10 killed in a gun attack in France.

[Henry of Grosmont]

I didn´t say that. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right but must be exercised without a meaningless, offensive provocation.That's my point of view. It's entirely unproductive, and completely unnecessary in the religious field. Religion is the most sensitive part of human life and so it should be handled carefully.

The most sensitive part of whose life? Certainly not mine. Why should I be banned from exercising my freedom of expression. I do find religions utterly ridiculous and don't see why I should be afraid of being able to say so?
Essentially, we're fighting against the notion of a thought crime here.

That's a completely different question. They are both are equally important. We are nothing without emotions and feelings. The existence/nonexistence of God is subject to debate in philosophy, and belongs to another forum.

Unfortunately, it isn't just a philosophical debate because religion tries to control people's lives beyond spirituality, it wants a total control over human life. And it has no moral standing either. Let's not forget the Archbishop of Canterbury trying to explain how the fatva to murder Salman Rushdi can be understood. The essentially same thing the current Pope making with his remarks. It's because they want religion (regardless of which one we're talking about) to be off limits for any criticism or scrutiny as much as controlling people. And this is why religion should not get a free pass or anything of the sort. People should be able to laugh at it without being murdered. I don't see a bunch of atheist going on a killing spree because some religious newspaper mocked them.

Edit.
I also find this super sensitivity strange. Shouldn't religions have more self esteem? After all, they all know THE truth. Which is also ridiculous because every one of them claims to be THE one true beacon of light.

[Mithridates II the Great]

The reality of this world :

[Knight of Heaven]

Certainly.Science isn't always benign...and religion isn't the primary cause of wars.

Of course, and all these things usualy are not free from being mocked.

Cameron just said the obvious.That's the politically correct thing to say, but I never heard him make offensive comments about someone's religion.

To be fair, Cameron is a Politician, not a comedian. Have you seen him insult anyone for whataver reason?
And the Pope well it is the Pope, of course he is going to say it is not ok to make fun of religion.

[Roma_Victrix]

The reality of this world :

So the cartoonist here is basically saying the UN doesn't give a hoot about the bloodshed and sectarian violence in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Burma (I'm assuming the Buddhists versus Muslims thing here), as well as Palestine's loss of civilians in its war with Israel? I don't see why giving the massacre at Charlie Hebdo some attention and expressing solidarity with the French accounts to the UN turning its back on all those who suffer in the Middle East. For the most part I think the media does an OK job of covering Middle Eastern topics, such as the recent Reuters article I read about the release of 200 Yazidis by the Islamic State (mostly elderly and crippled people who the Islamists probably considered a burden).

[Mithridates II the Great]

So the cartoonist here is basically saying the UN doesn't give a hoot about the bloodshed and sectarian violence in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Burma (I'm assuming the Buddhists versus Muslims thing here), as well as Palestine's loss of civilians in its war with Israel? I don't see why giving the massacre at Charlie Hebdo some attention and expressing solidarity with the French accounts to the UN turning its back on all those who suffer in the Middle East. For the most part I think the media does an OK job of covering Middle Eastern topics, such as the recent Reuters article I read about the release of 200 Yazidis by the Islamic State (mostly elderly and crippled people who the Islamists probably considered a burden).

In fact , He is saying how Human rights and UN work in the world .

It says , The UN doesn't see 60 years of massacre in Palestine and creating and illegal state but sees bunch of cartoonists in France who directly disrespected the religion of more than 1.5 billion people .

Other countries have similar stories .

[removeduser_487563287433]

In fact , He is saying how Human rights and UN work in the world .

It says , The UN doesn't see 60 years of massacre in Palestine and creating and illegal state but sees bunch of cartoonists in France who directly disrespected the religion of more than 1.5 billion people .

Other countries have similar stories .

That's ing nonsense the UN has been deeply involved in Palestine since the UN was a thing.

[SorelusImperion]

There is some truth to that caricature as the UN is more often than not unable to do anything of substance in the middle East (or anywhere at all) because of the Veto Powers and the web of interests.

[white-wolf]

The reality of this world :

This is sad but reality. There are rivers of blood at there, no wonder that creates monsters who can bring headache at West.

[Steph]

We see many anti French protests now that Charlie Hebdo has published a new cartoon with Mohamed on the front page.

First, this is a very mild drawing, nothing offensive there, but still some Muslims are angered.
We can consider (and we would probably be right) than feeling offended for this is stupid, and reactinge so strongly even more so. I find it completly alien than someone can protest for such a mild drawing, and not protest for many other things MUCH more serious that happens on the other side (I've just read some info about women condition in ISIL controlled territory... no words for that). We could also wonder if your religion is really "strong" if it can be so easily attacke by a mere drawing.

Second, we can also discuss why when people are angered by a private journal made my a small team of a few people, they go attack the French as a whole. I know they may not be familiar with the concept of independant press, and don't understand that when a newspaper publish something, it is not a publication from the government, but still...

But on the other hand, when Charlie publishes this and say "look, we are not afraid, we can even make a new drawing", they may seem brave to do that. But even if some of their people tragically paid with their lives, other people are put at risk by their action.

What can we say to French people living in Niger who are scared? Whose business is sackaged? Whose churches are destroyed? Or who could get killed?
They didn't ask for anything, but by publishing again the cartoon, Charlie is endangering them.

Freedom of the press: Yes, you are allowed to publish what you want. But does it mean it is smart or wise to do it?

What should we do to protect the French people and freedom of the press at the same time?

Should we avoid publishing this kind of drawing to avoid angering Muslims, and avoir putting French people and interest at risk? Does it mean we "surrender" and let the Muslims win?

Should we puslih anyway, accept the risks, let French people and interest on the frontline, and if something happen, claim "see how bad they are? They attacked us for little reason, our people died but they know we had right with us?"

Should we publish, and retaliate strongly if our interests are threatned, with the risk that we become the bad guys and it escalates?

When you have freedom, you also have responsibility. If Charlie published a cartoon, and following this Muslims are damaging French assets, or killing people, who should support the cost (financial and/or moral)? The poor guys who lost something in the riots? The Muslims who participate? The local government for not educating their people or maintening order? Charlie for creating the situation?
__________________

[Diocle]

We see many anti French protests now that Charlie Hebdo has published a new cartoon with Mohamed on the front page.

First, this is a very mild drawing, nothing offensive there, but still some Muslims are angered.
We can consider (and we would probably be right) than feeling offended for this is stupid, and reactinge so strongly even more so. I find it completly alien than someone can protest for such a mild drawing, and not protest for many other things MUCH more serious that happens on the other side (I've just read some info about women condition in ISIL controlled territory... no words for that). We could also wonder if your religion is really "strong" if it can be so easily attacke by a mere drawing.

Second, we can also discuss why when people are angered by a private journal made my a small team of a few people, they go attack the French as a whole. I know they may not be familiar with the concept of independant press, and don't understand that when a newspaper publish something, it is not a publication from the government, but still...

But on the other hand, when Charlie publishes this and say "look, we are not afraid, we can even make a new drawing", they may seem brave to do that. But even if some of their people tragically paid with their lives, other people are put at risk by their action.

What can we say to French people living in Niger who are scared? Whose business is sackaged? Whose churches are destroyed? Or who could get killed?
They didn't ask for anything, but by publishing again the cartoon, Charlie is endangering them.

Freedom of the press: Yes, you are allowed to publish what you want. But does it mean it is smart or wise to do it?

What should we do to protect the French people and freedom of the press at the same time?

Should we avoid publishing this kind of drawing to avoid angering Muslims, and avoir putting French people and interest at risk? Does it mean we "surrender" and let the Muslims win?

Should we puslih anyway, accept the risks, let French people and interest on the frontline, and if something happen, claim "see how bad they are? They attacked us for little reason, our people died but they know we had right with us?"

Should we publish, and retaliate strongly if our interests are threatned, with the risk that we become the bad guys and it escalates?

When you have freedom, you also have responsibility. If Charlie published a cartoon, and following this Muslims are damaging French assets, or killing people, who should support the cost (financial and/or moral)? The poor guys who lost something in the riots? The Muslims who participate? The local government for not educating their people or maintening order? Charlie for creating the situation?
__________________

I see your point but sadly they are feeling they are at war with us.
You can do whatever you want, they'll find some other idiotic motivation to act against you; whatever you do and whatever you think, you are at war because they are at war with you. This is not a matter of being leftists or right wing, it's a matter that a large group of people think they must kill you: you can only choose the way you want to use for defending yourself, and this becomes a matter of Left and Right, but it doesn't changes the reality: we are at war because they have declared that they are at war with us.

Side Note: When Britain and USA will force the Saudi little princes to stop training the clergy which is turning poor morons into fanatic assassins, it will be a great moment for humankind.

[Cesco]

I see your point but sadly they are feeling they are at war with us.
You can do whatever you want, they'll find some other idiotic motivation to act against you; whatever you do and whatever you think, you are at war because they are at war with you. This is not a matter of being leftists or right wing, it's a matter that a large group of people think they must kill you: you can only choose the way you want to use for defending yourself, and this becomes a matter of Left and Right, but it doesn't changes the reality: we are at war because they have declared that they are at war with us.

Side Note: When Britain and USA will force the Saudi little princes to stop training the clergy which is turning poor morons into fanatic assassins, it will be a great moment for humankind.

As you said, we are at war against them (against Isis, not against muslim in general of course); we are at war against them since some european (and not european) governments initially financed Assad's enemies, then they realized the guys they were financing were bloodthirsty schizoids and decided to bomb them...so, in my very humble opinion, the freedoom of the press issue is not the central point: those drawings were only a pretext to kill some "western" (how i hate this word) men...if we want to wage war to certain enemies, then we must accept to suffer this kind of attack. But of course the press it's pretty selfish and immediately claims about freedom of expression...

[Emperor Hantscher]

I see and hear a lot playing the free speech card. Free-speech only protects you from government law. That's why Charlie Hebdo was withing reason to print it's cartoons, but it does not protect them from any repercussions they so inspire.

It dawned on me when I watched a video of "Girl A" beating the living hell out of "Girl B" for saying something nasty about the former's dead sister(where else but LiveLeak). The comment section was filled with "You go girl"s and "beat her ass, you can't say that". Well she can, free-speech. In regards to the Hebdo case people use free speech to defend it and condemn the killings. In the video of the beating no one brings up free-speech, why? In the same way free speech should have protected Hebdo it should have protected this girl from the beating of a lifetime right?

Well for starters all of us, well most of us can relate to Girl A in the video. We have family, brothers and/or sisters or at the least really close friends, we imagine if someone spoke I'll of them post mortem we would most likely go ape-. I understand a schoolyard beat down and a shooting massacre is like apples and oranges but I digress. The thing is we just cannot relate to Islamic Extremists or for the most part Muslims in general. Depictions of the Prophet are offensive to many Muslims and Hebdo knew this. Anyone who denies this is delusional.

So the question is now this, how many times are you going to taunt the dead sister before you expect Girl A to punch you out?

Don't get me wrong, terrorists! Shooting the place up is never the answer outside a Hollywood movie or video game. My post is directed at the people misconstruing the definition of free speech. It is not a free pass to say whatever you want without ANY repercussion. Free speech let's you speak your mind and protects you from our government judicial system, but it does not mean nobody will be offended by your words and another form of justice won't come find you.

In the end, whatever one person deems to be wrong, another person somewhere will deem it to be right. Is it wrong because our culture deems it wrong or is it right because another culture deems it right? Try answering that and you will realize how it is unavoidable that our two cultures will inevitably come to more serious blows.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Violence is not acceptable. But that doesn't mean we cannot be empathetic to the reasons or beliefs behind issues like this. It is foolish to ignore the fact that many Muslims, truly, find depicting Muhammed to be unacceptable. So although events like this are rightly condemned, we shouldn't shy away from the more complicated issues at work.

[Emperor Hantscher]

Violence is not acceptable.

Not now, not here(the West) anyways. It was until the late 1960's and 70's when the idea of Peace on Earth was fathomed. Violence was the answer for at least 200 000 years prior to this shooting and I can ensure you it will keep going strong , come on we are on TWC for cryin' out loud. If people really want like this to stop happening all there has to be some small level of respect even for wildest of beliefs or traditions.

Personally a cartoon will never bother me because to me a "Cartoon" is a joke. Look at it, maybe smile, then forget about it, forever. Too bad not everyone see's it that way.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Be interested to hear more of your theory on how peace on Earth was first thought of during the height of the Cold War.

[Emperor Hantscher]

Be interested to hear more of your theory on how peace on Earth was first thought of during the height of the Cold War.

Peace on Earth also known as the Nuclear Age. We built toys so big nobody wants to play with them anymore. That and the ideas from Hippie Movement have really started to embed itself into American Culture and the Western World's for that matter. Westerners just don't have the lust for blood like we used to. Go Google some cartoons from Newspapers in the 1930's and 40's. Major paper's posting very offensive, racist cartoons all the time. Nobody gave a rat's ass, it was the norm. Now most major papers refused to show the Cartoon's Hebdo put out, because people will get upset, Muslim and non, people are way to touchy these days.

In my city a girl suffered a severe concussion while tobogganing, now there is a movement in my city to ban the age old Canadian tradition, passed down from generation to generation. Seriously! That's a picture of how overly sensitive Canada has gotten, I don't know about where your from but I'm sure it's the same.

Funny how a post of how we need to tone it down a little to respect the overly sensitive Extremists resulted in me complaining about how overly sensitive Canadians are, maybe we all just need to cry and hug it out

[removeduser_487563287433]

Hippies in the sixties, punks and skinheads in the seventies. You paint a selective picture.

[Emperor Hantscher]

You paint a selective picture.

Because I'm writing about a subject and trying to stay OT????? Yes and bad hair in the 80s lazy teenagers in the 90s and even LAZIER teenagers today. I mentioned ideas from that movement are gaining ground within our culture, I didn't say it was the only culture around, it just seems like peace and love ideals are becoming more prevalent in our society over shoot first ask questions later type of thinking, don't you agree?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Skinheads widely launched racially motivated attacks in the seventies. Why is this subculture of violence less relevant to your vision than sixties hippies?

[Ludicus]

The most sensitive part of whose life? Certainly not mine.

Good for you, but you are not alone in the world. Sometimes, Charlie's Hebdo cartoons are simply too obscene, even in our western word , and they are obviously considered blasphemous by the Muslim world. Recently, they published another obscene caricature of a naked prophet Mohammed, a cheap provocation. What I am saying is that freedom of expression is limited in all democracies, by political, religious or moral reasons. There are limits.

European Court condones restrictions on free speech
Published in: Legalbrief Today
Date: Thursday 15 January 2015
Category: General
Issue No: 3669

'Any relatively informed person will have to think twice before arguing that any state that limits freedom of expression to accommodate the religious sensitivities of a section of the population would condone religious tyranny and intolerance or that demands for such limitations itself constitute an attack on freedom, liberty and democracy.

So says constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos, in an analysis on hisConstitutionally Speaking blog - in response to discussions around the virtues of the 'unfettered right to freedom of expression' in the light of the murder of journalists and bystanders in Paris last week. De Vos says the European Court of Human Rights often condones restrictions imposed on freedom of expression by democratic governments across Europe, finding that such restrictions comply with the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights. He gives examples of cases - from Austria, France, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK - to demonstrate that across Europe, courts often justify restrictions on freedom of expression and that Europe's highest human rights tribunal regularly upholds such restrictions. Says De Vos: 'These examples suggest that many states across Europe pass laws or impose judicial limits on free speech to accommodate the religious and moral sensitivities of members of their societies. Europe's highest human rights tribunal does not always view these restrictions as threatening basic democratic freedoms on the continent. This suggests that reasonable people may well differ on the necessity to limit speech to accommodate religious and other "sensitivities".

Full analysis on the Constitutionally Speaking blog

------