Another beheading in France!

Yes also just saw that news bulletin..three dead apparently..horrendous..

Oh no. I spoke about more troubles brewing in France on another thread. This is potentially disastrous for them.

I am so sorry to hear this Ellianne.

Apparently there are two decapitations and a stabbing, three dead including a 70 year old women. RIP

At a church too. The poor souls. Their families must be devastated.

May they rest in peace the poor souls how horrific,what a frightening world we are living in.

How awful, and at mass too this is the second attack in a church in France following the beheading of the elderly priest a while back.

So sorry for the victims and their families.

This is the most terrible news. There are no words to describe how awful it is.

I heard the police have injured one of the terrorists and he is in hospital, guarded by armed guards. He will have to account for his diabolical crime in a French court, good! Being shot dead is too easy for them.

Another appalling crime, but why does Charlie Hebdo choose to inflame an already explosive situation by publishing a cartoon of Erdogan holding a beer whilst lifting the skirt of a woman wearing a hijab to expose her buttocks? (quoted in today's DT.)
I don't know if this is related to the attack, but I do not believe this constitutes freedom of speech; it is intentionally offensive.

This is so vile. They are evil.

Very serious situation for France. As well as the awful attacks several countries in the Middle East are sending threats to France. economic and more. Most aggressive is Erdogan in Turkey.

Oh Lord, I haven't heard this. How have I missed it ? Goodness me. I've just put the news on BBC. How horrible, near the Notre Dame. Evil !

I agree with you eazybee regarding Charlie Hebdo, I know free speech is enshrined in western constitutions and the right to offend and all that, but I can't help thinking especially of late, that right should come with some responsibility. Was the original puerile Charlie Hebdo cartoon ever worth the loss of life that followed? I don't think so. All the "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" posturing by world leaders in the aftermath of the atrocity was meaningless. Those slaughtered gone forever and the pain their nearest and dearest will suffer cannot be assuaged by futile gestures. In an ideal world all should be able to shrug off insults to their religion, political persuasions and beliefs, however offensive, but we don't live in an ideal world and maybe we are going to have to realise that there is a hefty price to pay in inflaming certain people's sensibilities and possibly they, the crazed, fascist and thoroughly wicked assassins are relying on that, but as Donald Tusk would say but not about them "there's a special place in hell for such people" Lets hope so!

Boris grandfather was killed defending the Armenian persecution in Turkey.
Now it's his turn to speak up in support of Macron and France.

I find that viewpoint absolutely terrifying Terri. Who decides what is offensive and what happens when someone decides that what you want to say is offensive.

Yes, let's ban the cartoonists and keep the terrorists!!!!!!!!!

The problem as I see it Terrybull is if one group is treated differently to the rest of us, what's to stop another from using the same horrific tactics to get their way?
Where will the slip sliding end?

I'm in two minds. While I totally agree with Macron on free speech, I do agree with Terribull that this is not to the time to inflame the wrath of others. I would prefer to take the moral high ground and reign things in a bit, but then I guess that also has consequences.

Phew.
Absolutely always. Freedom of speech is paramount. Bullies must never ever be allowed.
Another tragedy in the name of religion.

I'm contradicting myself because I agree with your post Galaxy about censorship being subjective and applying such a rationale flies in the face of all that we hold dear about free speech in a democracy. On the other hand it seems that Charlie Hebdo's raison d'etre is to offend anyone and everyone, of course their targets should be able to suck that up, clearly some can't. It's not as if they, the publication/publishers don't know the reactions they may elicit some quarters, any loss of life hardly seems worth it to me. Having said that, I disagree with myself because we shouldn't have to adapt to appease crazed religious maniacs.

censorship I meant to say what's offensive

To quote jordan peterson (who I disagree with on lots of points but not on this) those who would decide which speech is offensive are the very last people you would want to decide that. He put it more eloquently than I have.

There is no such thing as free speech. Look what happens when you use it ! Which is why I'm keeping my thoughts to myself.

Anti-Semitic comments are considered hate speech, not free speech-