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

We are free (rights) to mock and criticise but we have to behave intelligently and in ways that make our displeasure absolutely clear but do not inflame the situation and put others at risk (responsibilities).

Resistance under a totalitarian rule is entirely reasonable, but has to be done with an awareness of the consequences to others. Some of the actions of the resistance in the second world war resulted in the grimmest of reprisals.

Soutra. No I am in no way including you in the 5 posters.
Also, some others are no longer posting.
So there only a couple who are still out and out defending what the magazine published.

annodomini. I will look at your link later on.

I don't think it has ever been as cut and dried as that Mishap although I see where you are coming from. I think the analogy falls down at the initial scenario of being trapped in a room at a gunman's mercy. It assumes total vulnerability and in those circumstances I would no way be able to draw on satire or courage (that's me). What about being under a totalitarian occupying force-is resistance then futile? Does not the ability to think for oneself not include the freedom to make "jokes" however puerile?

Sometimes it is necessary to shock and go beyond the bounds of what you and I might consider good taste or even discretion.
I am not saying I liked the cartoons described, nor have I liked some of the (gory) Gillray cartoons I have seen relating to the French Revolution or dangers of revolution in this country. They are frankly disgusting if taken at face value but where there is no freedom to criticise, to mock or to ridicule, we are at the mercy of whatever greater power is inflicted on us.

I expect a lot of Christians felt the place would have been safer without Catholicism during the time of the inquisition and vice versa when Henry VIII was on the rampage against Catholics etc etc
Let's face it is is the lust for power and control that is the issue here using the shield of religion. It has been ever thus. This century it is Islam.

The longstanding culture of lampooning and cartoons may appear crass /crude to some but it is never an excuse for murder. Once we try to blame victims of violence then we give power to the perpetrators of violent acts.

Scenario 1

I am trapped in a room with a mad gunman who is threatening to shoot me.

Do I...

a) Shout at him, ridicule him, make puerile jokes about him, and put two fingers up to him?

b) Try and talk to him, enlist the hypothetical thoughts of his family and others he respects, and do all I can to take the heat out of the situation?

Scenario 2

I am the editor of a magazine functioning in an unstable world where extremists are threatening the safety and stability of the entire world population.

Do I...

a) Publish puerile and pointless cartoons and articles that are aimed at insulting not just the extremists, but the moderates, thereby putting myself and others at risk and inflaming an already terrifying situation?

b) Use my right of free speech to criticise the actions of the extremists; analyse the causes; provide the moderates in the extremists' community with a mouthpiece for propounding peace; encourage and support education programmes that teach the youth of those communities about peaceable responsible living?

Rights carry responsibilities; the right of free speech carries with it the responsibility to practice the profession of journalism with discretion and intelligence.

That is a highly inflammatory final sentence and extremely insulting to the millions of Muslims who do in fact follow the teachings of the Koran and are peace loving. Not every Muslim is a terrorist or an extremist and to lump them all together risks marginalising the "rest". If you meant we could do without extremism I absolutely agree but your sentence did not make this clear.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FGS Absent! By "true religion" I mean a religion that people genuinely believe in. I would have thought that was obvious. Can't people on here put a little more effort into understanding what other people mean. Although with Absent it's probably just an excuse to put the boot in as usual.

Terribull I would have thought the meaning of "too far" was pretty obvious in these cases. It's when people other than the targets get hurt.

soontobe, Islam is one of the 'religions of the book' or Abrahamic religions - as well as Judaism and Christianity. They trace their origins back to Abraham.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

I wonder who you perceive are the approx 5 posters? I also wonder what on earth Matthew 22.39 has to do with this precise context?

Why should any of us have a problem with it? Or are you introducing another element?

Having read Mishap's description of the cartoons, I too find them crass, juvenile and unnecessarily insulting and whilst I think any religion, ideology etc. should not be deemed a sacred cow and therefore not be beyond criticism, I find these cartoons unbelievably disrespectful. Personally, I'm not happy that anyone's beliefs should be ridiculed in THIS way, I don't think it helps already strained relations.

Apropos of that I have been pondering on other people who have gone too far, for example Frankie Boyle's sexual slur regarding Katie Price's disabled child, or this other bloke Dapper something or other, who I have read about he has a show and has mooted the idea that women are actually gagging for rape. A pretty disgusting assumption I'd say. What is too far? I can't remember the outcome of the Frankie Boyle remarks, I think his show was pulled, I hope it was.

Taking libel out of the equation, is it as Voltaire allegedly said, "I hate what you say, but I defend you right to say it"

That shouldnt read nop. It should read no.

Nop Adriadne.
I can see that I have not expressed myself brilliantly.

I am trying to say,
what might you and others deem is further acceptable, since you and others think that what is in the french magazine is acceptable to be done to other people.
I am trying to ask how you and others treat people around you. Would it be ok for you and others to shout at people, and abuse them that way for example.

To the same approx 5 posters.

Do you have a problem with "loving your neighbour as yourself"?
I appreciate that it is a difficult thing to do, but is there a problem with it?

British Muslims need better leaders. Good article by Fraser Nelson.

soontobe You are talking about what would probably be construed as public order offences that would be dealt with within the legal system.

Are you suggesting that in cases where there is no tabulated offence, i.e. nothing on the statute books to deal with something, then people should take the law into their own hands? You say "the gloves are off".

Ariadne. I agree with your first paragraph.

Not the second paragraph. Christians are taught to be humble. We know we are sinners.

Islam is not christianity. As far as I know muslims do not read or follow any of the bible.

thatbags. Sorry, I dont understand any of what your post is saying.

To those approx 5 posters on here who think what the magazine in France did was acceptable.

How far will you,or do you go, against other people.
Is it acceptable do you think, to harass people, shout at them in the street, or send them poison pen letters for example?

Is it a matter of keeping within the law. And within that, the gloves are off so to speak.

I agree with bags about many religions. So many wars have been fought in the name of religion or, to be precise (as I said earlier) in the name of what men (usually) have cared to construe as a religion.

Any branch of any religion, indeed any person, who claims to know exactly what God wants is setting themselves up as superior to the rest of humanity and we all know to where such a sense of superiority can lead. Vide Paris.

Exactly.

Just as thinking a certain prophet was a war lord and a paedophile, and "feeling offended" by that knowledge, wouldn't justify murder either.

Lousy humour or juvenile cartoons do not justify slaughter.

Agreed.

The french cartoons were drawings that attacked what other people hold personal and dear. In other words they went to the heart of many many people.
Hence my placard analogy upthread.

Lousy humour or juvenile cartoons do not justify slaughter.

Charlie Hebdo seems to be more Viz than Private Eye. Something read by immature lads and hopefully grown out of.

I find much of religion unnecessarily offensive, horrifying and savage. I'm allowed to say so just as anyone else is allowed to say the same about the cartoons in question.