French teacher killed

1…457910…12

Comments

  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.

    That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.

    She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.




    And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.

    If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.

    Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
    I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.
    I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.
    OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?
    Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.

    There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.

    So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.

    1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
    2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
    3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.

    As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
    above is possibly the most uninformed naive post on this whole thread.
  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    I think both you and Nick are mistakenly viewing acts of terrorism as religiously motivated vigilantism. In both situations, the images are just a pretext to launch the attack. Reports of that attack are then used to fire up/distract sympathetic people around the world as can be seen at the moment with the ridiculous calls for boycotts of French produce. The history of the the last few years shows that a lack of offensive cartoons does not result in fewer terrorist incidents.

    If someone suffers violence because their actions have been deemed blasphemous, I would take that as a given that the violence was religiously motivated.
    Blasphemy is pretty much what it says on the tin.
    I'm suggesting that the first thought was to look for an opportunity to instigate a terrorist incident and that the (spurious) justification of blasphemy was secondary to this. When there isn't a convenient cartoon to avenge, followers of IS are quite happy to drive through a crowd or stab passersby anyway. If the teacher hadn't held that lesson it would have been someone else.
    So if the perpetrators of an outrage, or any crime come to that, say they did it because (insert reason), you will choose not to believe them?
    What would they have to do to convince you? Go out do it again and turn round and say, "Told you so!" ?




    I imagine theyd have to keep on doing it until they did it to him, and then possibly after that too :)
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,628
    david37 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.

    That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.

    She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.




    And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.

    If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.

    Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
    I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.
    I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.
    OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?
    Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.

    There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.

    So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.

    1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
    2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
    3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.

    As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
    above is possibly the most uninformed naive post on this whole thread.
    Inform me then.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    rjsterry said:

    david37 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.

    That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.

    She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.




    And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.

    If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.

    Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
    I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.
    I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.
    OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?
    Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.

    There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.

    So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.

    1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
    2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
    3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.

    As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
    above is possibly the most uninformed naive post on this whole thread.
    Inform me then.
    At the moment you are an apologist for Islamic terrorism, banging on with judgemental liberal bigotry and decrying alternative view points like an anti brexiteer.



  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,861
    Where's that 'ignore' feature when you need it?
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,628
    david37 said:

    rjsterry said:

    david37 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.

    That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.

    She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.




    And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.

    If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.

    Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
    I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.
    I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.
    OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?
    Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.

    There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.

    So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.

    1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
    2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
    3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.

    As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
    above is possibly the most uninformed naive post on this whole thread.
    Inform me then.
    At the moment you are an apologist for Islamic terrorism, banging on with judgemental liberal bigotry and decrying alternative view points like an anti brexiteer.



    Oh, OK. Thanks for your input.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,224
    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    Possibly you're loading rather a lot on one security guard making one bad decision, and ignoring the multiple and much bigger errors made by the security services in that incident. Also not sure why you are trying to shoehorn that into a thread about a different incident and a different issue. The French authorities have been pretty unequivocal in their support of free speech, including a public vigil (despite Nick not noticing it). How is that being cowed?

    I did notice it. I mean I live in France so how could I not? However placards saying "je suis Samuel" or "je suis Charlie " change nothing. Republishing does ( to be fair a mayor in Southern France projected the images onto buildings). All this for cartoons that I find pretty silly..
    Well I did wonder why you said there hadn't been any protest. If that protest does nothing (and I would argue that it has), then surely neither does some talking head arguing for blasphemy laws on telly.
    What I actually meant was that there was more protest worldwide from Muslims about Macron's comments (that he wouldn't condemn the cartoons) than there was from Muslims about someone beheading a teacher in the name of their religion. It's exactly the kind of attitude Nabila Ramdani has.

    A bit of perspective would be a good idea. Michael Portillo was right about the period of silence.
    So you're saying that she absolutely had the right to say it, but you think it would have been more respectful if she didn't?
    Yes that's it. Just like the debates on free speech after Charlie Hebdo. It might make people think that Nabila Ramdani doesn't have much sympathy for those murdered if she carries on.
    I agree with you.

    I have the same position regarding the cartoons.
  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    edited October 2020
    rjsterry said:

    david37 said:

    rjsterry said:

    david37 said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    nickice said:

    kingstongraham said:

    If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.

    That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.

    She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.




    And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.

    If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.

    Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
    I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.
    I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.
    OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?
    Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.

    There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.

    So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.

    1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
    2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
    3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.

    As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
    above is possibly the most uninformed naive post on this whole thread.
    Inform me then.
    At the moment you are an apologist for Islamic terrorism, banging on with judgemental liberal bigotry and decrying alternative view points like an anti brexiteer.



    Oh, OK. Thanks for your input.
    Just glad I can help. Here is more Islamo terrorism it seems the punishment for offending the muslim communities sensitive side is to rain down beheadings and stabbings on the non muslim community.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    david37 said:

    Here is more Islamo terrorism it seems the punishment for offending the muslim communities sensitive side is to rain down beheadings and stabbings on the non muslim community.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957


    And yet the Muslim people I know are abhorred by this sort of thing. Gotta be careful, lumping everyone into convenient categories.

    Bloody cyclists.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Ben6899 said:

    david37 said:

    Here is more Islamo terrorism it seems the punishment for offending the muslim communities sensitive side is to rain down beheadings and stabbings on the non muslim community.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957


    And yet the Muslim people I know are abhorred by this sort of thing. Gotta be careful, lumping everyone into convenient categories.

    Bloody cyclists.
    Looking at another thread it seems like American's are fair game though and the site's self appointed racism police give it a free pass.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,628
    edited October 2020
    shortfall said:

    Ben6899 said:

    david37 said:

    Here is more Islamo terrorism it seems the punishment for offending the muslim communities sensitive side is to rain down beheadings and stabbings on the non muslim community.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957


    And yet the Muslim people I know are abhorred by this sort of thing. Gotta be careful, lumping everyone into convenient categories.

    Bloody cyclists.
    Looking at another thread it seems like American's are fair game though and the site's self appointed racism police give it a free pass.
    What, two idiots posting national stereotypes at each other? Gotta say it feels a bit trivial when discussing coordinated terrorist attacks.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • swjohnsey
    swjohnsey Posts: 263
    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,628
    I must say that the prime minister is really helping the situation. Nothing like an authoritarian politician pulling the 'protector of the faith' shtick to distract from their own inadequacy.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    swjohnsey said:

    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.

    I'm sure it is just a coincidence. ;)
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    The Nice attack is really shocking. A clear attack on Christians (and not the first). A 70-year-old woman was in there praying and he slit her throat so badly she was almost decapitated. Awful stuff.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    ballysmate said:

    swjohnsey said:

    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.

    I'm sure it is just a coincidence. ;)
    Probably a result of him feeling alienated... Definitely the fault of French society though and probably some cartoons somewhere.
  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    edited October 2020
    nickice said:

    The Nice attack is really shocking. A clear attack on Christians (and not the first). A 70-year-old woman was in there praying and he slit her throat so badly she was almost decapitated. Awful stuff.

    As i understand it the muslims are the true victims here
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    shortfall said:

    Ben6899 said:

    david37 said:

    Here is more Islamo terrorism it seems the punishment for offending the muslim communities sensitive side is to rain down beheadings and stabbings on the non muslim community.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957


    And yet the Muslim people I know are abhorred by this sort of thing. Gotta be careful, lumping everyone into convenient categories.

    Bloody cyclists.
    Looking at another thread it seems like American's are fair game though and the site's self appointed racism police give it a free pass.
    Behave.

    "swjohnsey" is clearly a parody account. No one's kicking around these fora, freely offending Americans (or any other nationality).
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,628
    nickice said:

    ballysmate said:

    swjohnsey said:

    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.

    I'm sure it is just a coincidence. ;)
    Probably a result of him feeling alienated... Definitely the fault of French society though and probably some cartoons somewhere.
    Always pays to wait for details to be reported. The murderer travelled to France less than a month ago.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,628
    david37 said:

    nickice said:

    The Nice attack is really shocking. A clear attack on Christians (and not the first). A 70-year-old woman was in there praying and he slit her throat so badly she was almost decapitated. Awful stuff.

    As i understand it the muslims are the true victims here
    Not sure what gave you that idea.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,570
    rjsterry said:

    david37 said:

    nickice said:

    The Nice attack is really shocking. A clear attack on Christians (and not the first). A 70-year-old woman was in there praying and he slit her throat so badly she was almost decapitated. Awful stuff.

    As i understand it the muslims are the true victims here
    Not sure what gave you that idea.
    I suspect the idea preexisted the event. It's hard to take anyone seriously who talks about "the muslims" .
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,570
    nickice said:

    ballysmate said:

    swjohnsey said:

    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.

    I'm sure it is just a coincidence. ;)
    Probably a result of him feeling alienated... Definitely the fault of French society though and probably some cartoons somewhere.
    French society is very tolerant though. Defends the right to depict the prophet as a terrorist, but can't cope with a burkhini on the beach.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    david37 said:

    nickice said:

    The Nice attack is really shocking. A clear attack on Christians (and not the first). A 70-year-old woman was in there praying and he slit her throat so badly she was almost decapitated. Awful stuff.

    As i understand it the muslims are the true victims here
    Not sure what gave you that idea.
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    ballysmate said:

    swjohnsey said:

    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.

    I'm sure it is just a coincidence. ;)
    Probably a result of him feeling alienated... Definitely the fault of French society though and probably some cartoons somewhere.
    Always pays to wait for details to be reported. The murderer travelled to France less than a month ago.
    Tbf, I was mocking the usual reaction.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    TheBigBean said:

    nickice said:

    ballysmate said:

    swjohnsey said:

    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.

    I'm sure it is just a coincidence. ;)
    Probably a result of him feeling alienated... Definitely the fault of French society though and probably some cartoons somewhere.
    French society is very tolerant though. Defends the right to depict the prophet as a terrorist, but can't cope with a burkhini on the beach.
    This is a fair point: France doesn't particularly believe in freedom of expression. The answer is not to limit it further. The answer is to remove laws on holocaust denial and hate speech etc.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,586
    nickice said:

    TheBigBean said:

    nickice said:

    ballysmate said:

    swjohnsey said:

    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.

    I'm sure it is just a coincidence. ;)
    Probably a result of him feeling alienated... Definitely the fault of French society though and probably some cartoons somewhere.
    French society is very tolerant though. Defends the right to depict the prophet as a terrorist, but can't cope with a burkhini on the beach.
    This is a fair point: France doesn't particularly believe in freedom of expression. The answer is not to limit it further. The answer is to remove laws on holocaust denial and hate speech etc.
    What practical reason is there to remove the holocaust denial law?

    Why is that even on your radar?
    _
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rick_chasey said:

    nickice said:

    TheBigBean said:

    nickice said:

    ballysmate said:

    swjohnsey said:

    So according to the American press some guy killed three in France with a knife and he was shouting some phrase in Arabic.

    I'm sure it is just a coincidence. ;)
    Probably a result of him feeling alienated... Definitely the fault of French society though and probably some cartoons somewhere.
    French society is very tolerant though. Defends the right to depict the prophet as a terrorist, but can't cope with a burkhini on the beach.
    This is a fair point: France doesn't particularly believe in freedom of expression. The answer is not to limit it further. The answer is to remove laws on holocaust denial and hate speech etc.
    What practical reason is there to remove the holocaust denial law?

    Why is that even on your radar?
    Because it's used, with at least some justification, as an argument as to why depictions of Mohammed should be banned. Once you limit freedom of expression in one particular area, it's hard to justify not restricting it in other areas.


  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,586
    edited October 2020
    ‘kin ‘ell. I am never going to respond to you again.

    I do fear for your minority students
    _
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rick_chasey said:

    ‘kin ‘ell. I am never going to respond to you again.

    I do fear for your minority students

    There is some good news today!

    Of course you clearly don't understand the point I'm making but what's new?
  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    david37 said:

    nickice said:

    The Nice attack is really shocking. A clear attack on Christians (and not the first). A 70-year-old woman was in there praying and he slit her throat so badly she was almost decapitated. Awful stuff.

    As i understand it the muslims are the true victims here
    Not sure what gave you that idea.
    I suspect the idea preexisted the event. It's hard to take anyone seriously who talks about "the muslims" .
    Now now Bean thats a little bigoted isnt it?

    A person blindly and obstinately devoted to a particular set of ideas, creed or political party, and dismissive towards others


  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    ‘kin ‘ell. I am never going to respond to you again.

    I do fear for your minority students

    There is some good news today!

    Of course you clearly don't understand the point I'm making but what's new?
    One for the trivial things that cheer you up thread.😄

Categories