Charlie Hebdo

tangled_metal

+1 for Laurentian's post.

How can we in a civilised world view deliberate and harmful offence to a law abiding majority of a particular social/religious group a fair expression of freedom of speech? You can not take the actions of the minority of extremists as an excuse to target offence and a majority. Well that is my opinion. However in this modern age nothing is sacrisant even life so I guess I should accept I am fighting against the tide in this.

rick_chasey

In fairness, if you want freedom of speech, the bikeradar forum isn't really it.

There's lots of stuff that isn't allowed to be said here, that's perfectly legal in society.

viewtopic.php?f=40034&t=12846748&p=17546828#p17546828

Seems to me to be fair to let the employees of BR, who are ultimately responsible for the content of their website, to choose.

If it was my website I'd be happy for it to be up, but it's not, so it's not my decision.

If you want unfettered free speech, go to 4chan or something.

ddraver

we might also remember that this is a bicycle forum...

ballysmate

laurentian wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I appreciate the publishers concern for their and their employees safety and can understand to some degree their response.
But in a wider context, doesn't it show that Islam is receiving greater consideration than any other group?
No one baulks at publishing a cartoon of Jesus for instance. In fact I have seen such on this site. although possibly offensive to Christians. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist I have no truck with Jesus nor Mohammed.
When is this country going to grow a pair and stop pandering to one group lest they cause offence?

The point is that the depiction of The Prophet is specifically forbidden and offensive in Islam (as far as I understand it). The depiction of Jesus is absolutely not forbidden by Christianity.

Depiction of Mohammed is offensive and upsetting to all Muslims - not just the nutters with the Semtex and AK47s. For that reason, I question why anyone would want to publish the cartoon(s) and deliberately upset about 1.6 billion of their fellow human beings. Whether they are Jihadis or peace loving moderates (as I'm sure the vast majority are) - It's hardly the way to build bridges.

I personally haven't got a problem with annoying, insulting, lampooning or satirizing and, indeed eradicating those that would kill and maim in the name of their God (or anything else for that matter) its the deliberate and willful upsetting of the majority, not the extreme minority that I have a problem with.

So the dead cartoonists brought it on themselves?
As I have said earlier, religion almost demands satire and if Islam is to be exempt, perhaps you are saying that it is not compatible with a modern liberal democracy?

laurentian

Ballysmate wrote:

I find parts of the Koran and I have to say, the Bible offensive.
How many copies of these books are published and circulated.
If you are to ban the publications of pictures of prophets and religious icons, can we not have these offensive books withdrawn as they are offensive to atheists? Of course not. But where would you draw the line?

I'm not suggesting anything is banned. I'm not suggesting that the right to publish whatever anyone wants to is removed. I'm certainly not saying that Charlie Hebdo, Private Eye, The Guardian or whatever should be forbidden from publishing anything, even these cartoons.

I'm just trying to understand why they would choose to. What is the thought process? What is the aim? What do the publishers want to happen as a result of publishing something that they know will be upsetting to a huge proportion of humanity?

Just because I have the right to do something doesn't mean I should do it. The right should be fiercely guarded, the responsibility valued and respected.

arran77

Whether it's forbidden or not to depict him it does not justify what those animals did.

I think the problem is that those people claim to be doing what they do because their bible (whatever they call it) says it's justified but they interpret it to suit their actions.

These people do not represent the majority so I kind of see the point that attacking the Prophet only really attacks the innocent majority but then I can also see why the French are doing it.

arran77

Rick Chasey wrote:

In fairness, if you want freedom of speech, the bikeradar forum isn't really it.

Biggest understatement ever

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

In fairness, if you want freedom of speech, the bikeradar forum isn't really it.

There's lots of stuff that isn't allowed to be said here, that's perfectly legal in society.

viewtopic.php?f=40034&t=12846748&p=17546828#p17546828

Seems to me to be fair to let the employees of BR, who are ultimately responsible for the content of their website, to choose.

If it was my website I'd be happy for it to be up, but it's not, so it's not my decision.

If you want unfettered free speech, go to 4chan or something.

We seem to be in agreement.

Re: Charlie Hebdo
Postby Ballysmate » Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:50 am

I appreciate the publishers concern for their and their employees safety and can understand to some degree their response.

laurentian

Ballysmate wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I appreciate the publishers concern for their and their employees safety and can understand to some degree their response.
But in a wider context, doesn't it show that Islam is receiving greater consideration than any other group?
No one baulks at publishing a cartoon of Jesus for instance. In fact I have seen such on this site. although possibly offensive to Christians. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist I have no truck with Jesus nor Mohammed.
When is this country going to grow a pair and stop pandering to one group lest they cause offence?

The point is that the depiction of The Prophet is specifically forbidden and offensive in Islam (as far as I understand it). The depiction of Jesus is absolutely not forbidden by Christianity.

Depiction of Mohammed is offensive and upsetting to all Muslims - not just the nutters with the Semtex and AK47s. For that reason, I question why anyone would want to publish the cartoon(s) and deliberately upset about 1.6 billion of their fellow human beings. Whether they are Jihadis or peace loving moderates (as I'm sure the vast majority are) - It's hardly the way to build bridges.

I personally haven't got a problem with annoying, insulting, lampooning or satirizing and, indeed eradicating those that would kill and maim in the name of their God (or anything else for that matter) its the deliberate and willful upsetting of the majority, not the extreme minority that I have a problem with.

So the dead cartoonists brought it on themselves?
As I have said earlier, religion almost demands satire and if Islam is to be exempt, perhaps you are saying that it is not compatible with a modern liberal democracy?

If you go back a few pages, you will see that I categorically said that there is "zero justification" for the killings. For the record, in my view, they certainly did not bring it upon themselves.

The point I am trying to make does not concern the killers or would-be killers. I am trying to understand why organisations would deliberately want to upset members of the Muslim religion

Velonutter

I have to agree with Rick, as repulsive as the killings in Paris were, it is for the owners not us to make the decision whether to allow it or not.

None of us, as is in the forum users can put any lives at risk through discussions on "Immediate's" forums.

It may well be that Immediate don't have a problem with the images, but just because we have an opinion doesn't mean that the owners of the site share the same thoughts and by them allowing it may deem in the eyes of the terrorists that Immediate sanction such images.

pblakeney

laurentian wrote:

The point is that the depiction of The Prophet is specifically forbidden and offensive in Islam (as far as I understand it).

If depiction is forbidden then how do we know what he looks like?
The Charlie Hebdo front cover could be any Eastern man with a keffiyeh and a beard.
Are we not allowed to show a keffiyeh and a beard any more?

Is this Mohammed? Or, just a random Yemeni man?
Is it offensive?

tangled_metal

"Every right implies a responsibility; Every opportunity, an obligation, Every possession, a duty." - John D. Rockefeller

Right of freedom of speech implies a responsibility for what you say under that freedom. Whilst I do not condone the terrorism or believe Hebdo brought this on themselves I do feel they have a responsibility for the offence caused. If that is acceptable according to their viewpoint then to others it is not. Depsite being an atheist do not find some of the cartoon images published by Hebdo as showing responsibility for their freedoms. In my opinion I find little responsibility shown in their publications. I guess the thin line between offence and poking fun at someone or something is a personal matter. We each have our thresholds.

BTW how can anyone disapprove of this site making their own decisions on whether to allow the re-publication of images that may offend? I would wager the moderators have removed images a lot on this site over the years without significant disapproval. Perhaps people view these images as having more significance after the shocking deaths due to terrorism than before. I am sure most would not have the moral outrage over links to these images being removed say a month ago.

ballysmate

It is not necessarily deliberately trying to offend a certain group.The Islamic religion espoused as peaceful being hijacked by murderers needs satire. The target isn't the majority, it is those who have hijacked it.
There are also Christian groups worthy of satire. Those in the Bible belt of the USA for instance repeatedly get mocked, as do those who believe the earth to be 6000 years old. Are these to be exempt from satire?

finchy

Charlie Hebdo weren't publishing the images just to cause offence. They were publishing them reactively to show that the press should not be cowed by threats of violence.

tangled_metal

But is it the case that Mohammed has come back and is one of those extremists? What I question is using a cartoon of Mohammed rather than one of the leaders of these extremist terrist groups is kind of misdirecting their satirical wit. Perhaps a cartoon poking fun at the images of extremism would not offend but would get the point across as explained so clearly by Ballysmate. The aim expressed in Ballysmate's post I wholeheartedly agree with, I just question whether Hebdo has the right target in their sights.

BTW I also agree with Christian extremists being a valid target and all the other religious or non-religious extremists too. I learnt yesterday that there are even Buddhist extremist terrorists in Myanmar!! I always thought that was a peaceful religion but I guess that is naive considering how violent mankind really is. BTW bible belt extremists should be targetted more often by hebdo I reckon. There are so many reasons why they are worthy of ridicule. Indeed other Christian sects too, However I would prefer a targetted satire not a blunt, impact trauma like cartoons of Mohammed was. If the target is say terrorist/extremists or those believing in flat earth or intelligent design then perhaps images of their most well known proponents being ridiculed rather than their god, figurehead or most revered prophet. To labour that point I could suggest an image of God drawing up one of the main supporters of intelligent design on a blueprint is poking fun at the person proposing that ridiculous idea, It has a representative of the religion in the god image but the fun is directed at the idea and one of the proponents of it. Not a good cartoon idea but then I am no creative working on a satirical publication but it kind of explains my distinction.

BTW I agree they might not have published them to offend but I'm sure that they would have been aware of the offence. Directed satire would show that you are not cowed better than the blunderbus image of Mohammed that does offend all, including those Muslims who share your views on Jihadist terrorists.

VTech

These people are acting idiotically.
The front cover is offensive to people, they know that yet are willing to publish this which in my opinion shows both poor taste and lack of compassion.
People have died because of a previous publication so why do another ?
I tell you why, because they know people will buy (3000000 copies printed)

I am not bothered by a picture of a religious person but many are and for that reason it is an act that is beyond words, what are they trying to prove ? I am shocked that the government watchdogs countries have for these sorts of things are allowing this to go ahead because wether you agree with what happened last week or not (and I mean that in the sense that although I don't, there are others that do) this will 100% not help matter.

A wise man once said, "an eye for an eye leaves the world full of blind people"

veronese68

VTech wrote:

These people are acting idiotically.
The front cover is offensive to people, they know that yet are willing to publish this which in my opinion shows both poor taste and lack of compassion.
People have died because of a previous publication so why do another ?
I tell you why, because they know people will buy (3000000 copies printed)

No matter how high the cover price I very much doubt anyone there thinks 12 lives is a fair exchange for sales of 3,000,000.

VTech

Veronese68 wrote:

VTech wrote:

These people are acting idiotically.
The front cover is offensive to people, they know that yet are willing to publish this which in my opinion shows both poor taste and lack of compassion.
People have died because of a previous publication so why do another ?
I tell you why, because they know people will buy (3000000 copies printed)

No matter how high the cover price I very much doubt anyone there thinks 12 lives is a fair exchange for sales of 3,000,000.

I never suggested it was but I do think that purposefully provoking people who you know will take these matters to a level you couldn't even dream up is foolish.

I will give you an example.

Your in the local pub and you know everyone.
One guy is a timid fellow and bumps in to you, you say "bloody el mate" and nothing more happens.

You know another guy who will put a glass in your face as soon as look at you and he bumps in to you, do you say the same thing ?

I stand by my thoughts on this publication being foolish, it is aimed at provocation and provocation alone and that is stupid.

arran77

VTech wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

VTech wrote:

These people are acting idiotically.
The front cover is offensive to people, they know that yet are willing to publish this which in my opinion shows both poor taste and lack of compassion.
People have died because of a previous publication so why do another ?
I tell you why, because they know people will buy (3000000 copies printed)

No matter how high the cover price I very much doubt anyone there thinks 12 lives is a fair exchange for sales of 3,000,000.

I never suggested it was but I do think that purposefully provoking people who you know will take these matters to a level you couldn't even dream up is foolish.

I will give you an example.

Your in the local pub and you know everyone.
One guy is a timid fellow and bumps in to you, you say "bloody el mate" and nothing more happens.

You know another guy who will put a glass in your face as soon as look at you and he bumps in to you, do you say the same thing ?

I stand by my thoughts on this publication being foolish, it is aimed at provocation and provocation alone and that is stupid.

:roll:

slowmart

The reality of the situation is multi layered and intertwined.

Regardless of Charlie Hebdo the extremists would have launched an attack on France regardless. Look at the rise in Islamic terrorism in the world over the last 18 months which cannot be inadvertent which was not linked to any imagery

In one incident, Ozar Hatorah school in Toulousean an Islamic terrorist chased and shot an 8 year old girl in the head as it was alleged he couldn't find a soldier to kill so he attacked a Jewish school.

So looking at the "cause" is on the surface understandable but when these terrorists have such a fluid plans and a massively diverse target the need to look and understand the trigger for these actions drops away and the focus should be on the environment and trigger points for radicalisation

Emotion should never form part of the decision making process and while undeniably emotionally satisfying to many the opportunity to engage with the Muslim community, offer reassurance that we see these terrorists as Islamic extremists rather than Muslim. It's ok to wave the freedom of speech flag but the debate should be about deploying better tactical tools in fighting this ideology effectively.

Publishing the images in question dilutes these actions. IMHO.

rick_chasey

Alright.

Green light from BR, with a few caveats.

BonnyCH

Hello everyone,

We want to clarify that we have not stopped the cover of Charlie Hebdo from being posted within the forum. We understand this is a topic that many people will want to discuss, but we must ask that you all treat each other with respect when posting about this.

Please remember that we are a mixed, international community using this site, but we're all here for the same reason: to share experiences with cycling and cycling related issues. We don't want to censor off-topic discussions, but we must also be responsible about what we post. Please consider other members before posting offensive comments. As with the general day-to-day life of the forum, we'll remove any comments we feel are offensive or go against the site rules (which can be read here: viewtopic.php?f=40033&t=12846748&p=17546828#p17546828 ).

If there are any specific issues please share them with us using our feedback form: https://bikeradarux.typeform.com/to/lWJzsC

Bonny

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

we might also remember that this is a bicycle forum...

You'll get extremists complaining that Mohammad isn't wearing a helmet then.

Frank the tank

Anybody on here buying this weeks copy?

slowmart

And as night follows day…..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... f-war.html


The protection this false muslim is afforded under the laws of this land would not be reciprocated under an Islamic state. :evil:

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

And as night follows day…..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... f-war.html


The protection this false muslim is afforded under the laws of this land would not be reciprocated under an Islamic state. :evil:

why is he false?

VTech

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

And as night follows day…..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... f-war.html


The protection this false muslim is afforded under the laws of this land would not be reciprocated under an Islamic state. :evil:

why is he false?

The problem we have is that from what I gather, you just can't make pictures of Mohamed and if you do it is a very bad thing so being the good honourable people we are we should understand how this would effect many people and refrain from doing so.
I travel to the middle east a lot and am yet to meet a bad "muslim" although the news here and in the USA would have you believe the opposite. Media hype is very bad both here and the USA and although I realise that their are very bad people who carry out these atrocities, I am also not stupid enough to think that all muslims think the same way.

This really isn't a race or religion matter, its just a few people using that as an excuse.

The magazine are making a huge mistake, any logically thinking person can see this but instead of logic, people are using anger to make their decisions which is something I have done in the past year for a personal matter and all that has happened is that I've ended up in a worse place than when I started.

Much better to not publish, view, think about this publication imo.

imposter2.0

Frank the tank wrote:

Anybody on here buying this weeks copy?

or indeed any other copy previously..?

In fact - how many people had even heard of 'Charlie Hebdo' before last week..??

Velonutter

VTech wrote:

......I stand by my thoughts on this publication being foolish, it is aimed at provocation and provocation alone and that is stupid.

Agree with Vtech on this one.

ballysmate

Can't imagine Boris doing this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ve-TV.html