Breaking News - Allegedly 10 people killed at office of satirical magazine in Paris

True Eloethan but different people think differently and some don't think much at all.

Whether they had a right to publish their cartoons or not, it wasn't a sensible thing to do. As events have proved. That's not blaming them. Just stating a fact. And then comes the sorrow for others killed with them....

I don't know where you found the info about that being a recognised phenomenon Absent. I think most people simply carry on with their daily lives because they have no other option. Sure, everyone hopes they will never be victims, but it is healthy (hopefully!) to put the threats out of your mind and carry on.

And Abent - some people think too much.

Eloethan I have to say that I never really worried about, although I paid attention to terrorist attacks in all the years (60 odd) I lived in London, except if I saw an unattended suitcase/bag or someone who looked a bit questionable (one of the ten signs).

I was very close to the Victoria Station bombing, but my train was delayed. A friend came out of an Oxford Street store(M & S, I think) shortly before an IRA explosion. I am not Pollyanna.

I was talking about an overall picture, not the one when you actually find yourself on an overcrowded Picadilly Line platform.

I understand that some people will find 'satire' upsetting. What I don't understand is how the barbaric act of murder can in any way shape or form be given one inch of understanding nor excuse.

It keeps being repeated 'I don't agree with those who have committed murder,obviously, BUT"

It's the BUT I simply do not understand. Terrorists are cowardly, barbaric, murderers who do not deserve to have a BUT attributed to their actions.

Meanwhile , now, this day, it is being reported that at least 6 people have been murdered by Boko Haram in Nigeria. The cowardly pigs are said to have used 2 little girls wearing explosive jackets to carry out their slaughter. No Charlie Hebdo cartoons there. What BUT can be found to even consider any other thought than they are nothing more than evil b------s

Whether it be All Q, Boko Haram, ISIS we must accept that they have no ethics, it is 'MY WAY OR BE KILLED'

Yasmin Allibah Brown writes in the Independent today, whilst many Muslims from repressive regimes are desperate to settle in the west because they see us as a tolerant and free society, this is in complete contrast to a section of of the settled Muslims who find that very freedom a problem for them and I believe as many as 40% here in the UK would like some form of Sharia law introduced.

We know that the vast majority of Muslims don't want to wage war on the west and were just as appalled as much as anyone else regarding the Paris atrocities, incidentally I was very glad to see The Sunday Times had on their front page yesterday the picture of the young Muslim man who worked at the kosher supermarket and saved 15 Jewish hostages, what an act of bravery. However, as some under cover programmes such as Dispatches have shown there are those here who seek to alter our society and preach their discontent with our way of life which poses two questions "why do they stay here and why do we allow it?" If any church or other religious establishment allowed the sort of bile that has been spewed out at some mosques then I am sure the orator responsible would have been prosecuted. When I saw that programme a few years ago it posed the question to me "how many mosques allow this sort of thing?" Along with constraints on censorship, I find other aspects more worrying. We had a thread a while back about a visiting Muslim cleric at a university who wanted to impose a gender segregation among the audience, and then there's the whole area surrounding faith schools and the questionable curriculum hard line Islamic schools would impose. I think at times the UK has allowed certain things to creep in by stealth in the name of political correctness, France after all gave us the title of "Londonistan" because of they perceived us to have a "laissez faire" way of dealing with radicals.

Some of us have concerns about what this magazine chose to print; we are looking at this particular situation. The existence of other acts of terrorism is not ignored, but not relevant to the central premise of the need to think about how the right to a free press is exercised. It is about rights carrying responsibilities.

There is no BUT - the murders are totally wrong - and indescribably barbaric.

I think that the point of the whole thing is being missed entirely. We are talking about free speech within the parameters of the law, so if someone is operating within the law in any one country, then it shouldn't be a matter of debate about whether they should have written what they did, they were acting within the law and so had every right to say what they did.

It also seems to me that there is within Islam a culture of draconian discipline, something that we left behind in the Christian faith some centuries ago. The problem with this is that it is therefore open to interpretation by hardlinists and fanatics, which allows no leeway. It is no good arguing that Islam is a peaceful religion - so is Christianity and look what that has led to in the past. Those of the Islamic faith must look hard at their religious doctrines and decide whether it is time to bring some of the doctrine into the 21st century/

How would you like us/me to express our viewpoint then POGS?

I do not condone murder for anything. I think the satirists left themselves very open to this happening to them. I do not like their art form. How would you like me to say that?

Or would you prefer it if others, with opposing views to yours, just shut up?

POGS I also don't understand the BUT - it somehow implies that the massacre was deserved because they'd gone too far.

If the fanatics had demonstrated outside the offices, or even set fire to their cars, or harassed them in the street there could possibly be a justified but I understand, as zealots seem particularly sensitive to being mocked or offended.

They MURDERED 11 non-violent people for publishing offensive cartoons.

How can any criticism be qualified?

Put your own views up, but don't nit pick what others (I) have to say.

It's all about comprehension.

THAT IS TOTAL RUBBISH RIVERWALK.

Just twisting people's words.

Pathetic.

Leaving yourself open for something, even inviting it to happen, does NOT mean the same as deserving it.

I don't think the cartoonists invited death - after all, as one of them said a couple of years ago

I understand why Moslems don't laugh at our pictures but I live by the laws of France, not the laws of the Koran.

Best of luck with that. Belatedly.

Let us put aside the idea of blame - e.g. the cartoonists were to blame for what happened, brought it on themselves etc.

Or the idea that anyone would see this as a justification for slaughter.

And simply ask the question: what is the point of these cartoons? What were they seeking to achieve by drawing and publishing them? How could doing so enhance human happiness? What point were they trying to make?
Were they lampooning and attacking terrorists? - no. Were they shedding light on the processes that lead to terrorism? - no. Were they using them as a way to enlist the moderates? - no, quite the opposite.

Clearly they have the right to publish them in France (possibly not here) - that is not in question.

Editorial discretion and the exercise of wisdom and common sense were lacking - that does not remove their right.

Because there is now the entrenched view that freedom of the press means the right to publish anything anyone might wish, then there are those who will do so, whether the publication has any point or wisdom at all. That is their right. It is not always wise to use it - not because they are being held to ransom by terrorists, but because they should behave professionally

I will not put it aside - the fact that some posters are pathetically misinterpreting my posts.

Well, I will now. Now that I've made that clear.

Mishap earlier I mentioned abortion clinics in the USA where staff have been murdered by Christian fundamentalists.

In the often febrile atmosphere that these clinics operate, with constant demonstrations, filming, threats to staff, etc., would it be better for the clinicians to show discretion and professionalism and not upset the baying mob, many of whom of course have very genuine objections to abortion, and cease operating?

Or should they continue, within USA law, and face-down the demonstrators no matter how objectionable the practice of abortion is to many sincere people?

No one has an abortion to deliberately offend other people.

Exactly jingl.

Fundamentalist or extremist views can be held by people of any, or no faith. Thanks to Riverwalk for her comments about abortion/right wing fundamentalist Christians in the USA.

I remain unconvinced by those who argue that the cartoonists somehow caused such upset to folks, that they got shot. Putting any responsibility on the cartoonists for these dreadful events minimises the barbarism of these murders.

I think I will stand by what I say.

I have heard plenty of comments whilst watching the media coverage and during debates over the Paris killings that HAVE clearly stated the murders were obviously wrong. Nobody in their right mind would think otherwise. I totally accept that.!!!

However I have also heard comments such as "Well Charlie Hebdo courted controversy, why were we surprised". "They knew their cartoons were offensive and kept doing them, they should have stopped publishing them". "They knew they were targets because of their satire"

The same people then inevitably go on to say something like "There is obviously no excuse for the killings" That is the BUT .On one hand they say murder is wrong, wrong, wrong on any level BUT then give a view that contradicts/understands/detracts from that statement.

My comment is a generalisation of what I have noted over the past few days in the swathes of comments/debates/interviews I have viewed mainly on t.v. However if you feel I have made a personal attack on you then I will have to say I stand by what I say .
If you read a post and automatically think it is a personal attack then obviously it has made you believe the words I have used and the point I was making have been said / implied by you, if not why on earth would you feel it was personal. That's not my problem.

Well we are back to this word 'offend'.

Why does a fanatic have a right to be so offended that free speech, no matter how puerile and stupid, has to be reigned-in as so not to offend the easily-offended?

An abortion is done for personal reasons, so no intent to personally offend anyone, however many people are very offended.

If you're offended, your offended, doesn't matter how it was achieved.

Religious fanatics have no more right to be protected from being offended than anyone else.

The fact that they exact revenge on the offenders is what harms us.