The West has lost its freedom of speech

[lindsayf]

Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative. "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
Much more of similar.

Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.

It is diffcult not to think that this type of comment simply highlights the underlying doctrinal affiliation of the caller and ipso facto their ideological support for the act.
These are the kind of things that are let through to the keeper without challenge far to often.
These folk are not 'extremists' ( or are they?) but their lack of outrage at these barbaric behaviours seems to be a growing part of the problem?

 

[Tisme]

.... but their lack of outrage at these barbaric behaviours seems to be a growing part of the problem?

Apparently they take umbrage at being responsible for their own sphere of influence and are, in this case, French first Muslims second. They are not to blame for Islamic barbarity because the KKK is Christian and they are barbarians too.... apparently we Westerners don't rage at the KKK so they don't have to rage at their own devil's spawn.

Of course the real reason is that if they show regret and revulsion to non Muslims they, as the chosen ones, are breaking their own divine God's rules of engagement with the real low life = us. They are better than you and me you see.

 

[Value Collector]

Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative. "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
Much more of similar.

Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.

Yes, I hate that attitude, it is summed up well here, I think Jaclyn is spot on,

 

[FxTrader]

Yes, I hate that attitude, it is summed up well here, I think Jaclyn is spot on,

Is the prophet and his God so powerless that they need a couple of duped savage animals to act as proxies on Earth to kill to defend their honour? Of course these latest murders in France are all about Islam and its teachings. This is plainly obvious to all but fearful, politically correct moral cowards who on one hand pay lip service to free speech and expression but then label criticism (and satire) of religion (specifically Islam) as confrontational and a provocation. Then these fearful cowards draft laws limiting speech so as to not offend believers in imaginary Gods and their self-proclaimed prophets. This follows the playbook of religious extremists who use fear to manipulate the freedoms in western societies.

Surely it's now time to be more vocal about the liabilities of religion in general and Islam in particular. Beliefs in imaginary Gods and the magic books that describe them need to be challenged more vigorously than ever before.


Time to revist a great article on this subject by Sam Harris called "On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God"...
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god?2015

 

[Chris45]

Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative. "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
Much more of similar.

Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.

I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.

The CH cartoonists seem to be lacking in talent and have to resort to toilet humour to make up for their shortcomings.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...ogressive,q_80,w_636/bjmir4cbrhsrfdwzxiux.png

Freedom of speech is a myth. The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.

We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.

 

[Julia]

It is diffcult not to think that this type of comment simply highlights the underlying doctrinal affiliation of the caller and ipso facto their ideological support for the act.
These are the kind of things that are let through to the keeper without challenge far to often.

Particularly when aided by a d**khead of a presenter offering encouragement. Way to go, ABC

This next comment is a diversion from the Muslim-related discussion but it's very much about free speech, and I'd like to know what members' view is of this:

Pressure is mounting against a planned speaking tour by American anti-vaccination campaigner Sherri Tenpenny, with at least one venue now cancelling a seminar.

Dr Tenpenny, an osteopath who believes vaccines cause autism, asthma, ADHD and auto-immune disorders, is planning a series of lectures against vaccination in March aimed at parents of babies.

But she has been criticised by the Stop The Australian Anti-Vaccination Network for "endangering people's health" and "targeting vulnerable parents".

Kareela Golf and Social Club in Sydney has cancelled a seminar, while a group of doctors cancelled their own workshop at a Melbourne venue, angry the place had also booked Dr Tenpenny next month.

In this I side with the pro-vaccination group and believe she should be prevented from promoting her anti-vaccination philosophy on the grounds that to do so constitutes potential for public health risk.

But that is to absolutely suppress her right to free speech.

I think a similar situation has arisen with Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who has been outspoken about Muslims and as a result refused permission to speak in some countries.

Are we guilty of being hypocritical in our clamour for free speech?

 

[lindsayf]

I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.

The CH cartoonists seem to be lacking in talent and have to resort to toilet humour to make up for their shortcomings.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...ogressive,q_80,w_636/bjmir4cbrhsrfdwzxiux.png

Freedom of speech is a myth. The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.

We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.

What outrages you the most? The type of humour or the murders of the people who express the humour?

 

[SirRumpole]

Are we guilty of being hypocritical in our clamour for free speech?

I generally think that irrational arguments like those against vaccination have to be defeated with rational arguments.

The A.V. campaigner should be required to produce evidence to prove her claims. This is obviously a subject where evidence can be produced and debated. No doubt this person is sincere about her objections to vaccination, so let's hear why.

In terms of Charlie Hebdo, I see no reason to deliberately offend people, however freedom of speech includes that right.

We may indicate our objection to deliberate affrontery by refusing to buy that publication, not by slaughtering people on the streets. The "I'm not in favour of violence, but" argument does not wash when it comes to murder.

Perhaps if Muslims were subject to retaliation and others used the same argument against them, they may have a different view.

 

[FxTrader]

The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.

You must mean cowardly, fearful and muzzled cartoonists who don't poke fun and people like yourself for taking the fiction in magic books seriously for fear of death.

We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.

Dancing on the graves of the dead cartoonists already! Those poor cartoonists (RIP) deserve some respect in death, even from the likes of you. As an ambassador for religious nonsense here, you should at least be capable of some shred of dignity and decency by condemning cold, calculated murder.

 

[pixel]

I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.

The CH cartoonists seem to be lacking in talent and have to resort to toilet humour to make up for their shortcomings.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...ogressive,q_80,w_636/bjmir4cbrhsrfdwzxiux.png

Freedom of speech is a myth. The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.

We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.

Careful what you wish for, Chris: you might get it.

So you consider Charlie Hebdo's particular brand of French humour crude and puerile, therefore understand how some idiots are offended to the point that they want it suppressed by slaughtering the creators.
Apply the same "logic" to magazines that show more skin than the burqua permits, and you won't have any more pictures published. ... or girls photographed.

The only way to react to an outrage like this is education: Tell people to grow up and ignore what they don't like. That applies to Fred Nile just as much as to American Bible Bashers, and any Holy Cow in between.

Like FxTrader, I find much of the scriptures distasteful - be it the Torah, Old and New testament, or Koran. Those books were written by fraudsters who wanted to excuse their own atrocities against anyone "not chosen" like them. If you really analyse that attitude, it is quintessential Racism. Two of these tribes are still "at it" in the Middle East, the third group seem to be learning that their past behaviour didn't work all that well. But, as mentioned above, they too have fringe groups that are still stuck in the dark and would rather legislate their particular brand of fantasy.

 

[Value Collector]

In terms of Charlie Hebdo, I see no reason to deliberately offend people, however freedom of speech includes that right.

I don't think people have a right to "not be offended" by anything in life. I mean some people are offended by seeing a gay couple show affection in public or are offended at the sight of a females uncovered head. If you get offended by certain things, it may actually be something which you have to work on yourself.

If you wish to live in a free society and be able to express yourself, you need to be able to allow others to do the same.

I think satire and mockery are perfectly acceptable retorts to religions who claim moral superiority and claim to be holders of revealed truth. Offcourse I am not in favour of bullying individuals, I respect the rights of individuals to do what they like, But just because they have the right to do it, doesn't take away my right to say its silly.

 

[pixel]

Perhaps if Muslims were subject to retaliation and others used the same argument against them, they may have a different view.

I doubt it. Look at what's currently going on in the UN and The Hague: Palestinians object to civilians being shot at, and try to obtain a conviction of Israel in a Western-style Court.

Mind you, from a point of equal rights for everyone, I'd be inclined to agree. But for Hamas to hide behind civilians when shooting into Israel, crying foul when their human shields are hit - that reeks of hypocrisy.

 

[Value Collector]

We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known.We're better off without idiots like that

We are better off without the religious Idiots.

Religions need to be made fun of, they get enough unearned respect, I think its healthy to be able to poke fun at their silly ideas. if more people laughed at them from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.

As for your comment, its absolutely atrocious.

 

[Calliope]

Religions need to be made fun of, they get enough unearned respect, I think its healthy to be able to poke fun at their silly ideas. if more people laughed at them from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.

Of course they should be made fun of...especially when their ideologies are based on imaginary gods or someone who rode up to heaven on an "animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule". i.e. an imaginary animal.

Reporting live on CNN, Wolf Blitzer accused Charlie Hebdo of occasionally going “over the line” in their satirical criticisms of current events.

The comment came as Blitzer was detailing the Islamic terrorist attack against the Charlie Hebdo office, which resulted in the deaths of 10 staff members and two police officers.

Blitzer categorically slammed the attacks and said there was no justification for it. However, in detailing what Charlie Hebdo is known for, he added that, at times, they went “over the line” in their commentary.

What “line” is that and who determines where the line is?

Over the line ! What garbage. There is no line for a religion which promotes evil.

 

[SirRumpole]

As for your comment, its absolutely atrocious.

The reality is that there are people around who make an art form of being offensive to get noticed, which is what I think Chris45 was saying.

Of course, they don't deserve to get murdered for it, but that doesn't mean they necessarily deserve any special consideration as to their contribution to society.

Religions need to be made fun of, they get enough unearned respect, I think its healthy to be able to poke fun at their silly ideas. if more people laughed at them from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.

If some people poked fun at the Halal food farce instead of pandering to it for the sake of making a buck, that may help too.

 

[lindsayf]

The reality is that there are people around who make an art form of being offensive to get noticed, which is what I think Chris45 was saying..

actually I think, in the context of this discussion, that is what he is doing

 

[SirRumpole]

actually I think, in the context of this discussion, that is what he is doing

I'm sure he can speak for himself, but imo he was just stating a fact.

 

[Chris45]

Lindsayf, I assume you're not really expecting a serious answer to your question. I agree with, and second, SirRumpole's responses.

If you want an example of a person who makes an art form of being offensive to get noticed, look no further than FxTrader. Although I must confess s/he is so ridiculous, I find it quite funny. S/he could probably get a job with that CH mob.

Pixel, ...

therefore understand how some idiots are offended to the point that they want it suppressed by slaughtering the creators.

... no!

VC, ...

I don't think people have a right to "not be offended" by anything in life ... If you get offended by certain things, it may actually be something which you have to work on yourself.

... So, racial vilification like calling blacks n**g**s, boongs etc, and obscene behaviour like people copulating in public in front of children, and so on ... these behaviours are all acceptable to you are they? That's certainly not the sort of society I want to live in.

We are better off without the religious Idiots.

... yes, AND the offensive and obnoxious anti-religious idiots.

To repeat what I said before, I believe that in a civilised society we should all try to live together harmoniously and be tolerant of each other's beliefs.

 

[FxTrader]

I'm sure he can speak for himself, but imo he was just stating a fact.

What "fact" would that be exactly?

That we should try to live harmoniously with those who would kill us for disagreeing with them about the existence of imaginary God's and mocking their irrationality for doing so?

That cartoonists deserve to die if they offend violent religious morons?

That rather than show sympathy for victims of extreme violence and their families at such a difficult time it's more appropriate to trash their memory, denigrate their profession and celebrate their death?

Who get's to define what constitutes what is offensive to dead false prophets? If I declare that Mohamed was a violent pedophile (a fact) do I deserve to die for it? When you allow violent religious fanatics to define what is offensive to them and have no sympathy for the victims of their murderous treachery religious fascism has triumphed over secular democracy.

 

[Macquack]

We will only have a true "secular democracy" when we get rid of ALL government funding for ALL religious based schools.