Paris Shooting

[EnderbyFox]

Newsagent defies threats by stocking Charlie Hebdo magazine

Leafy village shop owner leads freedom of speech fight by becoming one of the few UK outlets to stock the controversial Charlie Hebdo magazine when it is published on Wednesday

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11342699/Newsagent-defies-threats-by-stocking-Charlie-Hebdo-magazine.html

[David Guiza]

Militant atheists are generally fúcking insufferable (and largely hypocritical). Albeit less likely to blow you up.

I'd consider myself agnostic I guess, I used to consider myself an athiest but the definition can be a little too cut and dry in modern times. Also I completley agree that some atheists can be incredibly ignorant and offensive, but I just wondered what you mean when you say they are largely hypocritical? Not disagreeing at all, just out of interest.

 

I don't think I'd ever be able to identify with any religion because there are large aspects of all of the major forms that I object to, aside from maybe Buddhism at a push. However, I would never ridicule anyone's beliefs, nor proclaim that mine, or lack of, are better. Every religion has it's fundamentalists of varying degrees, nearly all of which comes down to interpretation. It's far too easy to proclaim that Islam, Christianty etc is at fault for X or Y when millions of people live their lives by the teachings day in day out without recognisable fault - it is as much at fault for the likes of 9/11 and the Paris Attacks than it is for raising millions of hard working and honest individuals, whom simply are either born into religion or seek it to fill a hole in their lives. The problem lies far deeper than that. It is just an exscuse used by both sides, no religion specifically states anything even close to the acts that are carried out in the name of 'God'.

[James.]

I'd consider myself agnostic I guess, I used to consider myself an athiest but the definition can be a little too cut and dry in modern times. Also I completley agree that some atheists can be incredibly ignorant and offensive, but I just wondered what you mean when you say they are largely hypocritical? Not disagreeing at all, just out of interest.

 

The way in which they dismiss other views as nonsense and believe rigidly in their own dogma reminds me of religion (although I feel like I'm being a bit harsh on many religious people by saying that).

[yorkie1999]

I'm not being funny and i'm certainly not trying to defend or justify anything, but i don't get this freedom of speech thing. I know you shouldn't really go around killing people just because they print something that could be deemed offensive to certain religions etc, but surely using the banner of free speech doesn't make it right to put a cartoon picture of a religions god bent over with his cock and bollocks swinging and a star over his ring piece as in one of the pictures i've seen. 

[Rincewind]

I'm a secularist humanist. I think you can have respect and care for your fellow man without a god giving guidelines. I do not need to be told these things.

[Guest MattP]

I think you are missing the point.....

 

 

By isolating the Prophet Muhammed by again using him on the front cover, Charlie Hebdo are alienating everyday ordinary non-extremist muslims.

 

It is these everyday law obiding, other culture respecting muslims who will suffer as a result and will continue to further alienate themselves from other cultures as a result.

 

 

 

 

The Jews fear for their own safety, the muslim community fear a backlash from idiots who fail to see that these extremists hold no traditional islamic values at all, whilst all other world cultures hold their breath and hope that these two rival groups do not results in civil war breaking out in europe.

 

Charlie Hebdo had a responsibility to unify both groups who have become victims as a result of this, the jewish and islamic communities. They have only widened the gap with their image.

 

I've not missed the point at all I responded to exactly the points you had made hence why I bolded it.

 

Why does Charlie Hebdo have a responsibility to anything? It's a left-wing satire magazine that takes the piss out of everything, surely if anything they have a responsibility to keep that going out of respect for the supposed freedoms they are preaching and to the people killed for doing their job?

 

Of all the people with responsibilities for things at the moment, a company that has just had 9 people executed for drawing cartoons isn't at the top of the list.

 

The Jews won't be hanging around for a civil war in Europe, if things get rough they'll be off to Israel, they aren't daft enough to hang around again to be at the mercy of more 'european' extremists this time around.

 

Militant atheists are generally fúcking insufferable (and largely hypocritical). Albeit less likely to blow you up.

 

I agree. Gervais has turned into one now, he can't stop going on about religion, every fcuking interview or tweet and he's becoming as bad as the preachers.

[Carl the Llama]

I'm not being funny and i'm certainly not trying to defend or justify anything, but i don't get this freedom of speech thing. I know you shouldn't really go around killing people just because they print something that could be deemed offensive to certain religions etc, but surely using the banner of free speech doesn't make it right to put a cartoon picture of a religions god bent over with his cock and bollocks swinging and a star over his ring piece as in one of the pictures i've seen. 

The prophet Muhammed was never a God, let that be the first thing you remember.  All this anger is over a cartoonist depicting a man who spent the latter part of his life fighting to control and impose his religion on what was known as Arabia and who has been elevated to nigh-on-Deity status since his death.  To make matters sillier, the hadith ('law') against depicting him is complete BS because what it actually bans is the depiction of any sentient being, as in a picture of elephants on a fvcking cushion for instance.  The idea being that it would prevent idolatry - you know, that thing that happens to the prophet Muhammed in Islam. It's no wonder these extremists are so angry:  They're making a futile attempt to live their life strictly following contradictory beliefs.  I'd be confused and angry too.

[Webbo]

Exactly this.

 

In pretty much all of history, behind every major piece of death and destruction by humans upon themselves there has been a god, or a man who thinks he is one, or both.

The Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, virtually all of the oppression in the Warsaw pact since the end of the 2nd world war?

 

The oppression of the British Empire, with the possible exception of Eire, was all to do with profit rather than religion. Blaming everything on religion is such a simplistic argument.

[yorkie1999]

The prophet Muhammed was never a God, let that be the first thing you remember.  All this anger is over a cartoonist depicting a man who spent the latter part of his life fighting to control and impose his religion on what was known as Arabia and who has been elevated to nigh-on-Deity status since his death.  To make matters sillier, the hadith ('law') against depicting him is complete BS because what it actually bans is the depiction of any sentient being, as in a picture of elephants on a fvcking cushion for instance.  The idea being that it would prevent idolatry - you know, that thing that happens to the prophet Muhammed in Islam. It's no wonder these extremists are so angry:  They're making a futile attempt to live their life strictly following contradictory beliefs.  I'd be confused and angry too.

I'm not really interested in the detail's of islamic religion be it contradictory or not, the point i'm making is that believing you live in a society which gives you freedom of speech, doesn't necessarily give you the right to say or, in this case draw, whatever you think to anybody.

[Carl the Llama]

I'm not really interested in the detail's of islamic religion be it contradictory or not, the point i'm making is that believing you live in a society which gives you freedom of speech, doesn't necessarily give you the right to say or, in this case draw, whatever you think to anybody.

But we're not discussing anybody here, we're discussing a religion and the last time I checked, religions were fair game for satire, however crude.

[Harry - LCFC]

I feel like this should also be discussed briefly for completeness.

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/ 

 

A French comedian has been arrested for posting "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly". 'Coulibaly' being the surname of one of the attackers. He's basically offering support for the murder of seventeen people.

 

As disgusting as this is he should not be arrested for it. The French state have been hypocritical in their enforcement of the law. Now, I'm not demanding that this be looked at as much as the Charlie Hebdo attack but we all ought to condemn this incident if we are to be consistent in our principles.

[Carl the Llama]

I feel like this should also be discussed briefly so for completeness.

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/ 

 

A French comedian has been arrested for posting "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly". 'Coulibaly' being the surname of one of the attackers. It's basically offering support for the murder of seventeen people.

 

As disgusting as this is he should not be arrested for it. The French state have been hypocritical in their enforcement of the law. Now, I'm not demanding that this be looked at as much as the Charlie Hebdo attack but we all ought to condemn this incident if we are to be consistent in our principles.

Absolutely. What a cvnt, but we have the right to be a cvnt. We just don't have the right to me a violent, insane, murderous cvnt.

[lavrentis]

Islam is the most backward religion of all.

 

RIP

[The Doctor]

I think you are missing the point.....

 

 

By isolating the Prophet Muhammed by again using him on the front cover, Charlie Hebdo are alienating everyday ordinary non-extremist muslims.

 

It is these everyday law obiding, other culture respecting muslims who will suffer as a result and will continue to further alienate themselves from other cultures as a result.

 

 

 

 

The Jews fear for their own safety, the muslim community fear a backlash from idiots who fail to see that these extremists hold no traditional islamic values at all, whilst all other world cultures hold their breath and hope that these two rival groups do not results in civil war breaking out in europe.

 

Charlie Hebdo had a responsibility to unify both groups who have become victims as a result of this, the jewish and islamic communities. They have only widened the gap with their image.

No, isolating him isn't the problem, just drawing him is - modern Muslims are opposed to Mohammed being drawn, the rest of the content doesn't matter. They could draw him sat with moses or butchering children, the response would be the same, people being offended.

As for the extremists not following any traditional Islamic values... They're fundamentalists, because they follow the book verbatim rather than the socially acceptable interpretation that most follow.

[AoWW]

The prophet Muhammed was never a God, let that be the first thing you remember.  All this anger is over a cartoonist depicting a man who spent the latter part of his life fighting to control and impose his religion on what was known as Arabia and who has been elevated to nigh-on-Deity status since his death.  To make matters sillier, the hadith ('law') against depicting him is complete BS because what it actually bans is the depiction of any sentient being, as in a picture of elephants on a fvcking cushion for instance.  The idea being that it would prevent idolatry - you know, that thing that happens to the prophet Muhammed in Islam. It's no wonder these extremists are so angry:  They're making a futile attempt to live their life strictly following contradictory beliefs.  I'd be confused and angry too.

 

Woah, hang on, I've got a cushion with an elephant on it! I'm now a little bit scared!

[Rob1742]

Religion causes so many problems and the sooner we all realised we just get eaten by beetles when we die the better.

It's always a case that people kill each other over their religious beliefs, which just shows how ridiculous it all is.

it just shows how flawed the human race is, how strange we are. The fact people live their lives by an old book, makes me realise how odd we are.

[Guest MattP]

I feel like this should also be discussed briefly for completeness.

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/ 

 

A French comedian has been arrested for posting "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly". 'Coulibaly' being the surname of one of the attackers. He's basically offering support for the murder of seventeen people.

 

As disgusting as this is he should not be arrested for it. The French state have been hypocritical in their enforcement of the law. Now, I'm not demanding that this be looked at as much as the Charlie Hebdo attack but we all ought to condemn this incident if we are to be consistent in our principles.

 

Only applies to some people, we should know that by now, Ken Livingstone today we doing a 'Je Suis Charlie' and ranting about Freedom of Speech, this from a man who wanted Nick Griffin imprisoned for calling Islam evil, you couldn't make it up.

 

As an aside, it's a shame about Coulibaly, I think he probably could have made a half decent centre back with his build and surname with the right effort put in, Ligue 2 regular and maybe an appearance at the African Cup of Nations for someone like Burkina Faso.

[Mark_w]

I feel like this should also be discussed briefly for completeness.

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/ 

 

A French comedian has been arrested for posting "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly". 'Coulibaly' being the surname of one of the attackers. He's basically offering support for the murder of seventeen people.

 

As disgusting as this is he should not be arrested for it. The French state have been hypocritical in their enforcement of the law. Now, I'm not demanding that this be looked at as much as the Charlie Hebdo attack but we all ought to condemn this incident if we are to be consistent in our principles.

 

Only if our principles are that freedom of speech should exist with no exceptions. I certainly think there should be exceptions (though I don't think this specific incident should be one).

[leicsmac]

The Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, virtually all of the oppression in the Warsaw pact since the end of the 2nd world war?

 

The oppression of the British Empire, with the possible exception of Eire, was all to do with profit rather than religion. Blaming everything on religion is such a simplistic argument.

 

Hence the reason I said "...or a man who thinks he is one." Whether it's the blind worship and following of a single man (North Korea, Nazi Germany), or a small group of men in a "party" (China/Soviet Russia, possibly Nazi Germany again), or a group of oligarchs acquiring money for themselves (British Empire), the ideology is the same as the fundamentalist wings of organised religions. Men thinking that they have the right to treat others as things because they are more important...and more pertinently, acting on that belief on a large scale.

[Guest MattP]

No 'Je suis Charlie' at the Oxford University Press.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html

 

 

The Oxford University Press has warned its writers not to mention pigs, sausages or pork-related words in children's books, in an apparent bid to avoid offending Jews and Muslims.

The existence of the publisher's guidelines emerged after a radio discussion on free speech in the wake of the Paris attacks.

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, presenter Jim Naughtie said: "I've got a letter here that was sent out by OUP to an author doing something for young people.

"Among the things prohibited in the text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork.

 

 

How did these lunatics manage to take over the asylum?

[Harry - LCFC]

No 'Je suis Charlie' at the Oxford University Press.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html

 

 

 

How did these lunatics manage to take over the asylum?

 

The irony with much of this censorship is that it's incredibly insulting to Muslims.

 

"I think you're too incapable to avoid purchasing a book with a pig in it."

 

"I also think you're so emotionally unstable that you'll have a breakdown if you or your child sees an image of a pig."

 

It would piss me right off if someone took such a condescending attitude with me.

 

Hey, that could be that line of argument we take from now on! Don't talk about making ridiculous allowances for cultural sensitivities (you racist swine, you) talk about how offensive it is to the Islamic community. They'll have a tough time responding to that!

[Grewks]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30848689

 

 

 

A big congratulations to Charlie Hebdo.

 

 

 

 

You were in the limelight of the whole world, you had a chance to unite people, hell people were uniting with 'Je Suis Charlie' without the need of your assistance.

 

 

But your decision to again target muslims, instead of unite people, is quite frankly disgraceful.

[Guest MattP]

Yeah.

Why blame people for rioting when you can blame a magazine 10,000 miles away?

They should treat Islam different to every other religion in case they riot, because that's the way to defend civilisation and freedom of speech.

[Darkon84]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30848689

 

 

 

A big congratulations to Charlie Hebdo.

 

 

 

 

You were in the limelight of the whole world, you had a chance to unite people, hell people were uniting with 'Je Suis Charlie' without the need of your assistance.

 

 

But your decision to again target muslims, instead of unite people, is quite frankly disgraceful.

 

 

They used their moment while the world was watching, to stand up and say that people shouldn't be afraid to say or print what they like. Should Islam be treated differently from any other religion then? Should all Muslims be treated in a different manner to any other person? What, in your eyes, would have been the 'correct' response from them?

 

In a flip side to what you are saying, a big congratulations to yet more Muslims, who could have taken the opportunity, following recent events, to show the world that they are a people of peace, but no, yet more pop up with plans to murder innocent people. Bravo.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/belgium-terror-raid-jewish-schools-closed

[Harry - LCFC]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30848689

 

 

 

A big congratulations to Charlie Hebdo.

 

 

 

 

You were in the limelight of the whole world, you had a chance to unite people, hell people were uniting with 'Je Suis Charlie' without the need of your assistance.

 

 

But your decision to again target muslims, instead of unite people, is quite frankly disgraceful.

 

Would you riot if a magazine published a cartoon that offended you? If not you're holding Muslims to a lower standard than yourself and therefore being incredibly condescending and insulting in the process.

 

If you take the view that the West is always to blame then you'll end up defending some pretty unappetising behaviour/views at times, just as you've been forced to do here.