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

POGS your last paragraph in your 10:39 post resonates with me. I've just finished researching online the "Pergida" movement in Germany. Quite interesting. Food for consideration.

well said Joan. Too many people are discussing the satire, and not the murders. We have a fine history of satire in this country and I for one am a subscriber to Private Eye, should I stop buying it in case it offends anyone? Certainly not.

I am truly frightened by this turn of events, as I have said previously, for it is an attack on our way of thinking and of living. I would like to think that Al Qaeda or whoever is responsible has taken on the wrong country, France is renowned for its secular state and for its tolerance and will take these gross abuses very seriously. This is to my mind, even more good reason for a secular state,

Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law

#jesuischarlie

alex57currie

I will look that one up, never heard of it, sounds interesting.

I think the lack of interest by our media for reporting overseas current affairs is astounding at times. I think what is happening in Germany, Scandinavian countries, Greece etc. etc. etc. is so relevant but when I speak to a hell of a lot of people they are clueless.

The last paragraph is very powerful.

jesuischarlie

alex57currie

Scrap that post. I've just remembered it was a name a associated with the demonstrations I had posted about in Germany.

[idiot] emoticon

The gloves are off now. It's about time Islam was treated like every other religion, subject to debate, criticism, ridicule, tolerance, etc. There's been too much pussyfooting about for fear we might offend.

anya yes you are so right. The more liberal minded muslim should also be calling for this as well

I think that ridiculing and satirizing politicians, terrorists, big business, failling public services etc is fine - they are fair game. Private Eye does this very well. I do however, even as an agnostic, think that ridiculing others' religious beliefs is not so acceptable because it strikes at the heart of who people are. I think it is right to lampoon Islamic terrorists, but not the religion itself, which is in fact peaceable.

Paradoxically I think people should have the right to do so, but hope that they have sufficient sense of respect for others' feelings not to seek to offend to no purpose, and with no particular point to make.

Once again I have to say that I in no way defend these barbarisms. Journalists need to have the right to be tasteless without getting murdered.

Yes there is a huge difference mishap between disliking and avoiding satire that you would rather not read, and banning free speech.

We should all have the right to be offended, including the muslim population in the UK and rest of the world.

i was listening to a Muslim speaking earlier on the radio, who said 'Mohammed had not been avenged he has been shamed by the actions of these people'

And it's not a case of ridiculing people's religious beliefs Mishap .. some of this cartoon imagery is very subtle. One I saw today showed two large sharpened pencils against a blue sky with an aeroplane flying towards them.

Not crude or rude but very clever and says so much.

I like the one that showed a complete pencil, then a broken pencil and then the 2 halves both sharpened and ready to write - such a good image and one I hope materializes.

Yeah Anya saw same cartoon. Quite a lot are sending the old adage that "the pen is mightier than the sword" message. Saw some others that quite frankly shocked me, and I thought that was becoming impossible.

I was not thinking about the cartoons that have been drawn in response to this barbarism, but of the cartoons that gave offence before the event. The response to them was abhorrent, but the pictures themselves might have offended decent taste. Just a thought.

@Mishap - There you go, wanting special consideration for religion - on the grounds, I suppose, that people's feelings might be hurt. Well, boo-hoo... there is no earthly (or heavenly!) reason why anything so rickety as belief in the supernatural in spite of, or even because of, the lack of evidence should be given a free pass.

Even some of the cartoons or articles in Private Eye can verge on offensive but we don't shoot the cartoonists and journalists. They get sued instead.

I love the Iranian comedienne Shappi Khorsandi who -takes the piss-- makes fun of her own culture in the same that Maureen Lipman sends up Jewish Culture or Dave Allen mocked Catholicism. And many of those who laugh loudest are laughing at their own culture.

But of course fanatics have no sense of humour, see no shades of grey. Everything is black and white to them.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Lennon

Well - I take your point - but I was not necessarily singling out religion, but just trying to consider people's feelings, whatever the topic. On the whole those who are satirised are fair game; are people who hold a religious belief in that category too? I am just posing the question and asking when satire turns into bad taste and reflecting on where the line might be drawn.

It is about not giving offence to innocent people for no reason.

I am not a believer, so have no axe to grind on my own behalf. I see religion as a potentially pernicious force, but do not label individual adherents as pernicious.

I suppose my gut feeling here might stem from the fact that I have worked in the media for the latter part of my career and some journalists and cartoonists become very arrogant indeed and feel that they can do/write/say/draw whatever they like because the media is held in such reverence. They had scant concern from the truth and on several occasions I had to tell the editor that his spin was unacceptable and I would not co-operate with an article.

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. Freedom of speech and of the press means that a cartoonist could draw a picture of Jesus having sex, or a child being shot, or a celebrity molesting a minor - but most publications would balk at these as offending good taste and serving no purpose.

I do not know what the original cartoons that gave offence depicted, but I was trying to open up the discussion to think about what might or might not be acceptable.

It goes without saying that however tasteless they might have been they could in no way justify the reaction.

The Islamic spokesman this morning was very clear that Islam itself could be questioned in the media, but abuse of an individual believer simply because of his beliefs is unacceptable.

feetlebaum I am not making out the victims to be the guilty ones. The thought of that is totally abhorrent to me. I consider your saying that to be downright insulting. I suggest you try to read my posts with a bit more attention and maybe then you might comprehend what I am saying.

You can't deny people the right to religion, just because you don't, yourself, believe. And John Lennon probably didn't. Nice pop song but rubbish sentiments.

Imagining won't help.

I don't agree with the gloves being off re religion of any kind. If you don't believe in a religion yourself, keep your nose out of it. (That, of course, goes for all religions)

"Even some of the cartoons or articles in Private Eye can verge on offensive but we don't shoot the cartoonists and journalists"

Is someone on this thread actually advocating shooting anyone? I don't think so! Nobody is taking away at all from the wickedness of these people. They are evil.

I've finished. Do carry on.

Mishap and Jingle are making sense to me.