satire or hate speech?

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

Muslima, let's get back to the subject. a satirical magazine in France published satirical cartoons on anybody and anything (if you read years of CH issues you can clearly see that but people like you do not care about the facts, they stick to their opinions that CH was just a anti-Islam racist magazine), including Islam, and they were slaughtered like animals by people who intended to punish them for "offending the Prophet". just for sport they also massacred some Jews on the side (just being Jew is apparently enough of an offense, you don't even need to draw a cartoon of Mohamed). of all the people/groups/religions that were mocked throughout the years by CH, only cartoons on Islam provoqued a massacre, and calls for censorship because the cartoons were perceived as blasphemous, so yes, some believe that they are a lot more equal than others and can impose their morals and religious beliefs on others. wink wink

Omg people, please take the time to read. I have many posts on this thread and other threads. I have repeated many times that No one deserves to die or be physically attacked because of something that they said or drew, so the only person you're having this debate with is yourself. You don't need to be convince me that murder is wrong. Having said that, if you think that the attacks were just about the drawing, and Jews, that's your prerogative but I will tell you that you are wrong, and that is my free opinion. There is over a billion of us who did not give 2 cents about what was published, 3 people did and suddenly we need to educate the Muslim savages about free speech. Free speech is not absolute, you censor yourself every single day. Next time a cop stops you, flip him off on your way out and see what happens, next time you're in a courtroom tell the judge he's a fat P.OS and next time you see your boss, tell him how much of a moron you think he is and see them if your speech is constitutionally protected. Oh at the next little league game, how about you show up drunk and tell all the other parents how crappy you think they are and see what happens. Go to Texas while you're at it, in a Hispanics neighborhood and tell them to all go back to Mexico and stop a random African American on the street and call him the N word.Whether you like it or not, we all censor free speech in the name of decency and ethics every single day, because after all, we are not barnyard animals and we have to live together.....

So you point is that satirists should self-censor to avoid provoking the ire of extremists? Instead of unconditionally condemning the extremists, you are conditionally blaming the victims by saying that they are somewhat at fault for provoking murder by offending the "ethics" of the murderers. I would like to see more Muslims unconditionally condemn this pathology in their ranks. As a Christian I am the first to condemn people who engage in violence in the name of Christianity - i.e. bombings or shootings at abortion clinics, for example. I would never qualify my condemnation by saying that the doctors and patients should have thought more carefully about not offending the "ethics" of the murderers. Because I know that these people are about the furthest thing from Christian that they could possibly be, whether or not I personally agree with their views on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.

Given Europe's role and enslavement of Africans, torture and murders of millions of Africans for decades in the name of the slave trade, maybe then, they should have made Africans or Black people a protected class and made the denial of slavery a crime punishable by law? After all, slavery has been recognized as a crime against humanity

Muslima, you really need to try harder (and I have never heard of anybody denying the historic fact of slavery, have you ever heard of anybody saying that black slaves actually came on their own to the US and were never enslaved?). I am troubled by laws that punish Holocaust deniers (and I am from Europe), but you need to understand that these laws were passed after European governments that embraced the Nazi idelogy, in Germany and elsewhere, theorized the annihilation of an entire etnic group, resulting in ther metodical extermination of about 6 millions people. in some countries Jews were wiped out, in France about 1 fourth of the jewish population was killed. This kind of ideology is still alive in Europe.

[Muslima]

OK, So since that's all you got from that, I refuse to condemn, there I said it: I refuse to condemn! !!! Now, use your free speech and flaunt your moral superiority over me~

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.

Given Europe's role and enslavement of Africans, torture and murders of millions of Africans for decades in the name of the slave trade, maybe then, they should have made Africans or Black people a protected class and made the denial of slavery a crime punishable by law? After all, slavery has been recognized as a crime against humanity

Muslima, you really need to try harder (and I have never heard of anybody denying the historic fact of slavery, have you ever heard of anybody saying that black slaves actually came on their own to the US and were never enslaved?). I am troubled by laws that punish Holocaust deniers (and I am from Europe), but you need to understand that these laws were passed after European governments that embraced the Nazi idelogy, in Germany and elsewhere, theorized the annihilation of an entire etnic group, resulting in ther metodical extermination of about 6 millions people. in some countries Jews were wiped out, in France about 1 fourth of the jewish population was killed. This kind of ideology is still alive in Europe.

It doesn't make the censoring okay. People with that ideology are rioting in the streets of Dresden to demand an end to Muslim immigration to Germany. But you don't see the government of Germany muzzling them. Because if they did, then they would have to silence people with an opposing viewpoint. You have to concede Muslima's point that selective censorship is hypocritical. In this case, Germany has it wrong. France has it wrong when it tries to ban the hijab. I understand her viewpoint on hypocrisy about this issue. But I don't understand her seemingly conditional viewpoints on when it is wrong and when it isn't based upon whether you are a part of the oppressed group or not, anymore than I understand your attempt to make such an argument here. Free speech means tolerating speech that you find offensive in the name of being able to speak yourself. THAT is what people "need to understand."

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:OK, So since that's all you got from that, I refuse to condemn, there I said it: I refuse to condemn! !!! Now, use your free speech and flaunt your moral superiority over me~

I don't need to flaunt because you just conceded the moral high ground, and admitted to your own hypocrisy. Which is ironic given that you feel so free to speak your mind here and condemn the hypocrisy of others. Can't you see that? I don't make conditional moral exceptions for murderers because they are a part of my religious or ethnic group. Why do you?

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:OK, So since that's all you got from that, I refuse to condemn, there I said it: I refuse to condemn! !!! Now, use your free speech and flaunt your moral superiority over me~

I don't need to flaunt because you just conceded the moral high ground, and admitted to your own hypocrisy. Which is ironic given that you feel so free to speak your mind here and condemn the hypocrisy of others. Can't you see that? I don't make conditional moral exceptions for murderers because they are a part of my religious or ethnic group. Why do you?

Maybe, because I'm Muslim?

[Anonymous]

Its a.comic..... And no one is forced to.look at it... And it.aims at everyone. Satire.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:OK, So since that's all you got from that, I refuse to condemn, there I said it: I refuse to condemn! !!! Now, use your free speech and flaunt your moral superiority over me~

I don't need to flaunt because you just conceded the moral high ground, and admitted to your own hypocrisy. Which is ironic given that you feel so free to speak your mind here and condemn the hypocrisy of others. Can't you see that? I don't make conditional moral exceptions for murderers because they are a part of my religious or ethnic group. Why do you?

Maybe, because I'm Muslim?

Are you seriously saying that you in fact are making conditional moral exceptions for these murders because you share their "supposed" religious affiliation? Wow. You heard it here first, DCUM.

[Muslima]

"Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"? "

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6462584

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:"Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"? "

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6462584

And yet you are lecturing people on decency and ethics? You keep grasping for straws in your need to justify murder. It's disturbing. Premeditated murder is offensive to most human beings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:"Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"? "

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6462584

And yet you are lecturing people on decency and ethics? You keep grasping for straws in your need to justify murder. It's disturbing. Premeditated murder is offensive to most human beings.

And, this is why I don’t read his/her posts. I have a real question if this person posting is really female.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's "tout de suite." Speak American, nobody cares how refined you want to seem.

Je parle comme je veux, quand je veux. Passes ton chemin si tu n'as rien d'autre a apporter a la discussion !

Et une autre faute d'orthographe.
(Another misspelling). The PPs are right. You should probably stick to English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

CNN, Fox News, and NBC news are reporting the cover and describing it -- but they are not showing it, because it is obviously soooo offensive.

Wimps.

CBS News showed it last night, with no caveats or apologies. It's good that their news division decided several years ago to be more about serious news and reclaim its Murrow heritage.

[Anonymous]

I have followed this and other threads and people get so caught up in the rhetoric that they lose sight of the "small picture." I lived in France off and on for 5 years. Whether you care to admit it or not, France is NOT an immigrant friendly country (especially Muslims). By legislation and other means, they have have shown Muslims that they view them as 2nd class. TBH, France has created a population of legally disenfranchised and mariginalized Muslims. It is a petri dish for radicalism.

I get the free expression argument, but when media routinely satirizes the most revered figure in a religion followed by people who already feel marginalized, it not a pretty picture. Some of my Muslim friends in Europe were not surprised. They say things have been on a low simmer for a while. Free speech means you can say what you want to say - but the question you must ask yourself is should you say it.

These attacks were barabaric and the Muslims I know have all condemned them. Of course because the violence was senseless, but also because the less enlightened will find a way to blame all Islam for it.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.

Given Europe's role and enslavement of Africans, torture and murders of millions of Africans for decades in the name of the slave trade, maybe then, they should have made Africans or Black people a protected class and made the denial of slavery a crime punishable by law? After all, slavery has been recognized as a crime against humanity

Muslima, you really need to try harder (and I have never heard of anybody denying the historic fact of slavery, have you ever heard of anybody saying that black slaves actually came on their own to the US and were never enslaved?). I am troubled by laws that punish Holocaust deniers (and I am from Europe), but you need to understand that these laws were passed after European governments that embraced the Nazi idelogy, in Germany and elsewhere, theorized the annihilation of an entire etnic group, resulting in ther metodical extermination of about 6 millions people. in some countries Jews were wiped out, in France about 1 fourth of the jewish population was killed. This kind of ideology is still alive in Europe.

It doesn't make the censoring okay. People with that ideology are rioting in the streets of Dresden to demand an end to Muslim immigration to Germany. But you don't see the government of Germany muzzling them. Because if they did, then they would have to silence people with an opposing viewpoint. You have to concede Muslima's point that selective censorship is hypocritical. In this case, Germany has it wrong. France has it wrong when it tries to ban the hijab. I understand her viewpoint on hypocrisy about this issue. But I don't understand her seemingly conditional viewpoints on when it is wrong and when it isn't based upon whether you are a part of the oppressed group or not, anymore than I understand your attempt to make such an argument here. Free speech means tolerating speech that you find offensive in the name of being able to speak yourself. THAT is what people "need to understand."

That is not my viewpoint! I never recommended a limit on free speech by governments. My point was and remains that it is hypocritical to talk about free speech being absolute in the West "We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn. And why have you been so silent on the glaring double standards? Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark? Were you not aware that Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet in 2005, reportedly rejected cartoons mocking Christ because they would "provoke an outcry" and proudly declared it would "in no circumstances... publish Holocaust cartoons"?