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

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.

Exactly jingl.

No one has an abortion to deliberately offend other people.

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?

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

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

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

Best of luck with that. Belatedly.

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.

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

THAT IS TOTAL RUBBISH RIVERWALK.

Just twisting people's words.

Pathetic.

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

It's all about comprehension.

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?

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?

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/

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.

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.

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'

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.

And Abent - some people think too much.

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.

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

absent I can only speak for myself and those that I know. We do sometimes think of the dangers of travelling on the underground for instance but, of course, it is natural to try and put concerns of this nature to the back of your mind.

I would certainly say that the (erroneous) belief in "safety in numbers" is only relevant in certain situations. After an atrocity of this nature has occurred, when you enter the concourse of one of the main train stations in London during the rush hour, you don't think "Oh that's good, everything's fine, there's lots of people", you think "If there was anyone here planning to (for example) set off a bomb, they'd be hard to detect in this huge, constantly moving, crowd of people". Travelling outside the rush hour when the carriages, platforms and station concourses are relatively uncrowded is far more reassuring because anyone behaving oddly would be easier to spot by CCTV surveillance teams.

Eloethan What I described is a well-known psychological phenomenon. Another well-known "self-protection" viewpoint that applies to city dwellers at risk from violent crime and terrorist attack is the idea of safety in numbers. It is equally spurious.

Are the cartoons Mishap described Charlie Hebdo originals or the Danish ones which caused a much earlier furore? Charlie Hebdo reproduced those on the grounds that it was pusillanimous to censor material as a result of threats not, so far as I know, because of any particular merit, but few, if any other magazines or newspapers did. There is a difference between the publication of the two.

I have not praised any of the cartoons but merely remarked that I believe that they had a right to publish them without fear.

Some of the Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoons that I have seen cleverly expose absurdity and hypocrisy. However, the ones described by Mishap were, I thought, not "satire" at all but just disgusting, stupid and insulting images and text which made no point whatsoever.

As I said before, I wouldn't want to ban or censor anything that currently falls within legal limits and nor would I suggest that any level of offence or insult warrants violence or murder - but I certainly wouldn't praise material that aims only to ridicule and insult, rather than to expose and enlighten.