Paris Charlie Hebdo shooting

[ankitj]

^You think only mocking of Islam is allowed? So many stand up comedians and TV talk shows lampoon Christianity. It's not like there is no case anywhere against people for insulting Islam or they don't get banned/fired. Heard of Salman Rushdie? Taslima Nasreen? You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[sledger]

French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe - Telegraph

Interesting article where an ex Charlie Hebdo mocked Judaism and as result was fired for it because he refused to apologise.

Why is mocking allowed on one religion and not another?

Mocking any religion is "allowed". Your digging of this article is neither relevant nor helpful to the present issue.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I was referring to the newspaper example. Why the double standards by the same newspaper?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I did not dig for it, I was sent the link by someone and thought that it would be interesting to post it.

 

[sledger]

I was referring to the newspaper example. Why the double standards by the same newspaper?

There are no double standards other than those you have imagined.

 

[ankitj]

I was referring to the newspaper example. Why the double standards by the same newspaper?

I dont know. May be it is a flawed newspaper. Doesn't matter because it is a tiny one. Loss of 12 lives is a far bigger issue here. Not clear what point you were trying to make in a thread that's about killing of innocents, and not about praising the newspaper.

 

[sledger]

I dont know. May be it is a flawed newspaper. Doesn't matter because it is a tiny one. Loss of 12 lives is a far bigger issue here. Not clear what point you were trying to make in a thread that's about killing of innocents, and not about praising the newspaper.

To clarify my above point about there being no double standard, it would probably be useful for me to outline the following.

The laws within Europe pertaining to freedom of expression entitle everyone to hold opinions, and receive and impart information as they please. There is a caveat, however, that states that these freedoms may be subject to restrictions if a certain expression is likely to inflame certain social and political tensions etc... Given the events of the early to mid twentieth century, and the atrocities committed against Jewish people, there is no issue that is more capable of inflaming such tensions than is making unacceptable remarks about Jews. It is for these reasons, that France, and most other countries in mainland Europe, give very short shrift to publications that deny the Holocaust and suchlike. For similar reasons, publications regarding the Catholic Church receive analagous treatment in parts of Ireland.

Now, frankly, I think this caveat on freedom of expression is pretty dire, and is not really justifiable. Nonethless, this is what the law is. To suggest it in any way creates a prima facie disparity between the treament of different religions would be ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest. Hence, the suggestion that the lampooning of some religions is ok, and that the lampooning of others is categorically banned, is bilge.

 

[andmark]

I was referring to the newspaper example. Why the double standards by the same newspaper?

But even if there are double standards (and I'd say there probably is), what relevance is it to this where people have died.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

To clarify my above point about there being no double standard, it would probably be useful for me to outline the following.

The laws within Europe pertaining to freedom of expression entitle everyone to hold opinions, and receive and impart information as they please. There is a caveat, however, that states that these freedoms may be subject to restrictions if a certain expression is likely to inflame certain social and political tensions etc... Given the events of the early to mid twentieth century, and the atrocities committed against Jewish people, there is no issue that is more capable of inflaming such tensions than is making unacceptable remarks about Jews. It is for these reasons, that France, and most other countries in mainland Europe, give very short shrift to publications that deny the Holocaust and suchlike. For similar reasons, publications regarding the Catholic Church receive analagous treatment in parts of Ireland.

Now, frankly, I think this caveat on freedom of expression is pretty dire, and is not really justifiable. Nonethless, this is what the law is. To suggest it in any way creates a prima facie disparity between the treament of different religions would be ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest. Hence, the suggestion that the lampooning of some religions is ok, and that the lampooning of others is categorically banned, is bilge.

I agree it's pretty dire.

I'm also surprised that it did not apply to the publishing of these cartoons because in the past there have been social tensions in Paris and rioting from the Muslim population due to such incidents.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

But even if there are double standards (and I'd say there probably is), what relevance is it to this where people have died.

I didn't know where else to post it.

 

[sledger]

I agree it's pretty dire.

I'm also surprised that it did not apply to the publishing of these cartoons because in the past there have been social tensions in Paris and rioting from the Muslim population due to such incidents.

There is a very high threshold required for the suspension of freedom of expression (in theory anyway), and whatever tensions there presently exist regarding Islam they are not comparable to the lasting impact had by the persecution of the Jews, this is indisputable, and so it is a fruitless comparison to make.

 

[Furball]

There is no double standard in play at all. One cartoon poked a bit of fun at a religious figure, the other made a crude joke based on a racial/religious stereotype, which is why the 2nd has seen the author in a bit of hot water.

 

[sledger]

Another thing that has irked me about all this, is that at lunchtime today I caught a small 30 second report of scores of people being killed in a town in Nigeria following an attack by miltant Islamists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30728158

I wonder how history will weigh these episodes of fundamental atrocity.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's the essense of modern terrorism, innit. Where, when, who, for what reasons, etc. These all matter more than the body count. Essentially it's small actors striking a blow against big actors. Attacks by a bunch of arseholes like Boko Haram are, whilst terrorising, more like a raid by the powerful against the powerless. It doesn't change much about the horrifying nature of the outcome but it absolutely impacts on what's remembered.

How do you think 9/11 would have been remembered had a plane dropped itself on Indian Point with the intention of, over time, killing far more people instead of ploughing into the two tallest centres of commerce? How about if, instead of trying blow up airliners like those arseholes were planning on doing over the Atlantic around 2004, they quietly released something like methyl mercury onto several planes then claimed responsibility when everyone dies months later? The end result is the same, everyone dies, and it would be far easier to smuggle a small vial of a brutally toxic but odourless chemical compound onto a plane but I would venture to say that it'd be perceived and remembered entirely differently.

 

[Top_Cat]

AFP reporting they've cornered these guys but that there are hostages.

EDIT: Reuters reporting one person was killed in taking of said hostages (still not sure how many but the official word is 'at least 1').

http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If they have hostages then this could run and run. Can't see any other outcome than more people being killed including the terrorists.

 

[Top_Cat]

If it drags it's because that's what the cops will want, control over timelines, negotiations and requests. These guys will already be pretty strung out and will surely realise there's no way out, though.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

If it drags it's because that's what the cops will want, control over timelines, negotiations and requests. These guys will already be pretty strung out and will surely realise there's no way out, though.

kinda makes them even more dangerous, doesn't it? Might prefer to go out in a blaze of glory.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, was what I was getting at. It's obviously hard to predict and why being a negotiator is such a specialist sorta job. I wouldn't want to do it... One thing you can never under-estimate is the average crook's delusional beliefs about getting pinched, but.

 

[Flem274*]

I try to imagine what it would be like to put yourself in the terrorists situation sometimes. That "oh **** what have I done" moment when you're cornered.

Such a waste.