Cartoon.

[locationsfinder]

Excuse me Sam but in the not-so old days you ran an extreme risk by satirising those in power. Satirist John Dryden was beaten up to within an inch of his life for making fun of the establishment of the day, so no it wasn't a very common thing before democracy became a popular idea, something that didn't happen much. Try sending up the leadership in the USSR in not so distant times and you'd be in big trouble or simply disappear.

Why would anybody want to mock somebody else for their religious beliefs? What happened to live-and-let-live. People in civilised countries are supposed to be on the same side after all. Using your freedoms to pour crap over and label other people for being different to you is symptomatic of being a reactionary in fact.

I thought my post was actually quite fair-minded. I don't agree with mocking people for being different, I don't condone violence or reprisal and free-speech is not about just saying what you feel like saying without having something to back it up with in terms of a sound argument, not just your feelings about something or somebody.

The fact that you've responded with a lot of abuse and an irrational angry rant which contradicts nothing I have said means you are an uneducated bigot who thinks the way the mass media tells you to, since you know little better.

I am using freedom of speech to to call you a bigot, a considerably more courteous way of expressing myself than you deserve. If you don't like it then consider that free-speech means you will have to listen to things you don't like to hear about yourself once in a while. If you don't like it, go and live in North Korea.

If you connect a woman wearing a short skirt with rape in your mind then you need immediate therapy BIG TIME my friend.

[max_tranmere]

I noticed in the BBC coverage of the French magazine publishing this weeks edition with a cartoon of Mohammed on the cover they didn't show the cartoon. All you saw was a folded copy of the mag showing just the magazine's title. Let's say there was an Islamic magazine with a cartoon of Jesus in drag, or one of him smoking a joint, and this got coverage because Christian groups were offended. You just know that the BBC and other broadcasters would show the picture. During the report you would see the cartoon full size on your TV screens while the narrator spoke of "the offending cartoon". Broadcasters are clearly afraid of muslims.

[locationsfinder]

You don't find people in the Muslim world making fun of Christianity because a lot of Christian figures are revered in their religion, Jesus, his mother and various others including a man in the Middle East called Ibrahim who had two sons, one who murdered the other and caused a lasting feud. Sounds very familiar really.

It is interesting that the media has not shown the cartoon, but if you have a photo of it then please post it here on bgafd so we can all enjoy it. I'm all for free speech.

[David Johnson]

"The fact that CH crudely lampooned (it wasn't satire) most religions does not negate the argument that the publishers and cartoonists had no respect for people who thought differently to them"

Agreed. That is what is often involved in freedom of speech. The Daily Mail has absolutely no respect for people who are unemployed, for example. I do not believe they should exercise self censorship.

"The fact that they showed very little discrimination does not make what they published a respectable beacon of free-speech. "

I do not think anyone is arguing that it is a "respectable" beacon of free speech. What people are defending is their right to publish within the terms of the law.

"There is no need to represent any religion in such a derogatory way simply because it is legal to do so. "

Who decides that there is "no need?" You or people who think in a similar way? Or me who thinks in a different way on this matter? Or do we decide by how many people get killed as a result?

"My argument that basic respect would have prevented events because nobody would have been offended. There will always be people who will take matters into their own hands."

If I state I despise David Cameron and think he is a buffoon, I am not giving him much "basic respect". If as a result of my saying I despise David Cameron I get machine-gunned, then you could make a similar argument - "showing basic respect would have prevented events because nobody would have been offended. There will always be people (or indeed, political leaders) who will take matters into their own hands.

Would you use the same argument in the above situation I describe?

" You have not contradicted me regarding civil liberties."

Yes I have. You stated civil liberties is something that only come into existence in quite recent times.

The Declaration of Rights proclaimed freedom of thought, worship, and assembly as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest in the new French state in 1791. I do not regard 1791 as quite recent times, do you?

"Simply using your freedoms in an arbitary way to show your contempt isn't free-speech as such."

Yes it is and it is enshrined in both British and French law. "Arbitrary" has no meaning in the context of the rest of your sentence re. free speech.

"Self-censorship is not a bad thing because it shows some sensibilities towards what other people hold dear, even if it means nothing to you."

THis is an argument that you could use to anyone who, for example, stated they are in favour of a law on civil marriage between gay people. It may well offend a lot of people's beliefs. Is this the sort of situation you want?


"Our elected leaders have launched the old, tired, and quite confrontational idea that one is either with them or against them."

Freedom to practice religious faiths, whatever they might be is enshrined in both British and French law, unlike many countries in the world. Millions of Muslims live in the UK and are free to practice their religion as a result.

[locationsfinder]

With respect to you David, I don't do cut-and-past-quotes debates. One gets the impression that you want to put people on trial rather than have a debate.

[David Johnson]

Fine.

You made a number of statements, some of which are correct, many of which aren't that is why I used that method which allows me to separate the correct from the incorrect. Although not wishing to give a totally, inaccurate, inflated notion of my intelligence, it is the basis of Socratean dialogue.

It is also a good way of avoiding the generalised insults that you believe Sam made in his reply to you.

I have no intention of "putting you on trial". I am more interested in a debate which is what my post backs up, I hope.

Enjoy your evening.

[locationsfinder]

Answering you in brief.

I didn't say anything about the Daily Mail. Sorry.

Publishing within the law isn't good enough. If what you publish offends and upsets people living in the same state then it is clearly inappropriate but legal, though probably not in the UK, where the publications might be seen as incitement.

I still say there is no need to represent ideas that are important to other people in a derogatory way. Religion is a particularly touchy example of that. Remember the Inquisition, which still exists today as The Holy Office.

I think you agreed with me pretty much about taking the law into one's own hands etc...

I maintain that basic respect for what is important to other people would have prevented recent events. Yes there will always be people who will seek reprisal, a very very tiny minority in any given situation.

Modern Times in Europe are accepted by historians as starting in 1485. The French Republic is only just over 200 years old which is quite young in historical terms. Before that Europe was ruled by absolute monarchies for a long long time. 1791 is quite recent and in order for such changes in France to take place they had to have a revolution. Civil liberties always had to be fought for. They are not an implicit right.

I was talking about using self-censorship, showing some discretion sometimes, rather than just opening ones mouth and saying what one thinks is right without any recourse to a debate, because one thinks that one has a right to free speech. I don't think your gay-rights point contradicts this at all.

Given the blood-soaked track record of the USA and friends in the Middle East over the last decade or so, our leaders are the last people to be preaching about our freedoms compared to those in other countries. Some children's charity will be giving Tony Blair an award for being a humanitarian next....oh wait they already did, now that's satirical....

[locationsfinder]

Well I gave you an answer. Mr Slater just dished out a lot of abuse because somebody contradicted what he's been told to believe.

You see people can get very upset and irrational when you contradict, with a debate, what they have been conditioned to see as completely true and about which no dissent is allowed. My post was quite fair and he called it 'a fucking awful post.' and 'a load of shit.'

[locationsfinder]

Sorry I've mis-quoted Mr Slater.

He said my post was ' a complete load of utter shite.'

My bad.

[David Johnson]

I agree with the overwhelming number of your posts on this forum.

I too find many of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons over the years, insensitive and not funny in any way.

I also agree that it was vomit inducing to see some of the world leaders linking arms in the first line of the march on Sunday. A lot of them should be in jail themselves for crushing freedom of speech and various other civil liberties.

I do not believe that the Charlie Hebdo issue of this week, for example, would be in contravention of Uk law otherwise, I doubt if the three main political leaders would have defended their right to publish. The magazine is on sale in the UK.

I guess I just disagree over the level of self censorship in terms of what the reaction should be to potential opposition from religious groups or indeed any political party..