Charlie Hebdo

Finesilver24

mamba80 wrote:

Many Muslims find offence in almost every aspect of western behavior, sex before marriage, homosexuality, drink, the food we eat, making snow men!!!

That's the trouble, there is no such thing as 'a muslim'. Some are devout, some aren't. Some are born into it, some convert. Some think that murder is wrong, some are happy to kill other muslims. Some sell drugs. Some run charities. If we fear reprisal from a single muslim (the one who decides that he's offended by the use of the word 'pork', for example), normal life becomes impossible.

mamba80 wrote:

if we moderate our behavior in order NOT to cause offence, we would need to go far further than some cartoons - do you think they will stop at Satire?

South Park (series 10 episodes 3 and 4) did a BRILLIANT analysis of the issues about showing images of Mo'. Worth finding it on youtube, but here's a clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbO5yCm430s

However, I am astounded at the double standards of the media. While pontificating about censorship and how it should be acceptable to offend people, you can't say c*nt on primetime TV, in case it causes offence. So, a muslim is allowed to be offended by the portrayal of a sacred (but made up) character, but I am protected from offence by banning a naughty word. Bizarre.

RDW

Finesilver24 wrote:

South Park (series 10 episodes 3 and 4) did a BRILLIANT analysis of the issues

Oddly enough their 'Super Best Friends' episode was broadcast back in 2001 with no fuss at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends

It's no longer shown or streamed, which shows just how much the climate has changed, though you can (of course) find unauthorised copies online.

MisterMuncher

bianchimoon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone's allowed to be offended, in the same way anyone's allowed to say what they want.

No-one is allowed to murder people.

It's fairly simple.

If only, both Sky and BBc wouldn't show cover this morning for fear of offending, ergo not allowed to say what they want (unless they didn't want to of course)
In fact I wanted to see it on breakfast news and was offended when I couldn't

BBC showed the cover on Newsnight the previous evening.

mamba80

Finesilver24 wrote:

However, I am astounded at the double standards of the media. While pontificating about censorship and how it should be acceptable to offend people, you can't say c*nt on primetime TV, in case it causes offence. So, a muslim is allowed to be offended by the portrayal of a sacred (but made up) character, but I am protected from offence by banning a naughty word. Bizarre.

But you are not protected from offence, i think there may be other reasons why using certain words before 9 oclock are banned, children watch tv and they have no choice on the language they hear but how can it be double standards? there is almost nothing i can think off that isnt aired on the media, either on TV or other forms of entertainment, such as theatre or books, regardless of the offence it might cause, it s just that with the Muslim faith, unlike any other faith, we have to moderate our behavior (totally and not just at certain times) basically because if we dont, there is the possibility of death, the censorship is via fear

VTech

What I find odd is how people can brand something "satire" to get away from the reality that they are out and out offensive. Using some modern word to hide this fact is as stupid as someone wanting to kill you for it imo.

The problem is, we all know the facts, most of us have travelled and most of us have witnessed foreign cultures so with that in mind, why would anyone be involved knowing the consequences that could happen ?

I am of course in no way in favour of killing people for being offensive but with the world the way it is, and knowing that this magazine had been warned before, and knowing that these extremists use murder as a way of getting a point across, and knowing that you needed security at your front door due to the offence you cause, the question should at least be raised about what is right and wrong.

I can't use the word ni**er anymore because it is offensive to mixed race people, I can't use the word pa*i because it is offensive to people from pakistand/india so why is it allowed to mock a whole religion ?

I know, its because we have this new word called "satire"

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

I know, its because we have this new word called "satire"

"By about the 4th century AD the writer of satires came to be known as satyricus; St. Jerome, for example, was called by one of his enemies 'a satirist in prose' ('satyricus scriptor in prosa')."
Yes, because the 4th century is just so new.
I will admit that sarcasm is newer.

Paulie W

PBlakeney wrote:

VTech wrote:

I know, its because we have this new word called "satire"

"By about the 4th century AD the writer of satires came to be known as satyricus; St. Jerome, for example, was called by one of his enemies 'a satirist in prose' ('satyricus scriptor in prosa')."
Yes, because the 4th century is just so new.
I will admit that sarcasm is newer.

It's even earlier that that; read some 5th C BC Aristophanes which rips the p!ss out of anyone and everyone. Satire is 1000 years older than Islam at the very least!

ballysmate

VTech, there are several ways you can fight a pernicious ideology. The most peaceful ways are with the spoken word and the pen, or in this case pencil. The response to this peaceful approach was violence and death. Which side caused the most offence.
If you remove the right to speak out or to pick up a pen, what are you left with? What sort of country are you left with?


As you travel the world you would naturally adapt your behaviour in accordance with local expectations.
I live in a liberal democracy where free speech is held dear and would expect anyone who comes to settle here to respect our views.
If anyone can't do that and wishes to reject our society, then I think the Mayor of Rotterdam put it perfectly.

mr_goo

There was an interesting interview on the BBC News yesterday morning in which they had an Imam and Sara Khan (practicing muslim) of the Inspire Foundation. The Imam as one would expect spouted off, though in a measured tone, that the Charlie Hebdo front cover was offensive to muslims. Yet this Sara Khan stated that there are many practicing muslims that would not find it offensive and would in fact find the latest cover very appropriate for supporting their faith.- An interesting point of view I thought.

ddraver

VTech wrote:

Stuff

There is a point here. I confess that this example is ripped from Stephen Fry's new book, which I was listening to on a long drive recently but there are more than a few words that are banned because they are deemed "offensive". For example, why is it offensive to say Yid rather than Jew in this sentence "I saw a wonderful stand up comic yesterday, like all Yids he was very funny" when surely it is far more offensive to say "F*king jews can't see a comedy show that isnt all full of them, bloody Nazi's didnt go far enough"

For some reason, the words in the first one are deemed worse...how?!?!?

We do not have Free Speech in Western Europe/USA, yet we are all defending it to the death in this one particular case...

ballysmate

There was a thread prompted by complaints of swearing.

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12934484&p=18468298&hilit=ballysmate#p18468298

pblakeney

ddraver wrote:

For some reason, the words in the first one are deemed worse...how?!?!?

We do not have Free Speech in Western Europe/USA, yet we are all defending it to the death in this one particular case...

The point is that it is our Countries, our civilisations, our traditions, and our rules.
If you don't like them, follow the Mayor of Rotterdam's suggestion.
There are Countries where my way of life is punishable, so I choose not to go there. The reverse applies.

ddraver

So it's ok if it's upside down and inside out as long as we ve turned it upside down and inside out?

...kay

pblakeney

ddraver wrote:

So it's ok if it's upside down and inside out as long as we ve turned it upside down and inside out?

...kay

Correct.
It is messed up, there is a lot of things that I don't like, and it is certainly not utopia.
If you know where utopia is please let me know.

Edit:- I meant to add. We have the right to protest for change the things that are upside down and inside out, try that in some other Countries.

mamba80

ddraver wrote:

So it's ok if it's upside down and inside out as long as we ve turned it upside down and inside out?

...kay

When in Rome......

finchy

ddraver wrote:

For example, why is it offensive to say Yid rather than Jew in this sentence "I saw a wonderful stand up comic yesterday, like all Yids he was very funny" when surely it is far more offensive to say "F*king jews can't see a comedy show that isnt all full of them, bloody Nazi's didnt go far enough"

For some reason, the words in the first one are deemed worse...how?!?!?

We do not have Free Speech in Western Europe/USA, yet we are all defending it to the death in this one particular case...

You're right, that second one really is offensive. I can't stand incorrectly used apostrophe's. Sorry.

To be honest, though, I think this is a bad example. Saying that the Nazis didn't go far enough with the Jews is bound to cause far more offence than calling them Yids.

ddraver

johnfinch wrote:

You're right, that second one really is offensive. I can't stand incorrectly used apostrophe's. Sorry.

Oh Damn and Blast!!

bianchimoon

johnfinch wrote:

ddraver wrote:

For example, why is it offensive to say Yid rather than Jew in this sentence "I saw a wonderful stand up comic yesterday, like all Yids he was very funny" when surely it is far more offensive to say "F*king jews can't see a comedy show that isnt all full of them, bloody Nazi's didnt go far enough"

For some reason, the words in the first one are deemed worse...how?!?!?

We do not have Free Speech in Western Europe/USA, yet we are all defending it to the death in this one particular case...

You're right, that second one really is offensive. I can't stand incorrectly used apostrophe's. Sorry.

To be honest, though, I think this is a bad example. Saying that the Nazis didn't go far enough with the Jews is bound to cause far more offence than calling them Yids.

I'm very confused, Spurs fans can self describe themselves as 'Yids' and that's ok, but anyone else calls them it it's an insult? What if they call them it and it's not motivated by hate?

Quote" The debate was reignited yesterday, when David Cameron weighed in. “There’s a difference between Spurs fans self describing themselves as yids and someone calling someone a yid as an insult,” he told the Jewish Chronicle. “You have to be motivated by hate. Hate speech should be prosecuted – but only when it’s motivated by hate.”

bdu98252

I think ISIS and Al Queda should have some business decision making process before setting out on their next great plan. In this case they have killed a number of people and increased the circulation of the paper which they find so offensive by a factor of 10. They have even managed to drive international sales in new regions. This is the definition of an own goal.

I would offer my services but I think they may be a rather big bunch of twats with limited IQ.

ddraver

Is it though?

Or have they encouraged the wider publication of something that will p1ss off even more young dissafected muslims and so provide more fodder for them?

Essentially, who has called who's bluff..?

pblakeney

ddraver wrote:

Is it though?

Or have they encouraged the wider publication of something that will p1ss off even more young dissafected muslims and so provide more fodder for them?

Essentially, who has called who's bluff..?

Extremists threatened cartoonists worldwide.
Danish cartoonists thought they were bluffing, and lost.
French cartoonists called their bluff, and lost.
French cartoonists decided not to back down regardless.

Turns out that no one was bluffing.

finchy

Another way of looking at it is that terrorists want to rule by threats of violence. Charlie Hebdo and ordinary French people have shown that they are not going to give in to these threats. So you might say that the extremists have lost.

Pross

Think they missed a trick, a better front page cartoon would have been an Islamist terrorist holding a smoking gun and with a big hole in their foot. It would have said far more whilst also being less of an incitement.

pblakeney

Pross wrote:

Think they missed a trick, a better front page cartoon would have been an Islamist terrorist holding a smoking gun and with a big hole in their foot. It would have said far more whilst also being less of an incitement.

Forward that idea. They might run with it. Pun unintended.
Good one!

finchy

I don't think that particular idiom would work in French.

Finesilver24

mamba80 wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

However, I am astounded at the double standards of the media. While pontificating about censorship and how it should be acceptable to offend people, you can't say c*nt on primetime TV, in case it causes offence. So, a muslim is allowed to be offended by the portrayal of a sacred (but made up) character, but I am protected from offence by banning a naughty word. Bizarre.

But you are not protected from offence, i think there may be other reasons why using certain words before 9 oclock are banned, children watch tv and they have no choice on the language they hear but how can it be double standards? there is almost nothing i can think off that isnt aired on the media, either on TV or other forms of entertainment, such as theatre or books, regardless of the offence it might cause, it s just that with the Muslim faith, unlike any other faith, we have to moderate our behavior (totally and not just at certain times) basically because if we dont, there is the possibility of death, the censorship is via fear

I am protected from offence, both legally through race relations acts (and equivalents limiting your language towards me), and formally (through company policies about what they deem acceptable). The BBC got rid of its old school comics because they were considered to be offensive. While the BBC chooses to self-censor so it doesn't cause offence, it also reports that in the West there should be a right to free speech for everybody; do as I say not as I do. There isn't a right to free speech, it's often banned under UK law and self-censored by companies and individuals.

ukiboy

bianchimoon wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

ddraver wrote:

For example, why is it offensive to say Yid rather than Jew in this sentence "I saw a wonderful stand up comic yesterday, like all Yids he was very funny" when surely it is far more offensive to say "F*king jews can't see a comedy show that isnt all full of them, bloody Nazi's didnt go far enough"

For some reason, the words in the first one are deemed worse...how?!?!?

We do not have Free Speech in Western Europe/USA, yet we are all defending it to the death in this one particular case...

You're right, that second one really is offensive. I can't stand incorrectly used apostrophe's. Sorry.

To be honest, though, I think this is a bad example. Saying that the Nazis didn't go far enough with the Jews is bound to cause far more offence than calling them Yids.

I'm very confused, Spurs fans can self describe themselves as 'Yids' and that's ok, but anyone else calls them it it's an insult? What if they call them it and it's not motivated by hate?

Quote" The debate was reignited yesterday, when David Cameron weighed in. “There’s a difference between Spurs fans self describing themselves as yids and someone calling someone a yid as an insult,” he told the Jewish Chronicle. “You have to be motivated by hate. Hate speech should be prosecuted – but only when it’s motivated by hate.”

Freedom of speech is only allowed if it fits in with the prevailing zeitgeist, which at the moment is left wing, liberal and secular. Come back in a hundred years time and it'll most likely be something different, depending upon the prevailing fashions at the time...

ukiboy

Which may mean that the BBC will then allow repeats of 'It aint't half hot mum'!

Finesilver24

bianchimoon wrote:

Quote" The debate was reignited yesterday, when David Cameron weighed in. “There’s a difference between Spurs fans self describing themselves as yids and someone calling someone a yid as an insult,” he told the Jewish Chronicle. “You have to be motivated by hate. Hate speech should be prosecuted – but only when it’s motivated by hate.”

So when does free speech become hate speech? Where on the 'spectrum of hate' does word turn from a mere insult into hatred? As there's no definition and it would be determined by the CPS (whether the bring the case to court) and a jury (whether somebody is guilty), it's a matter of judgement and taste.

There is a famous case of the Police trying to prosecute a Student for saying to a Police Officer: ""Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?". CPS refused to prosecute, so the case was dropped. The Policeman took offence on behalf of somebody else, assuming that it was homophobic. I don't think the horse was that bothered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 606022.stm

VTech

Pross wrote:

Think they missed a trick, a better front page cartoon would have been an Islamist terrorist holding a smoking gun and with a big hole in their foot. It would have said far more whilst also being less of an incitement.

Exactly.
Instead they chose to cause even further offence knowing full well what the outcome could be.