I am NOT Charlie either.

[basketcase]

There's criticism, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Then theres offense - which is a bad thing....

If people get offended by valid criticism I don't see it as a bad thing. I haven't been a reader of CH but the last Muhammad cartoon seemed a pretty valid comment on how ISIS would treat their prophet if he appeared now. Doesn't seem like promotion of hate to me. In fact it seems like pointing out when the Papacy runs counter to the teachings of Jesus. Western culture has a focus on rights that can be at odds with religious views. If we hold the rights of our culture as important then commenting how a religion runs counter to those rights seems pretty appropriate to me.

If someone is offended that gays have rights in Canada or that women can drive then too bad for them because they are taking offense at some of our country's key values.

 

[fuji]

What some people fail to understand is that freedom of speech is all well and good. But ... Just expect that people also have the freedom to retaliate. It may not be legal, but they physically have every ability to kick you in the face if they really wanted to.

You don't believe in freedom AT ALL. You believe that it is right that people's freedom of speech is limited by other people kicking them in the face, or in this case, murdering 12 people. Your views have absolutely no place in a free and democratic society.

Maybe you think that you are the big tough "jock" who is going to retaliate against whoever offends you, maybe you think you are going to get away with kicking them in the face. But what you will find in a society that believes in freedom and the rule of law is three million people rising up against you and saying "Je Suis Charlie".

You can go cower somewhere and worry about whether you might insult an islamist by allowing your daughter to go to school without a headscarf on, but the rest of us are going to unite against that sort of tyranny and ensure that our kids have the freedom to wear, and to say, whatever the fuck they want.

And if you do kick someone in the face, while they might wind up with a bloody nose, you can look forward to spending a few years in prison. In this case the Islamists who are attempting to suppress our freedom of speech can look forward to a robust response from our intelligence and security agencies.

Appeasing these people won't work.

 

[seth gecko]

Fuji, WTF? You didn't want to meet up for a drink? Maybe I should have clarified that I'll be buying......
But seriously Fuji, you made the right decision by not going out in public; being around people just wouldn't suit you.
Have a great night doing what you do best (which, sadly, is being an internet bully ands coward).

 

[FAST]

Well technically he's right. It is blasphemy. Doesn't mean religions don't often deserve criticism and it doesn't mean blasphemy is necessarily a bad thing.

I really ain't doing very well getting my point across here.

The point I'm trying to make is,...the editor said that being disrespectful to a religious figure was blasphemy,...so what,...that term has meaning only in the religious context, and to the religious.

If he was to think outside of his little narrow minded religious box,...he would realize that saying what I stated was blasphemy,...in a none religious publication, implies that his religious laws apply to me.

I know I am making a mountain out of an ant hill,...but I'm just trying to demonstrate the arrogance of the religious, that can some times get out of hand.

FAST

 

[seth gecko]

To me that is the point. If an allegedly religious belief states that murder is an acceptable response to criticism it deserves to be criticized.

And it's worth mentioning that the related attack had nothing to do with the actions of the people involved, just the fact they were Jews.

Sorry buddy, I don't know where you get your info from, but Islam doesn't state that "murder is an acceptable response to criticism"
Islam instructs its followers to "overlook their annoying talk and put thy trust in Allah" and "bear patiently what they say".
Further, "let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice"
Thats in the Quran.
Now, just as with the Christian Bible, if one is so inclined you could probably find a passage or two that seemingly contradict this. If you want to go out and seek the bad parts to justify something, be my guest, as it says more about your character, that you'll overlook what is good (I'm using the generic "you", not you, Basketcase specifically).
But the overall message of the Quran and the teachings of Muhammed (pbuh) was, is and will continue to be pious self-restraint and basic decency towards others that 1.6 Billion Muslims try to follow.
No-one can deny their is a serious and GROWING problem with religious extremists - the problem is not their religion, but their extremism. And deliberately provoking them by insulting their religion, while it may be ones undeniable right to do so, is frankly irresponsible and stupid.

 

[seth gecko]

So might makes right? What a ridiculous argument.

Again, I don't believe that is what he is trying to say.
And again, I will step up to defend his right to say what he did, which is basically:
- You have the right to freedom of expression.
- the only limit on this right is your own self-restraint.
- you are responsible for your own actions.
- if you cannot practice reasonable self-restraint with your provocative actions, you bear some responsible in whatever response you provoke.
- so, if you choose to be an obnoxious, offensive idiot, eventually you'll attract another obnoxious idiot who will exercise his "rights" towards or against you.

 

[Occasionally]

Again, I don't believe that is what he is trying to say.
And again, I will step up to defend his right to say what he did, which is basically:
- You have the right to freedom of expression.
- the only limit on this right is your own self-restraint.
- you are responsible for your own actions.
- if you cannot practice reasonable self-restraint with your provocative actions, you bear some responsible in whatever response you provoke.
- so, if you choose to be an obnoxious, offensive idiot, eventually you'll attract another obnoxious idiot who will exercise his "rights" towards or against you.

That's exactly what I've been trying to express. Some people just don't get it.

Although it does make sense. Some people have such narrow minded views about things that they don't understand what other people think, react and may do in return.

Just to prove how cowardly hardcore freedom of speechers are, as I said people have every right to say things without getting arrested. But I'd like to see how many have the balls to walk around on the street or at the mall and start telling people they are fat, ugly, your religion is dopey, you three guys like like grubby overaged skateboarding losers etc..... 0.001% of people will do that. Basically, only drunks or drugged up losers who can't help it will spew out such lines. People may think person X looks like an idiot or person Y looks like they haven't washed their clothes in a year, but almost nobody will actually say it to their face trying to get a rise out of them though it is technically legal to do so.

The reason almost nobody says it out loud is because they know they are being an ass and that bad things can happen if you mouth off to the wrong person and they retaliate.

But the media gets latitude to draw up cartoons and send a message whose meaning is really no different than someone directly saying it in proper sentence structure. But if it's written in nice paragraphs, it's considered going overboard. But make it a whimsical cartoon and it's greenlighted as satire and funny. Unfortunately for some people who get retaliated against, a cartoon makes no difference to them and they treat it as serious as an editor writing a two page article why he thinks religion X is dumb and violent. A cartoon and professionally written article can both convey that a certain group of people have bombs strapped against them, but just because one is a cartoon and looks like a 15 year old doodled it on a notepad doesn't mean it can' be just as offensive to some people.

It makes no sense really to bait someone, especially with these daily cartoons in every newspaper anyway. If you think about it, it' actually pretty childish work.... drawing cartoons to make fun of whatever is the talk of the town that week. If it's so important, just have the cartoonist change direction and turn that image into nicely structured articles where it makes a point with words if the newspaper has such balls to do so?
So to some up, don't act like an ass. It will decrease the chances of someone coming at you swinging. But if you want to be tough guy mouthing off and then claiming "it's legal, I can say what I want". Then fine. Just make sure you can outrun them or have 911 ready in case they smack you in the head or pull out a knife.

It's actually pretty easy to decrease your chances of getting smacked around. It's impossible to avoid the random acts of violence like someone robbing a store, but when it comes to confrontations between two people arguing or fighting, it's typically one side that starts it and the other side returning the favour. Don't start the fire and neither person will get burned.

 

[Moviefan-2]

To paraphrase Occasionally, if you poke the bear, or tease the dog, or throw rocks at the hornets' nest, don't be surprised if you elicit a reaction that you won't enjoy.

So, if you "poke the bear" by running an abortion clinic, you shouldn't be surprised if your clinic is attacked.

That line of thinking seems awfully weak to me.

^^^^ Exactly. :thumb:

 

[Occasionally]

So, if you "poke the bear" by running an abortion clinic, you shouldn't be surprised if your clinic is attacked.

That line of thinking seems awfully weak to me.

To me it's not weak at all. That's because I know when to use my freedom of speech and say things and when it's smart to zip it and don't make myself look stupid, and decrease the chances of me getting knocked around.

It's also about being friendly to each other. If I'm with the guys and we're all goofing like guys, then sure. If I'm in public, with coworkers or friends/family that don't want to around guy talk, then I won't talk to them like I'm at a bar with guys.

No matter how much freedom of speechers claim it is legal to say what they want, what they don't understand is that's not how everyone thinks and reacts. Just because it may be legal to go up to someone and say they are an asshole right to their face...... and taking a queue from the media...... saying it to their face next week, and then the next week and then again the following week...... it doesn't mean people will go into robot mode and sit there and like it.

So to think people won't swing back is terribly ignorant.

I'd like to see how brave someone is to go to a public place or a bad part of town and start insulting people. Hope you can take a punch. Because no matter what you think, some people will swing back whether you like it or not. That's something you have to understand.

I'd like to see how accepting freedom of speechers are if someone kept coming up to them every week and telling them they are an asshole. And it doesn't even have to be direct to their face (though that would be the best scenario). Someone can be ragging on them 30 ft away where they can still hear it. Or they maky not even physically hear it at all. All they know is people are some reason ragging on them constantly making them look bad or dopey. His religion is dopey, his dresses dopey, he's fat etc....

Be man, just accept it! Don't try to find out whose saying things behind your back. It's just words! lol

 

[seth gecko]

So, if you "poke the bear" by running an abortion clinic, you shouldn't be surprised if your clinic is attacked.

That line of thinking seems awfully weak to me.



^^^^ Exactly. :thumb:

My opinion - a womans body is her own, she has the sole right to decide what to do with it. If my wife or daughter want some sort of procedure done on their body, be it an abortion, boob job, piercing, whatever, that's her choice. If she asks my opinion, I give it. But she gets my support in her decision - I don't live in her body, she does.
Not everyone see the situation the way I do. Some folks think a woman doesn't have the right to an abortion. And they are entitled to that opinion.
An abortion doctor will open a clinic to provide women with a (hopefully) safe place to get the procedure done. He is not trying to be provocative, he is trying to provide a service he feels women are entitled to. My knowledge of abortion facilities is pretty limited, but I can't recall ever seeing any ad, billboard, tv spot etc etc promoting them. If you want an abortion clinic, it seems to me you have to actively seek one out.
Some religious extremist (thus far, they seem to have been mainly Christian pro-lifers, but could be others also) don't agree with me & the good doctor, and will try to deny women the use of the facility. Some of these folks will view the very existence of the clinic as a provocation, and some clinics have been firebombed, some abortion doctors have been murdered by the extremists.
The doctor wasn't trying to provoke.
Charlie Hedbo was trying to provoke.
In either case, attacking them is wrong.
if you are setting out to be provocative, as Charlie Hebdo was, you are trying to elicit a reaction. Hopefully, the reaction will be something positive, but in the case of Charlie Hebdo, is wasn't.
Is that clearer for you?

 

[basketcase]

Sorry buddy, I don't know where you get your info from, but Islam doesn't state that "murder is an acceptable response to criticism"

Sorry buddy but you didn't read my post. The word "allegedly" should make it clear that what ISIS claims is Islam isn't what the majority of the religion believe which is exactly why the Charlie cartoon of ISIS executing Muhammad is valid criticism. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[fuji]

Again, I don't believe that is what he is trying to say.
And again, I will step up to defend his right to say what he did, which is basically:
- You have the right to freedom of expression.
- the only limit on this right is your own self-restraint.
- you are responsible for your own actions.
- if you cannot practice reasonable self-restraint with your provocative actions, you bear some responsible in whatever response you provoke.
- so, if you choose to be an obnoxious, offensive idiot, eventually you'll attract another obnoxious idiot who will exercise his "rights" towards or against you.

Murdering twelve people isn't a right.

It takes considerable restraint to avoid insulting your intelligence after that comment!

 

[fuji]

Sorry buddy, I don't know where you get your info from, but Islam doesn't state that "murder is an acceptable response to criticism"
Islam instructs its followers to "overlook their annoying talk and put thy trust in Allah" and "bear patiently what they say".

However, it is what Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, the Iranian Supreme Leader (head of their religion), and numerous other Muslims believe.

You are right most Muslims don't believe it, but it is wrong to say Islam doesn't have that as a belief. Many variants of Islam do include the belief that it is not only OK, but required, to meet offense against the religion with violence.

Your post is like saying Christians don't believe in creationism because a majority of Christians don't believe in it. Well, some do, and for those who do it is clearly a part of their Christianity.

Neither Christianity nor Islam are homogeneous.

 

[seth gecko]

Sorry buddy but you didn't read my post. The word "allegedly" should make it clear that what ISIS claims is Islam isn't what the majority of the religion believe which is exactly why the Charlie cartoon of ISIS executing Muhammad is valid criticism. Thanks for proving my point.

Sorry buddy, I read your post exactly as you wrote it, and sorry also that I can't read your mind. "An allegedly religious belief" isn't as clear as you thought it would be, otherwise we wouldn't be having this misunderstanding, would we??
Clearly, Charlie Hebdo should have satirized ISIS directly rather than the entire religion of Islam (via the image of Muhammad pbuh) Agreed?

 

[fuji]

Sorry buddy, I read your post exactly as you wrote it, and sorry also that I can't read your mind. "An allegedly religious belief" isn't as clear as you thought it would be, otherwise we wouldn't be having this misunderstanding, would we??
Clearly, Charlie Hebdo should have satirized ISIS directly rather than the entire religion of Islam (via the image of Muhammad pbuh) Agreed?

We are not here to discuss what Charlie Hedbo should have done, but what they have a right to do. Again you confuse supporting their free speech with suppirting their message.

I support the right of angry anti Israeli douchebags to spew hate against Israel but I sure as hell would not say they should spew that hate

However they shouldn't be killed for it!

 

[basketcase]

Sorry buddy, I read your post exactly as you wrote it, and sorry also that I can't read your mind. "An allegedly religious belief" isn't as clear as you thought it would be, otherwise we wouldn't be having this misunderstanding, would we??
Clearly, Charlie Hebdo should have satirized ISIS directly rather than the entire religion of Islam (via the image of Muhammad pbuh) Agreed?

From a western view they WERE clearly satirizing ISIS and what better way than saying that ISIS would kill Muhammad if they met him. Pretty powerful point despite the fact that some Muslims find the image offensive.

And yes, there are many Muslims who see an image of Muhammad as offensive as many Christians view the phrase Jesus Christ used as a curse. Some get angry, some give you a dirty look, and some ignore it and get on with their lives.

 

[Moviefan-2]

if you are setting out to be provocative, as Charlie Hebdo was, you are trying to elicit a reaction. Hopefully, the reaction will be something positive, but in the case of Charlie Hebdo, is wasn't.
Is that clearer for you?

A woman who dresses in sexy attire may be looking to "elicit a reaction," as well. That doesn't make it OK to rape her.

 

[seth gecko]

A woman who dresses in sexy attire may be looking to "elicit a reaction," as well. That doesn't make it OK to rape her.

That's right, and no-one thus far on this board has said it does make it ok. But, somewhere out there is some pyscho who might not think that way.
She has the right to dress however she wishes, but that right doesn't make her invulnerable. Her common sense and good judgement go along way to protect her from rapists.
I can already hear it: "Seth, we have laws against rape that protect her, you rapist-appeasing coward!!!!"
Yes, we have laws. But women are still sexually assaulted. Laws only go so far in preventing crime. You, the individual, bear some responsibility for your own safety.

Going back to the abortion clinic example you trotted out earlier - substitute massage parlours & escort agencies.
Did the operators of these places set out to "poke the bear"? Probably not, they set out to provide a service. And, like they abortion clininc, MP's & SP's are pretty low key places, you'd be hard pressed to find one accidentally & you'd be the one seeking them out.
Like an abortion clinic, I don't use the services of MPs or SP's either, but I believe that the users and providers of these services should be able to do so safely. Some people don't agree with that and would like to see MP'S & SP;s shut down.
MP"s, SP's and their users didn't set out to provoke anyone, did they? Yet, they elicited a reaction (Bill C36) that seemed to scare a lot of you guys ( I don't follow the Bill C36 issue, so my understanding may be shaky.). Whats the outcome of that so far? I seemed to recall reading MPASquared offering advice that amounted to "use your common sense" (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Does that clarify my position better for you?

 

[Occasionally]

Amen to that. Good to see the Toronto Star curtail causing unnecessary ruffled feathers.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...n-the-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-cruickshank.html

Why the Star won't run the Charlie Hebdo cartoons: Cruickshank
Committing blasphemy for reasons of principle seems an oddly childish act in a society as secular and as safe as our own.

 

[canada-man]