I feel a certain percentage of 'moderate muslims' are also offended but choose not to take any kind extreme of action because they are 'normal' decent people with tolerance. Jihadists don't need a special reason to kill innocent people so why give them cause by stirring things up ? It's nothing to do with giving up freedom of speech. With freedon comes a certain responsability, the media are in a privaleged position.
No person or publication can offend anyone else. One CHOOSES to take offence.
Why should the moderate muslims be obliged officially to renounce the jihadi extremists any more than anyone christian renounces evangelical creationist weirdoes in the southern US or paedophile priests etc etc they are just as full of revulsion as everyone else is, they are just ordinary French people who are in the firing line along with everyone else with the added burden of suspicion on spurious & highly questionable grounds.
To whom are you replying, Carl?
Some of it is but the behaviour of extreme jehadis has been goong on for so longer.
Do we just let these awful people carry on without making any comment whatsoever, for fear of offending them.
I really feel that we need to hear a much louder renunciation of these terrorists from the majority of moderate muslims. It would make the people of France, Belgium and UK feel that we were all on the same side.
Moderate Moslems as you call them have done SOD ALL to stop anything so far. What makes you think CH poking them would make any difference?
We have laws about freedom of speech and we also have laws about the private life of individuals - religion practised by an individual is covered by that just as mistresses/lovers/being a practitioner of S&M&B&D are, because what people do in PRIVATE is none of our business. Religions which seek to proclaim universal truths and tell people what to do, however, are fair game - just as private individuals, who happen to be politicians are, IN THEIR PUBLIC CAPACITY. That's what makes the difference.
Boko Haram nothing to do with any religion just a bunch of murdering thugs,who are no different from any band in history in any country who live by killing raping and robbing anyone who is nt in their group
While you may say that and I agree with you 100% bryan, That is not what they tell the world.
The Islamic world could do worse than go and sort them out but for some reason seem reluctant.
Whichever country you are in, you abide by its laws, or if you don't intend to because you don't agree with them, don't bother going there, eg I'm not going to Saudi Arabia any time soon.
We do not, here in France, have any law against blasphemy (except in Alsace/Lorraine where there are a number of anomalies which date back to the period between 1870 and 1918) so it is the absolute right of any paper to print exactly what they please with reference to religion & the figureheads of religion (as opposed to personal attacks on a person or persons practising that religion), just as it is an absolute right to have a go at any political party or political personality for political reasons.
So we shall carry on offending religions and political parties because they don't, unlike private individuals, need any protection, quite the reverse, (and take the consequences, rather than compromise, or at least I very much hope so).
Boko Haram nothing to do with any religion just a bunch of murdering thugs,who are no different from any band in history in any country who live by killing raping and robbing anyone who is nt in their group
Great post, well said Jon.
That obviously can't happen Mark. CH has set a precedent and there can be no U Turn even if the government intervened with new 'guidelines'. The consequences of such irresponsablilities will continue so let's just hope the inteligence services can stay one step ahead of the bad boys...
What is sad about the latest edition of CH is that it has antagonised so many moderate Moslems who were as shocked as anyone else by the murders in Paris. Why make the people who could be the most valuable allies in helping counter the spread of radicalism into your enemies?
I also agree with Celeste that there is some hypocrisy in talking about free speech as an absolute right in France. A year ago there was something of a fuss about Closer publishing the pictures of Hollande, while in most Western countries his affair would have been disclosed much earlier.
True, Jane, but what is your point?
Boko Haram, like IS & others, are committing these atrocities without provocation while the Paris murders, while wrong, were actually provoked.
But this clearly IS a reaction to CH Jane. Or at least a good reason for such a retaliation. The world is already such an unstable place so why provoke and throw petrol on the flames ?
I also agree with you, Celeste & David. Freedom of speech has been much quoted here & used as an excuse to mandate gratuitous insults. CH is not a cutting edge news reporting organ whose wish to report events & actions from around the world has been supressed, it is a comic selling satire. There was no real reason to publish the initial cartoon but the editors chose to do so knowing, from past experience, that it would offend some people. It is not legal now to use racist terms to decribe other people & to even hint at the N word is punishable by law. This is widely accepted by most people but could one not argue that this is a restriction of freedom of speech?
Using offensive language, however nasty, certainly does not warrant murder & it is murder which is the major crime here. CH might consider that their decision to publish such a cartoon went a long way to incite these murders & to publish again a similar cartoon is downright madness - the extra trouble & deaths caused by the irresponsible decision just to prove a point verges on criminal desregard for life.
With any luck CH will now sink into the mire it has created for itself & cease publication, or at least stick to lampooning political figures & those who deserve it.
"However you don't kill because somebody has done it."
Problem is David people DO kill because of it as we've seen. Many people throughout the world are upset about these 'childish' cartoons and some of them have been driven to murder innocent people because of them. But hey, what the heck, this is one of the consequences of having a totally unscupulous freedom of speech !
I am 100% Charlie...but with reservations...
Seven churches were burned to the ground in Niger which is appalling. Boko Haram has been killing and abducting long before the last cartoon was published. It is not all a reaction to CH.
There is a vast difference between insulting someone and burning down their places of worship, kidnapping young girls or packing them with explosives to be detonated at a safe distance.
I feel sure that the present policies of the Israeli government towards Palestine and the fact that they take no notice of UN resolutions to demolish illegal settlements do not help attitudes to Jewish people.
I tend to agree with much of what you have said. I would not like it if some cartoonist in Saudi or even the UK or France lampooned Christ. But I don't either like the fact that you cannot even take a Bible for your own use into many of these countries. However you don't kill because somebody has done it. If a religion is properly observed I hope that it is enough to turn the other cheek. I have not bought CH and have no interest in so doing; their cartoons (such as I have seen) are quite childish graphically and seem to be offering gratuitous offence. The sort of thing generally produced by so called intellos who are good (maybe) as critique but useless at practically everything else. Give me Gilray, Steadman, Brookes etc!
"Condemning the murderers does not mean you have to endorse everything that the victims did. Criticising the actions of the victims does not mean you endorse the actions of the murderers." Thoughtful piece.
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sermonsfromthemound/2015/01/je-ne-suis-pas-charlie/#ixzz3P0MjpxGO