £200.

So the slaughter of 17 people and the solidarity with FoS has come down to a money making opportunity for a large number of people.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Check out the pics of Megan fox on the beach.. Fantastic...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
That's interesting then isn't it - you're perfectly consistent in your opinion, but do you feel many other people in France aren't? They're for "free speech but...". I think I'm probably in the latter camp. I happened to listen to this documentary the other day http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02fyhyv The views of the interviewed Japanese fans were really interesting. They said of the comic child pornography - "its only fantasy isn't it? There is no harm in that." They said they definitely weren't going to try and have sex with children, they knew the difference between edgy art and real life. So should those manga be banned in Europe? I still think they should be, and I suspect the majority of the new 'free speech' proponents resulting from Paris probably do as well. I don't how you feel though, as you are against censoring Dieudonné for anti-semitism?

In reply to IainRUK:


It is their call not to publish, but it is also their reader's right to tell them they don't agree with their call.

The fact is that they are the press, reporting the news is their job. There are risks involved with that job, like any other. If you are a doctor you have an increased risk of catching a disease, if you drive a lorry more chance of being in a traffic accident, if you are a fireman more chance of getting injured in a fire. If you are a journalist you should accept that there is a risk in saying what needs to be said but do it anyway because it is your job. It is a risk which gets a lot of publicity but statistically it isn't that high: I bet there's a lot more chance of a professional driver getting killed in a traffic accident than a professional journalist getting shot by a terrorist because there just aren't that many armed terrorists.

So if news organisations don't show a relatively harmless cover out of fear of being attacked or because the suits are worried that some other part of their empire in another country will lose business they are not doing their job and should be criticized. If they didn't show this specific cover because they realised it wasn't that harmless when viewed upside down I'd see that as a reasonable decision.

In reply to IainRUK:


Who is saying otherwise? However part of them being a business is that their customers can criticise their behaviour and take it into account as to whether they can trust them ongoing.
It doesnt give much confidence in them knowing they will fold if they feel threatened. Perhaps the MPs should have spent some money on a couple of hitmen instead.


Apart from that isnt the problem is it? They could have had a cartoon saying "everyone should convert to Islam" and it would still be found offensive.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Don't you think that fear of being attacked is slightly different to fear of losing business? I've never been in the situation, but I suspect that fearing for one's life changes one's perspective. Conflating the two things doesn't seem to me to be very helpful.

In reply to tony:


It is different but I am not sure that fear of attack is the main reason some organisations decided not to publish. If a newspaper/TV station is part of a multi-national empire with interests in the Gulf or Gulf investors have a large shareholding it may be a business decision.

In reply to krikoman:


Anyone paying this is a bit of an idiot because the original 3 million run is being extended to 5 million over the next few days so the bottom will soon be knocked out of the market A bit of patience is all that's required.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


You're not sure, but you'll just make some stuff up. That's fine, but at least have the grace to admit that fear of being murdered would put a different perspective on decisions - it would certainly make me question my actions.

In reply to TobyA:

It is a question of judgement though, isn't it? The French laws on this subject, like the British ones, do leave a lot of space for judgement, depending on the way the thing is said, where, when, etc etc? Dieudonné has been convicted several times but he has also been found innocent too. For the same show, about a year ago, some towns tried to have the show banned in court and got the judgement against Dieudonné, others for the very same show, lost their case and the judge said let the show go on. It's rarely simple and Dieudonné himself certainly isn't simple either. Until a few years ago he did a show with one of his best mates who is Jewish. Now they have fallen out but they did well for a long time playing on the black/white, Jewish/goy humour. To give an idea of how far he has gone in the past Dieudonné, the big black man, professional anti-racist, invited Jean-Marie Le Pen, the archetype racist ex-paratrooper from the Algerian war, to be the godson of his child - and made a show of the ceremony.

His whole thing is to push outrage to its limit even on things like anti-semitism, but does he know where to stop, has he gone over to the dark side, as it were? Your guess is as good as mine.

In reply to tony:


You aren't sure either. You are just assuming it is because of fear of being murdered. They aren't Charlie Hebdo printing original cartoons on their own, they are deciding whether to be the 100th or 1000th news organisation worldwide to print someone else's cartoons which are already all over the internet. It is a completely different level of risk. On the other hand, if they have moslem investors or their parent has business interests in moslem countries they might well not be publishing stuff offensive to moslems for business reasons. Oxford University Press, just explained their decision to ban pork, sausages and anything to do with pigs from children's books it was commissioning because it wanted them to sell all over the world.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

A Parisian friend is trying to get me one. She'd heard that many shops were only selling one per person (as was her local tabac) as it was speculated that many would be buying them for ebay. Maybe in 100 years they'll be worth something... How much is Diana edition of Private Eye worth these days?

In reply to Removed User:

Talking of free speech, we've got some pretty strange laws concerning it in Scotland these days:
http://m.stv.tv/news/west-central/306621-german-fan-cleared-of-ira-singing-...

In reply to Douglas Griffin:



It is strange and a bit inconsistent. I remember being at a Tim Minchin concert at the Playhouse in Edinburgh and being amazed he could get away with singing the Pope song without getting arrested under these laws. Maybe they only apply at football matches?

In reply to IainRUK:


Humerus, you mean?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

"In Germany this is no problem."

I suspect he may not be entirely correct there.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


In part.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/3...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


A not unreasonable fear, given what happened in Paris. The Jylllands Posten, the Danish paper which published an earlier set of cartoons also decided against publishing the Charlie Hebdo cover. Presumably you'll be having a pop at them too. It's very easy to be brave behind a keyboard.

In reply to all:

Discussion over folks. The spokesman for God has given his opinion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625

In reply to tony:

Exactly.. I'm not sure it's fear of attack but they do have a responsibility to their work force. Certainly wouldn't call them cowards if it was a choice out of fear, especially when the accusers like strops are sat all anonymously in total safety..

In reply to Dave Garnett: oops humor.. American...

In reply to andyathome:

But he would say that, wouldn't he?

There's news about an operation in Belgium between police and returnees from Syria, at least two dead.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That's as maybe but they are still selling at the rate of around 1 every 2 minutes for around £80.

When people see what they can sell them for it might just create another rush and a demand for more.

Some of the sales are for PDFs FFS!!

There's something not right in the world.

In reply to krikoman: "There's something not right in the world."

You're quite right, people selling magazines is obscene. It's almost as bad as people being killed for producing magazines.

In reply to tony:

Well OK, but Sky's policy of not showing the cartoon and the panicked reaction when the Charlie Hebdo survivor tried to pull it out on air could also be to do with protecting its business interests.

Wikipedia:
Sky News Arabia is an Arabic news and current affairs channel broadcast mainly in the Middle East and North Africa. It is a joint venture between UK-based BSkyB and Abu Dhabi Media Investment Corporation (ADMIC), owned by Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of the Abu Dhabi Emirate ruling family. The channel uses BSkyB's Sky News brand and was launched on 6 May 2012.

In reply to andyathome:

I saw that, and it did make me wonder about 'turning the other cheek'. I wouldn't hit someone if they insulted my mother, because I'd know the insult to be nonsense.

And another difference is that one's mother actually exists, unlike the various magic sky pixies...