I am NOT Charlie either.

[FAST]

FAST, don't worry, you didn't piss me off, & hopefully I didn't piss you off either.
If you are not religious, that is your choice and I'll respect your choice.
I happen to be a non-practicing Catholic, which means I sometimes get double-tapped - once by practicing Catholics who aren't happy that I've lapsed, and then by atheists who aren't happy that I'm believe in some sort of Supreme Being. And my SO is Jewish, so although I'm religious, some family members think its the wrong religion!
You're not religious, but I am. But I see no reason that the two of us can't get along just fine. I'm not going to push my religion on you but I'll ask that you respect my choice as well. If I say something offensive to you, intentionally or not, and you convey your sense of offense to me, I will stop (although I have the right to continue via free speech, I try not to be an offensive asshole). Naturally, I will expect the same courtesy from you. If for some reason you can't control the offensive asshole tendency after I ask you to stop, that's when our problems begin. That's not just regarding religion; I'm going to respect your choices, your gender, your sexuality, race, age background, etc. You have a right to be treated as I would like to be treated, and I have an obligation to treat you the way I'd like to be treated. Decently.
As humans, we have many rights and freedoms that were hard earned and always under threat, But, we also have responsibilities and obligations to each other. An easy one is - don't be an asshole. Next one after that is - if you choose to be an asshole, accept the risks & responsibilities.
You know, FAST, not only did you NOT piss me off, you also didn't let me down! You stood your ground without pissing on mine. Hopefully I achieved the same with you. Maybe we won't become friends, but we've eliminated at least a few reasons to potentially be adversaries, haven't we?

Seth.
Your statement,…“That's not just regarding religion; I'm going to respect your choices, your gender, your sexuality, race, age background, etc.”

Here’s the problem I have with that,…how can you put a persons race, gender, sexuality, age, in the same category as religion,… people CANNOT chose any of the above,…but people do chose to be religious.

I fully agree that all of those category’s,…, are a no go, as far as insults and stating ones
negative opinion,….except religion.

And regarding your example of abortion clinics,…what you seem to be saying is, they are OK, just as long as they don’t advertise,…and if doing so,… would provoke the religious,…the religious have absolutely no right to interfere,…none.
They can state their “opinion”,…anything more than that,…is provoking.

The pope’s recent confirmation that artificial contraception is wrong,…IF he was to make that statement to include,…”for Catholics”,…that would be fine,…to insinuate that his grand proclamation includes all peoples,…is rather arrogant,…AND provoking.

If religion wants to exercise its control and influence on the general public in the media, and court of law…then it is fair game for ANY comments, negative, insulting or otherwise.
To print confirmation that Catholic priests are child molesters, rapists,…is that being an ass whole,…???

The attack on Christmas by Muslims,…is that not provoking,…???
The Jews let it exist,…and were NOT provoked by it.
Refusing to uncover your face in a court of law in Canada,…NOT provoking,…???
Pushing for sari law in Brampton,…NOT provoking,…???
We wonder why islamopobia exists,…reputations are earned.
But In fact, the term is being abused,…The charge of 'Islamophobia' is used to silence people. ”

I am NOT anti Muslim on a personal level, I interact with some pretty cool Muslim and Sikhs dudes, and have much less religious interference from these guys than a lot of other religious types.
But bear in mind, I dislike religious institutions pretty much on an equal bases,…but have to admit that one in particular has been getting some extra attention.

One thing one must understand here,…the media CANNOT personally insult anybody, unless of coarse an individuals name is used.

So far we haven’t started with the insults, at least not intentionally,…I intend to keep it that way.

Sorry for the diarrhea of the word processor, but I feel better now.

FAST

 

[oil&gas]

.....................................
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!

That kind of hatred won't get you killed. People
kill others over more minor things. In GTA you read
news once in a while of someone shooting someone
else dead in a bar or in a party. Often the killing was
provoked by something as trivial as verbal insults or
minor physical altercation. Needless to say, such
killing cannot be justified and the killer must be
brought to justice. And I don't have to explicitly
state my support of the right to insult others
in a free society. I'll just say sometimes it is prudent
to be discreet.

Human nature is such that more trivial offence such
as disrespect of some dead people from the distant
past could elicit the most ferocious reaction from
certain lunatics. With the Catholic faith ubiquity of
images of Christ and Virgin Mary could indeed make
them easy targets of blasphemy. Fortunately Christianity
has long been secularized and Christians mostly won't
care. The more pious Muslims naturally don't take
blasphemy as easy as Christians. Thankfully there are
no images of figures of divinity
in Islam. There are no statues to worship in a mosque.
There was no portrayal of the prophet in the movie
about him, 'The Message'. It seems that it takes very
little, if any, effort to refrain from blasphemy against
the Islamic prophet if traditional image of him doesn't
exist. To do so is utterly meaningless and one should
bear the consequence that too is meaningless.

 

[seth gecko]

Wow, you've covered a lot of ground here buddy; I'll reply best I can:

Seth.
Your statement,…“That's not just regarding religion; I'm going to respect your choices, your gender, your sexuality, race, age background, etc.”

Here’s the problem I have with that,…how can you put a persons race, gender, sexuality, age, in the same category as religion,… people CANNOT chose any of the above,…but people do chose to be religious.

I fully agree that all of those category’s,…, are a no go, as far as insults and stating ones
negative opinion,….except religion.

I'm human, you're human, we're all human beings. We're all entitled to receiving a basic level of decent treatment. I'm going to respect you & your choices ,and hopefully you'll do the same (generic "you", not you specifically). As long as your actions aren't deliberately hurting others, we might be able to get along okay - or at least not have to kill each other.

And regarding your example of abortion clinics,…what you seem to be saying is, they are OK, just as long as they don’t advertise,…and if doing so,… would provoke the religious,…the religious have absolutely no right to interfere,…none.
They can state their “opinion”,…anything more than that,…is provoking.

Whether an abortion clinic advertises or not doesn't bother me, for all I know, they do advertise, but not in the media I mainly consume (Hustler TV, Barely Legal magazines, that sort). I think, and I'm not very knowledgeable about abortion clinics, that they choose a fairly low-profile because they recognize how provocative their existence is to some folks - in other words, the don't paint a target on their building. I might be wrong, so if someone wants to correct me on how abortion clinics market their services, I'm all ears. Literally.....you should see my new haircut! If a woman in my life wanted or needed an abortion, I'd like to know that she could do so in safety. The religious, the state, the business community, whoever, IMO have no right to tell any woman what she allowed to do with her own body.

The pope’s recent confirmation that artificial contraception is wrong,…IF he was to make that statement to include,…”for Catholics”,…that would be fine,…to insinuate that his grand proclamation includes all peoples,…is rather arrogant,…AND provoking.

I've always thought that when the Pope confirms policy, it is for Catholics. He's our top dog. If others want to follow Catholic dogma, I won't stop them. Heck, if others want to challenge Catholic dogma, I won't stop them either, because that's what I do. If someone insists on getting in my face because I have some religious beliefs, I'd ask them to step back, if they didn't I'd then step back, if they didn't give me space we'd have a problem pretty soon. I probably should clarify exactly how that problem would be resolved, but fuck'em, gotta give the critics to read whatever they want into it.

If religion wants to exercise its control and influence on the general public in the media, and court of law…then it is fair game for ANY comments, negative, insulting or otherwise.
To print confirmation that Catholic priests are child molesters, rapists,…is that being an ass whole,…???

If you want to make any kind of comments towards any institution, religious or not, be my guest, I certainly won't stop you. I'm a pretty tolerant guy. But hopefully you've learned that there are some extremely intolerant people out there, and provoking may cause a reaction that may endanger you and others. I hope you'd exercise good judgement in your actions. While I wouldn't fault any group of people for the actions of a few of them, I can understand that there are folks who think differently from me. I try to judge everyone on their individual merits. If you ever think you're behaving like an asshole, chances are good other people were thinking that already.

The attack on Christmas by Muslims,…is that not provoking,…???
The Jews let it exist,…and were NOT provoked by it.
Refusing to uncover your face in a court of law in Canada,…NOT provoking,…???
Pushing for sari law in Brampton,…NOT provoking,…???
We wonder why islamopobia exists,…reputations are earned.
But In fact, the term is being abused,…The charge of 'Islamophobia' is used to silence people. ”

I am NOT anti Muslim on a personal level, I interact with some pretty cool Muslim and Sikhs dudes, and have much less religious interference from these guys than a lot of other religious types.
But bear in mind, I dislike religious institutions pretty much on an equal bases,…but have to admit that one in particular has been getting some extra attention.

One thing one must understand here,…the media CANNOT personally insult anybody, unless of coarse an individuals name is used.

So far we haven’t started with the insults, at least not intentionally,…I intend to keep it that way.

Sorry for the diarrhea of the word processor, but I feel better now.

FAST

Whew, glad you're feeling better. The only thing I'll say about this section is I'm glad you can interact with Sikh & Muslim dudes; really no reason you shouldn't be able to as they are very much like you are except for a few pretty minor differences. And its the differences that make things interesting.
Be well.

 

[trod]

These arguments boil down to basically what looks like a classic case of 'blame the victim'.

"That woman shouldn't have worn those tight shorts. Some men got too horny and hence they raped her. She should have been careful with her actions. Blah blah blah"

 

[chrlsdickens]

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...5f-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/pol300072006en.html


DOCUMENT - FREEDOM OF SPEECH CARRIES RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Public Statement

AI Index: POL 30/007/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 032
6 February 2006

Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for all


Events of recent weeks have highlighted the difficult question of what should be the legitimate scope of freedom of expression in culturally diverse societies.

While different societies have drawn the boundaries of free speech in different ways, the cartoon controversy shows how, in today's increasingly global media space, the impact of actions in one country can be felt way beyond its borders. Today, more than ever, societies are faced with the challenge of asserting universal human rights principles in an area where there has traditionally been a tendency to defer to the domestic laws of a particular state and the values they enshrine.

Set against the backdrop of the rising climate of intolerance and suspicion between religious and other communities in many parts of the world, including in Europe, two conflicting sets of principles are being advanced in this controversy.

Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence.

The right to freedom of opinion and expression should be one of the cornerstones of any society. This right includes "the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19). For more than forty years, Amnesty International (AI) has defended this right against attempts by governments across the globe to stifle religious dissent, political opposition and artistic creativity.

However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law.

AI calls on the government officials and those responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice to be guided by these human rights principles in their handling of the current situation.

AI also calls on those working in the media to act with sensitivity and responsibility so as not to exacerbate the current situation. This incident highlights the power and reach of the media and AI calls on those in the media to apply greater political judgement, taking into account the potential impact of their output and the range of often competing human rights considerations involved.

While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people’s lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.

 

[seth gecko]

Thank you for this contribution ChrisDickens!
You are a man of few words, but have spoken loudly.

 

[FAST]

Selective

Thank you for this contribution ChrisDickens!
You are a man of few words, but have spoken loudly.

Seth,...I especially like the last paragraph

While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people’s lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.

This is they correct way to look at the current situation,...not by using Islamophobia as a tool to silence those who disagree with ONE particular religion.

Doing so,...will only increase tension.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law.

So, there is a "right" to freedom of expression, except in cases where the state would like to censor what you are saying.

In other words, Amnesty International doesn't actually believe in freedom of expression.

You don't need hate crime laws to protect citizens from people who are inciting violence. There are already laws against such things. However, "incitement to discrimination" is an entirely different matter.

 

[basketcase]

So, there is a "right" to freedom of expression, except in cases where the state would like to censor what you are saying.
....

I agree with that paragraph. Free speech shouldn't be used to incite against other rights of people.

Meanwhile I don't see how these cartoons are inciting anyone to discriminate. And as for incitement related to cartoons, Amnesty nails it on the head (though I don't think it was their intent).

"In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence."

 

[trod]

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...5f-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/pol300072006en.html


DOCUMENT - FREEDOM OF SPEECH CARRIES RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Public Statement

AI Index: POL 30/007/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 032
6 February 2006

Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for all


Events of recent weeks have highlighted the difficult question of what should be the legitimate scope of freedom of expression in culturally diverse societies.

While different societies have drawn the boundaries of free speech in different ways, the cartoon controversy shows how, in today's increasingly global media space, the impact of actions in one country can be felt way beyond its borders. Today, more than ever, societies are faced with the challenge of asserting universal human rights principles in an area where there has traditionally been a tendency to defer to the domestic laws of a particular state and the values they enshrine.

Set against the backdrop of the rising climate of intolerance and suspicion between religious and other communities in many parts of the world, including in Europe, two conflicting sets of principles are being advanced in this controversy.

Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence.

The right to freedom of opinion and expression should be one of the cornerstones of any society. This right includes "the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19). For more than forty years, Amnesty International (AI) has defended this right against attempts by governments across the globe to stifle religious dissent, political opposition and artistic creativity.

However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law.

AI calls on the government officials and those responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice to be guided by these human rights principles in their handling of the current situation.

AI also calls on those working in the media to act with sensitivity and responsibility so as not to exacerbate the current situation. This incident highlights the power and reach of the media and AI calls on those in the media to apply greater political judgement, taking into account the potential impact of their output and the range of often competing human rights considerations involved.

While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people’s lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.

While the whole statement reeks of sophisticated PR bullshit, the bolded part takes the cake.

If the cartoons were published in an actual Islamic State like say Syria, Pakistan, you could probably bet your mortgage that there would be riots or violence. That is because these countries don't have a fucking clue what freedom of expression is and how it is earned.

The politics of fear is a game that gets played often and slowly, the censorship bandwagon will snowball in a few decades of not being able to tell a joke about anything.

 

[josexxx]

A little balance.
I surely don't condone the massacre of 12 innocent people, but showing solidarity with these cartoonists, and defending their right to be offensive seems a little...much ?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

i'm full french but i have to agree with you that it's not right to mock and make fun of other people's religion. charlie hebdo looked for trouble, they found it.... hopefully it will serve them as a lesson..

 

[FAST]

i'm full french but i have to agree with you that it's not right to mock and make fun of other people's religion. charlie hebdo looked for trouble, they found it.... hopefully it will serve them as a lesson..

Who says "it's not right to mock and make fun of other people's religion",...what religion are you,...???

The cartoonists were NOT looking for trouble,...but obviously the religious fanatics were,...and still are.

And who is "them",...does that include me,...if I make fun of some religion,...or is it just one religion in particular,...???

FAST

 

[fuji]

charlie hebdo looked for trouble, they found it.... hopefully it will serve them as a lesson..

So you think murdering 12 people is meritorious as it delivered a valuable and appropriate lesson.

Repulsive.

 

[SkyRider]

ISIS is now threatening to kill 2 Japanese. Did Japanese also drew cartoons of the Prophet? Is nobody safe from these ISIS thugs, rapists, pillagers, murderers, etc.?

 

[oil&gas]

The mastermind behind the shooting at Charlie Hebdo
won't care if you draw cartoons of their prophet.

Blasphemy against Islam is bound to incite hatred
when there is some 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.
I won' worry about any repercussion of it more than
I worry about crimes like school shooting. It becomes
a major threat to security only when blasphemy plays
into the hand of the terrorist organizations like the one
who provided support and training to the Charlie Hebdo
killers.

 

[toguy5252]

The mastermind behind Charlie Hebdo won't care if you
draw cartoons of their prophet.

Blasphemy against Islam is bound to incite hatred
when there is some 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.
I won' worry about any repercussion of it more than
I worry about crimes like school shooting. It becomes
worrisome only when blasphemy plays into the hand
of the terrorist organizations like the one who provided
support and training to the Charlie Hebdo murders.

I am really not seeing how any of these cartoons incite hatred against Muslims. They may be offensive. They may be blasphemous. But how do they incite hatred.

If anything it is the reaction of the terrorists which incites hatred.

 

[oil&gas]

It is one goal of the terrorists to incite hatred against Muslims.

 

[toguy5252]

It is one goal of the terrorists to incite hatred against Muslims.

That part I get. And they succeed. It is why the cartoons or that typ of material might be considered hate.