egafd.com

Well said!

It was indeed nauseating to see the various European leaders take part in an indignation march about free-speech, considering their aims and track record.

The scale of of the public turn-out in Paris was also worrying. If you have encountered black or Algerian French people then they will tell you that France is a very racist and intolerant country and that recent events may have helped legitimise ideas about a polarised socirty.

France is not like the UK where I think people are more tolerant and have changed that way in the last 30-40 years. 26% of the electorate voted for the far right in France, something which I don't think would ever happen in the UK and would be seen by most people as a disgrace.

It is interesting as Max said that the media would not display the front page of CH. It is partly about fear but the media will always be hypocritical too.

[quote]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. [/quote]

All you've done here is show what type of establishments and countries don't have the type of free speech we do. Do you want to go down the road of how the old USSR was run?

[quote]Why would anybody want to mock somebody else for their religious beliefs?[/quote]

Because religious beliefs are just ideas. And not all ideas should be taken seriously or given respect. In fact, surely satire and ridicule are the enemy of bad ideas.

[quote]What happened to live-and-let-live.[/quote]

Exactly, locationsfinder. Exactly.

[quote]Using your freedoms to pour crap over and label other people for being different to you is symptomatic of being a reactionary in fact.[/quote]

Pouring crap over people and labelling them for being different is bad. Pouring crap over people and labelling them for thinking differently to you is ok. Note the difference. It may help you in future.

[quote]I thought my post was actually quite fair-minded.[/quote]

It wasn't. It was awful. You verged on victim blaming. I thought my analogy showed that quite clearly.

You: "Killing people is bad, but surely Charlie Hebdo shouldn't shouldn't publish those cartoons."

Analogy: "Rape is bad, but surely these women shouldn't wear such short skirts."

Like I said.....awful.

[quote]I don't agree with mocking people for being different,[/quote]

Neither do I. I mock them for thinking different (or at least reserve the right to do so).

[quote]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.[/quote]

Glad you don't condone violence. But freedom of speech IS about saying what you feel like and not having to back it up with sound argument if you don't want to. As long as you're not calling for people to be hurt, say what the hell you like as far as I'm concerned. Other people then have the right to disagree with you and tell you so in no uncertain terms. This forum thrives on that very principle.

[quote]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[/quote]

My abuse was directed at your ideas, not you. I criticised your way of thinking and called your post 'awful'. I gave my reasons why I thought that way. You calling me a bigot (for no apparent reason whatsoever) is an attack on me personally, not my ideas. Again, notice that difference.

[quote]I am using freedom of speech to to call you a bigot, a considerably more courteous way of expressing myself than you deserve.[/quote]

It's nice that you're using freedom of speech when it suits you. Pity you don't want to extend that to others.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I can't remember saying I want to be, or my ideas should be immune from criticism.

[quote]If you don't like it, go and live in North Korea.[/quote]

It is you wanting to clamp down on certain liberties, not me. Come on, admit it.......you're winding me up.

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

I don't know what to say to this. You've lost the plot. It's almost as if you haven't grasped anything I've said.

I agree there are big differences between Britain and France on this.

It is extremely worrying that Marine Le Pen of the National Front got 18% of the votes in the first run of the Presidential election a couple of years ago.

This at a time when the extreme right in the UK is viewed as being at its weakest for decades. Not that this is any room for complacency.

A few quick ideas for you:

The UK was not a full democracy until 1918 when women were allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections. For many hundred of years it was ruled by an absolute monarchy and you risked your life for sending up the establishment. It was a police state as was most of Europe for a very long time, no civil liberties as such.

Religious beliefs are not just ideas, they have a historical and cultural significance that shapes an entire culture.

So lambasting my post with a lot of abuse is your take on live-and-let-live?

Sorry Mr Slater, thinking differently from somebody else DOES make you different from them. Cognition and education are real things. Somebody who speaks a different language to you, a product of brain activity, is different to you.

No I didn't blame the victims. Nothing of the sort. I said that violence and reprisals are entirely wrong but that a little bit of ordinary sensitivity would have prevented a tiny tiny tiny tiny proportion of the Muslim community from resorting to murder. That is exactly what happened and not my interpretation. I didn't condone a reprisal one bit.

Had we been living in Germany in 1938 the CH murders would have been an excuse for a very real and nation-wide reprisal as actually happened in response to a murder of a Nazi in Paris by a Jew. If the far right in France had real political power, they would condone it, they are Nazis after all.

Freedom of speech is about expressing valid ideas, not just something that is likely to seriously offend other people because it is offensive. Why lambast other people for thinking or being different anyway? If you can't back up a statement then it means you have nothing much to say, no ideas.

Freedom of speech isn't about making an emotional response. Killing somebody because you disagree with them is a visceral response, not an intellectual one.

I see you were dishing out an emotional and abusive response to my ideas and not to me for holding them. Despise the sin and not the sinner and all that? If you are going to dish out abuse Mr Slater at least stick to your guns and be a man about it.

No I didn't say anything about not wanting to extend free speech to others. Your version of free speech is just an irrational rant, mine contains some logic, some context and doesn't rely on pussy-footing with the meaning of individual words to try and win a debate. If you are going to shoot your mouth off like a boor then people might see you as bigot and might well call you one. Given the way you express yourself I'm sure it's happened before.

Mr Slater, if you happen to think of a woman wearing a short skirt and your next though by association is a rape then you really do need help. I know you were making an analogy about something that had nothing to do with short skirts or rape but your analogy shows something about the associations in your mind and with respect it's not healthy.

It's on The Guardian's website.

There is another word for what you call "a little bit of ordinary sensitivity" - appeasement. And yes you are blaming the victims.

[quote]The UK was not a full democracy until 1918 when women were allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections. For many hundred of years it was ruled by an absolute monarchy and you risked your life for sending up the establishment. It was a police state as was most of Europe for a very long time, no civil liberties as such.[/quote]

I don't know why you're telling me this but I do know that this is what you seem to want to go back to.

[quote]Religious beliefs are not just ideas, they have a historical and cultural significance that shapes an entire culture.[/quote]

So does Shakespeare. Are you saying we shouldn't ridicule or mock him or his works either? That we should have enforced respect?

[quote]So lambasting my post with a lot of abuse is your take on live-and-let-live? [/quote]

Yes. I lambasted your post. I didn't say your should refrain from posting silly things. You're free to carry on! I defend your right to.

[quote]Sorry Mr Slater, thinking differently from somebody else DOES make you different from them.[/quote]

Never said otherwise. I said it's ok to mock them for thinking differently but not ok to mock them for being different. I don't understand why you cannot see the difference.

[quote]No I didn't blame the victims. Nothing of the sort. I said that violence and reprisals are entirely wrong but that a little bit of ordinary sensitivity would have prevented a tiny tiny tiny tiny proportion of the Muslim community from resorting to murder.[/quote]

And, as my oh so perfect analogy pointed out.....longer skirts might prevent a tiny tiny tiny proportion of rapists raping. It's victim blaming, even if it's not direct.

[quote]Had we been living in Germany in 1938 the CH murders would have been an excuse for a very real and nation-wide reprisal as actually happened in response to a murder of a Nazi in Paris by a Jew. If the far right in France had real political power, they would condone it, they are Nazis after all.[/quote]

Again.....your views seem more in line with Nazi Germany than mine. Next.

[quote]Freedom of speech is about expressing valid ideas, not just something that is likely to seriously offend other people because it is offensive.[/quote]

I never said it was 'just' about being offensive. But I think the right to offend should be included within free speech because if not, who decides what's offensive? You? The Pope? The PM? A hate-filled Islamist or BNP supporter?

[quote]I see you were dishing out an emotional and abusive response to my ideas and not to me for holding them.[/quote]

Emotional...yes. Innocent people had just been murdered for drawing a few cartoons.......CARTOONS. Let that sink in. Abusive? Hardly. I think you calling me a bigot without any grounds for doing so was worse. But, yes - I attacked your post. You attacked me personally.

[quote]No I didn't say anything about not wanting to extend free speech to others. Your version of free speech is just an irrational rant, mine contains some logic, some context and doesn't rely on pussy-footing with the meaning of individual words to try and win a debate.[/quote]

I don't think you know what logic means. Logic doesn't mean 'rules'. You just wanted stricter rules and control. Both of our views can be based on some form of logic. I'd go look that up if I were you. You're making yourself look daft.

[quote]If you are going to shoot your mouth off like a boor then people might see you as bigot and might well call you one. Given the way you express yourself I'm sure it's happened before.[/quote]

After you've looked up 'logic' go look up 'bigot' too. Given bigotry is based on forms of intolerance, and it's me that wants to 'tolerate' opinions and expressions that I may not like, while you want to clamp down on such things, yet again, your thinking is more in line with bigotry than mine. Dear me.

[quote]Mr Slater, if you happen to think of a woman wearing a short skirt and your next though by association is a rape then you really do need help. I know you were making an analogy about something that had nothing to do with short skirts or rape but your analogy shows something about the associations in your mind and with respect it's not healthy.[/quote]

You think? Dear me. Am I the only one that's ever linked how females dress to rape?....even if only using it to show how daft you're being? I must be a real whacko.

But while we're on that subject. How did you link murder to freedom of speech, locationfinder? Eh?

There are many opinions on this forum coming from many different political and religious angles. David and I are considered too far left......Arg and a few others too far to the right.......some of us are Atheist and others religious......we're quite a mix and argue quite a lot! But on this topic the one thing I can say is that we all seem united. There is only you that thinks it more important to focus on freedom of expression rather than the lives lost and the attack on our liberties. Think about that.

Sam, hear hear.

Ta, Essex Lad.

It's just not too often we all agree on something......and I say that as a forumite of over a decade (maybe sadly!).

The BBC did show the cartoon. I saw it. They forewarned the viewers they were going to show it. The story was about the extra number of copies they'd printed and the clip showed the magazine being packed on pallets ready for despatch from the printers.

The cartoon on the front was clearly visible and there was even a close up of one so you could read the headline.

I'm pretty sure mine was the lunchtime news so if you saw the evening news they may not have shown it on that, I do not know.