egafd.com

I am most pleased to say the cartoonists all over the planet, be they left, right or centre have made a point of speaking out against yesterday's cowardly attack in Paris. Matt's in the Daily Telegraph is particularly good.

More opportunism from DJ. Knows I won't reply due to unrelated matters months ago so uses my stance here in an attempt to prove I'm somehow shying away from responding.

I've explained why I don't respond numerous times over the last few months so I've no need to again. This is David trying to mislead forumites, nothing else.

He's like a spurned lover that just can't accept I'm just not into him. I hope he finds happiness with someone else, poor sap.

What you don't appear to understand Sam, is my views on Islam have much in common with your own. It is just that I don't hate Islam. You do.

History teaches us that to objectify an entire religion and its followers is often used as a precursor to that religion and its followers being regarded as "subhuman" and therefore subject to different rules.

That is what Hitler did. First objectify Judaism as evil and hateful then regard them as subhuman and then exterminate them en masse.

This is the same attitude pursued by radical Islamists in their treatment of Christians.

If you didn't get into such a tizz when I question your views around "hating" Islam, you might be able to have some rational discussion.

Religion is bollocks. But if it makes someone feel better then great but killing in the name of fictional characters is just stupid.

Boy, do they fall out!

Reminds me of the story that someone once remarked of Herbert Morrison (Peter Mandelson's grandfather) that he was his own worst enemy, and Ernie Bevin immediately butted in to say "Not while I'm alive, he ain't".

Ron T. Storm wrote:

> Religion is bollocks. But if it makes someone feel better then
> great but killing in the name of fictional characters is just
> stupid.

The Prophet Mohammad is not a fictional character.

Of course taking the law into your own hands and gunning down people who fail to show the due level of respect for your beliefs is about as wrong as it gets. It presumes that everybody must show respect even if they do not subscribe to your values and beliefs. Murdering people shows a massive lack of boundaries and shows the irrational logic implicit in religion.

On the other hand the political leadership in Europe has used this as an opportunity to defend free speech as some kind of right. Civil liberties are not a right but something that had to be wrenched away from the establishment only in quite recent times. Treat declarations about freedom and democracy from any Western political leader with great suspicion. These people are opportunists and are the people least likely to care about freedom for the people. Look at their neo-imperialist ventures in recent times maybe.

Lastly Charlie Hebdo is a sordid and dis-respectful publication, the publishers showed a general contempt for people who held beliefs of all sorts that were not congruent with the free ideas of said publishers. Hiding under the guise of post-Marxist satire this publication served a need in France for cultural intolerance which I think most people in the UK would find very disturbing and actually wrong. One in three people in France admits to being racist and recent events have played right into the hands of the far right. It is a disgrace that this dirty publication has actually become almost mainstream within a week.

My point is that a little tolerance, a little respect and some restraint would have prevented all of this. There is no need for a publication like Charlie Hebdo and its ilk.

I disagree.

As I have said elsewhere, in this country there is freedom of speech provided it does not incite racial hatred or religious hatred towards the target of a satirical article for example. My understanding is that it is the same in France.

Contrary to what you say "Civil liberties are not a right but something that had to be wrenched away from the establishment only in quite recent times." in France there has been a Freedom of the Press act since the late 19th century.

I am offended and disgusted by the Daily Mail but I accept their right to print what they think fit as long as it is in accordance with the law of the land.

Charlie Hebdo satirised most religions and politicians.

When Britain gets involved in self-censorship as a result of vile, despicable murders committed by people offended by someone else's satire, we are on a long, slippery slope to anti-democracy.

What a complete load of utter shite.

The foundation of free speech has to be that you can ridicule and mock people for their beliefs. Especially when it comes to satirizing the rich, the powerful and the influential. And you don't get richer, more powerful and more influential that the two biggest religions in the world.

We all dabble in a little 'whataboutary' from time to time, but your post is the biggest load of whataboutary I've seen for quite a while. It's almost the same as highlighting a young woman's short skirt and tutting disapprovingly after she's just broke down crying saying she's been raped.

A fucking awful post.

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. The fact that they showed very little discrimination does not make what they published a respectable beacon of free-speech. There is no need to represent any religion in such a derogatory way simply because it is legal to do so. 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.

You have not contradicted me regarding civil liberties. Changes in the law which allowed people publication freedom, freedom from censorship, the vote, the right to join a trade union etc all had to be fought for, they were never given away by those in power. Simply using your freedoms in an arbitary way to show your contempt isn't free-speech as such.

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. Choosing to keep your mouth shut and allowing people to have their culture and beliefs without showering filth on them for it is the mark of a civilised society. Sadly the far-right is strongly supported in France and recent events have played right into their hands. Our elected leaders have launched the old, tired, and quite confrontational idea that one is either with them or against them. It isn't quite that simple, but they love simplicity, because it divides people.