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

Indeed Agus

I feel so shaken- and very British at the moment. Here on the Swiss-French border, I am surrounded by 2 'types' of people- neither of which I belong to at all

a/ those who want to kill all Muslims or send them back to where they belong- unless they become more Swiss or French than the Swiss or French (btw practically NONE of them live here- and of course the huge % of French Muslims are just that, FRENCH for generations)

b/ those who believe freedom os speech should have not limits whatsoever (as long as Jews and zionism are not involved), however racist, provocative, bullying, or whatever, without any restraint or responsibility shown to anyone (apart from Judaism/zionism- again).

Thanks for the link Janea. I think it's important to hear the views of other Muslims and under the circumstances I also think those who have expressed their anger against the terrorists are very brave.

To answer those who think that ordinary, non-violent Muslims haven't spoken out against the extremists here are 46 examples of Muslim outrage against the atrocities

Here's another example of someone confusing a cartoon with the fact or idea that the cartoon depicts/represents.

Of course we should be ashamed, offended if you prefer, of the plight of many Syrian refugees. Many of us are, I'm sure.

But we don't need to be ashamed of or offended that someone has drawn a cartoon to illustrate the fact that Syrian refugees are in trouble.

Why can't (won't?) people see the difference between those two things?

The cartoons did not lampoon Muslims per se or any other way. The cartoons lampooned an ideology.

Will Self is, as always, impressive and says much better how I think about this:

bcove.me/eqoeo8tq

The US embassy in London is protected like Fort Knox; you can hardly get near the place for barriers, concrete blocks, metal detectors, etc.

Not surprising, I suppose, given their illegal wars, invasions, Guantanamo, and regime-changes.

The Danish embassy is now a mini-Fort Knox - what did that most liberal and open society do?

Self censorship should extend only as far as censoring anything that incites violence or hatred Mishap, you misunderstand me.
It shouldn't extend to things which merely offend.
That is the beginning of the end.

We can all self censor of we want, but we should not expect others to do so. I just love taking the Mick out of pompous self-righteousness, deluded beliefs, the political right wing, racists, homophobes, creationists, science deniers....the list is long and much beloved by cartoonists, including those at Charlie Hebdo.

It is my eternal regret that I can't draw cartoons: I'd have a field day right now if I could.

I discovered how well humour works during the anti-racist demonstrations of the mid 1990s against Pauline Hanson (a sort of Australian Marine le Pen minus brains) At one point she called us (the anti-racists) a load of unemployed dole bludgers as we heckled her a bit. Spontaneous hysterical laughter broke out, because we were clearly a bunch of workers, students, white collar workers, retirees, and academics, whereas the supporters she'd bussed in were a real rabble.

The reporters joined in the laughter, the police tried not to, but we all realised we had beaten her and her racist ideology that day. She was never elected again.

Now, even when I'm sure I'm right, I try not to be up myself and self-righteous. I don't always succeed, but I try to keep it light, and understand the opposition

Self-censorship is good - I go with that.

What I was trying to say is that the content of the cartoons covered all of this particular group of people, not that it would be read by all of them. Satire should select those of a particular group (e.g. corrupt politicians) rather than all the group.

The cartoons were not aimed at the fanatics specifically - that is what was wrong about them.

The mainstream media didn't publish the cartoons not because of discretion but because of threats of violence.

As I said earlier, many of the cartoons were apparently (having not seen 99% of them) not aimed at the religion itself but at the fanatics.

But in the context of freedom of the press, isn't using discretion another way of saying self-censorship?

And the freedom to use our discretion. I have the freedom to do a lot of things that I, and most people, would rightly not do.

Mishap the circulation of Charlie Hebdo is normally in the low thousands - how can that be causing offence to great swathes of the world population?
I've no doubt great swathes of the population would have found Fifty Shades of Grey offensive too if they had read it - should that not have been published?
The point has been made in several of the links on the thread, that our freedoms include the freedom to offend, and the freedom not to be murdered.

........"a young woman wearing a short skirt and high heels walking home after dusk invites rape, a man carrying a case with a laptop and wearing a Rolex invites mugging, a doctor performing legal abortions in a Bible Belt state invites his own murder and a judge who devotes his career to wiping out organised crime invites assassination."

These are just people going about their daily lives, which is a world away from deliberately seeking to offend.

I have at no point said that they brought it on themselves; I am just querying the wisdom of their decisions in publishing items that they knew would give offence to great swathes of the world population who have done no harm to anyone. Cartoons targeting terrorism and terrorists are a different matter - but even they should be published with some thought and reflection about their purpose.

The cartoons lampooned muslims per se and that is what is offensive.

Speak for yourselves, those who say "we demonise Muslims". I don't. I say that jihadists, death cultists, whatever ideology they espouse, are demons. There's a difference.

Ana Rare for us to agree – but hey ho. The argument that the journalists brought it on themselves is tantamount to the one that says a young woman wearing a short skirt and high heels walking home after dusk invites rape, a man carrying a case with a laptop and wearing a Rolex invites mugging, a doctor performing legal abortions in a Bible Belt state invites his own murder and a judge who devotes his career to wiping out organised crime invites assassination. Blame the victim and then you don't have to be afraid it will happen to you and yours.

absent I think you're probably right, and if we ratchet up the situation, demonise Muslim people as a whole and make them feel further marginalised, we are playing right into the terrorists' hands. There are vicious extremists on both "sides" who no doubt wish to divide Muslims and non-Muslims in order to prepare the ground for further violent conflict.

No absent I agree with you and I tried to point this out in an earlier post. And I'm outraged by suggestions that the journalists brought it on themselves - and if some people don't like me expressing that then V.

Am I the only person who thinks that if it hadn't been cartoonists and journalists at Charlie Hebdo, it would have been other people somewhere else? Am I also the only person who thinks that part of the purpose of this terrorist act was to create a backlash against Muslims, thus "radicalising" [such an annoying expression] other impressionable and disillusioned young men? Is that not what the precursor of Al Qaida did so successfully in Egypt two or three decades ago?

This blog post by Robin Lustig is the best and clearest comment I have read about the Paris killings and about what freedom means.

I hope it's a large dark place sunseeker. An awful lot of people are going to be there already.

I think we all agree that a free press is vital as is the right of free speech, however, with rights should also come responsibility.

I didn't see the cartoons drawn by the murdered people so cannot comment on them, but if, as some are suggesting they were deliberately offensive then that is wrong.

I am not for one moment condoning these brutal murders - there is a dark place in hell waiting for the perpetrators.

Indeed Mishap the press and satirists need to be thoughtful and show discretion - but not be cowed - which is what they have been these past years.

Some of those Charlie cartoons were unnecessarily offensive and far from funny, but even non-blasphemous depictions such as the Danish one that showed a cleric with his turban as a bomb caused outrage and resulted in violence.