1. Having trouble logging in by clicking the link at the top right of the page? Click here to be taken to the log in page.
    Dismiss Notice

Charlie Hebdo shooting: At least 11 killed as shots fired at satirical magazine's Par

Discussion in 'TalkCeltic Pub' started by CFC_67_88, Jan 7, 2015.

Discuss Charlie Hebdo shooting: At least 11 killed as shots fired at satirical magazine's Par in the TalkCeltic Pub area at TalkCeltic.net.

  1. North

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Galway, IE
    I enjoyed his/her piece. I think it's a fair take on the situation right now.
     
  2. BigWilly The Wildcard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    1,951
    Location:
    Maine, USA
    Fav Celtic Player:
    Big Willy
    Stupid from the French, Freedom of speech should be Absolute, no matter how offensive it is, as long as you are not threatening to harm someone then its not a crime.
     
  3. Overkill187 Batshitcrazy

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    23,223
    Likes Received:
    1,802
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Freedom of speech with exceptions (by law) is common in Europe.
    There are pros and cons either way.
     
  4. Gyp Rosetti Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    52,893
    Likes Received:
    38,673
    Location:
    Govan
    Fav Celtic Player:
    Rogic
    Fav Celtic Song:
    Celtic symphony
    Getting a bit sick hearing about this at the moment,it's just far too much being shoved in your face everywhere,and I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone but just my feelings on the situation
     
  5. angusceltic67

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,035
    Likes Received:
    2,466
    Location:
    Eire
    So the brothers weren,t acting of their own accord (lone wolf style)....

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVGHYtN8KqM[/ame]
     
  6. HoopSprings

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,638
    Likes Received:
    701
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    Fav Celtic Player:
    Lubo
    Fav Celtic Song:
    You'll Never Walk Alone
    I see your point and I agree that there isn't much to be gained if your only intention is to offend. But, to echo MGM's sentiments, the Muslim world arbitrarily decides that certain things are off limits and tries to dictate to the rest of us what we can and can't do in respect of satirising religion.

    The problem with this is that Islam is more than a religion: it is the law in the majority of OIC member states (OIC is the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation which acts as a block at the UNHRC). And any scrutiny of the laws which prevail within the OIC member states makes for exceptionally grim reading.

    For a start, let's take atheism: the vast majority of the OIC puts atheists at a serious legal disadvantage; one third of the OIC maintains the death penalty for it.

    Women's rights: at a minimum, 5000 women a year are killed in state-tolerated "honour killings" (some commentators have suggested it's up to ten times this amount); the OIC willfully tries to block discussion of this at the UNHRC, citing it as offensive to their religion. Not to mention that women are legally inferior in the majority of the OIC.

    Blasphemy: at least 85% of the OIC criminalises blasphemy (probably more - I just can't verify the rest as yet), with a fifth applying the death penalty. What better a way to stop criticism than by locking up or killing your critics?

    The point of all this is that Islam uses the teachings of Mohammed to implement some pretty vile laws and then claims to be offended when anyone dares take them to task.

    I want to speak out about this but am repeatedly told not to offend people's religion, no matter what is implemented in the name of that religion. To me, the satirisation of Islam and Mohammed by magazines like Charlie Hebdo is the last outlet I have to try and rationalise what's going on.

    And I would also say that if people are more offended by cartoons of Mohammed than they are by the subjugation of minority groups as mandated by his teachings, then they probably have their priorities wrong.
     
  7. mygirlmaria

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    19,140
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    Fav Celtic Player:
    Kenny Dalglish
    Fav Celtic Song:
    you'll never walk alone
    Put way better than i could have.:50:
     
  8. Dáibhí

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    22,125
    Likes Received:
    440
    Can I just ask how "the Muslim world" tries to dictate to the rest of us? Aside from a few lunatics on the fringes I don't really see or hear much of anything like that to be honest?

    Are so-called moderate Imams demanding that non-Muslims abide by their rules?

    Wouldn't I be correct in saying that the OIC revised its charter almost seven years ago in order to bring it more in line with the western way of thinking? The new charter set out to promote better human rights, fundamental freedoms and a closer scrutiny of the actions of members states, and perhaps more importantly moved to recognise international law and the universal declaration of human rights, didn't it?

    We could, of course, point to the organisation saying one thing and doing another, but we could do that with any number of non-Muslim organisations, couldn't we?

    After all, a politician is a politician, regardless of where he bows his head and the religious words he recites.

    As I said, progress in many of these nations is far from where it should be, I don't think anyone will argue that fact, but the same can be said of many Christian countries as well, can't it?

    For example, Barbados, which is 75% Christian still outlaws homosexuality. You can see a life prison sentence if convicted of such an act.

    Brazil, a nation where 65% of the population are Catholic, published a report in 2009 showing that atheists are among the most hated demographic groups, right up there with drug addicts.

    Did you know that it's actually impossible to hold a position in Government office in Texas, Maryland & Pennsylvania if you don't believe in *?

    There are countless other examples, and sure, maybe the western world aren't stoning people for their religious beliefs or hanging them for being gay, but they're far from being beacons of morality.

    In many ways the real difference between Christian and Muslim nations is that Christian nations are a lot better at carrying out their prejudice on the down-low, and you'll find that, much like the recent French shootings where our politicians were marching for free speech despite being among the worst when it comes to censoring, the media we read and listen to will be telling us the pro-western side of the story.

    This happens all over the world though, doesn't it? Blasphemy isn't the reason why Islamic nation leaders lock up their opponents, it's simply the excuse.

    The excuses will vary from nation to nation, but the reason behind it is the same. Silencing opposition, and maintaining a grip on the power they hold. As I said earlier, a politician is a politician, regardless of his religious label.

    If you honestly believe that the leaders in these Islamic countries are carrying out the silencing of non-believers and suchlike because they believe they're upholding the word of Islam, then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

    You'll probably believe that when our western governments tell us they have to tighten security and remove a few more of our rights that they're doing it for our own good as well.

    They're both doing it because it maintains their grip on power and ensures the status quo. Whether it's religion or national security, both are just a means to an end.

    As does the teachings of Christianity. And Judaism as well, for that matter.

    No one ever mentions Judaism, do they? If you think the law is tight on you being critical of Islam try being critical of the jewish faith.

    Even the bastion of free speech, Charlie Hebdo, fired one of their writers for making a remark that was possibly critical of the Jewish religion.

    Charlie Hebdo. A magazine that published a front page image of the Prophet engaged in a homosexual embrace fired one of its writers, Maurice Sinet, for suggesting that the son of Nikolas Sarkozy was marrying a Jewish girl for her money, making the comment "he'll go a long way in life, that little lad"

    That's all he had written. No cartoon magazine covers, no in your face outrageous imagery.

    After the editor of Charlie Hebdo asked him to apologise, he was fired for refusing.

    After that he was taken to court by the Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme on anti-semitism charges.

    As I said, the western world may not stone those who carry out blasphemy in the town square anymore, but if you believe we're accepting of it you're plain wrong.

    We just value a little bit more the rights of different religions from those nations you mention in the middle-East.

    repeatedly told by who? If I do a quick Google search for "criticism of islam" I get over 35 million hits.

    35 million.

    A quick look sees these range from wiki articles, to articles on the Telegraph website, to actual academic papers available in PDF format.

    The criticism is right there, just as it is for the other major religions as well as virtually any other subject under the sun (except for the Holocaust. You can't even question that without seeing jail time in some European countries for some reason).

    Please tell me where you're being told that you cannot be critical of Islam.

    Look, I'll be honest, even though I support the right of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists to do their thing, and I completely deplore what happened in France, they aren't a satire publication.

    If you want to see satire pick up a copy of Private Eye the next time you're out & about. That's satire.

    Charlie Hebdo is a crass, shock-value magazine. Nothing more. It's Jerry Springer in print with a hint of faux-intellectualism thrown in the mix.

    If a person or organisation sets out simply to offend and anger people they'll eventually meet with trouble. there's a reason why they've been under police protection for years.

    If I walked down London road thirty minutes before one of our home games holding up a placard depicting the Pope kissing another man whilst fondling a small child what do you think the reaction would be?

    How many people would proclaim "well, that offends me, but in the spirit of satire I'm going to let it slide because I believe in freedom of speech!"?

    And that's your right to say that, isn't it? You see how it works? You've just voiced a criticism of Islam and you've not been dragged off to court yet, have you?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2015
  9. Mr. Slippyfist

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,213
    Likes Received:
    7,333
    Dunno if it's just me, but I am * sick of hearing about this "Charlie Hebdo" pish.

    And, I see the celebs are now wearing "Je Suis Charlie" badges n *? Geez * peace.....
     
  10. King of Kings

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    13,008
    Likes Received:
    10,065
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Fav Celtic Player:
    boruc
    Brilliant post :50:
     
  11. Dáibhí

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    22,125
    Likes Received:
    440
    Cheers, it took me * ages to type it all out! :smiley-laughing002:
     
  12. angusceltic67

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,035
    Likes Received:
    2,466
    Location:
    Eire
    After the Paris shootings Netenyahu called on French Jews to return to Israel.

    This was the response :smiley-laughing002:


    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nja48mIUIA[/ame]

    Not all Jews are Zionists!
     
  13. HoopSprings

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,638
    Likes Received:
    701
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    Fav Celtic Player:
    Lubo
    Fav Celtic Song:
    You'll Never Walk Alone
    * *, you had to quote me point by point, you * :icon_mrgreen:

    I'm thinking of the widespread protests against things like The Satanic Verses (and the fatwa), the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, Terry Jones' Koran Burning. Granted, the response isn't consistent over every country but it's disingenuous to suggest there isn't a strong message on what the Muslim world finds acceptable and expects to be respected in the West. The OIC itself issued a condemnation of the Mohammed cartoons in 2005.

    I don't know what the definition of a moderate Imam is, but don't forget the chilling words of Sir Iqbal Sacranie, a man who led the MCB for some time. I would certainly grant you that I have heard condemnation from plenty of Muslim representatives in the West, but then they aren't bound by the sensibilities of the Muslim world - and I think that's an important distinction to make.

    I can't find anything on the specifics of the 2008 revision, but it would still appear to heavily draw from Sharia law.

    And if you're making generalisations about the inherent nature of politicians, you'll get no argument from me :icon_mrgreen:.

    Okay, there's a few points here.

    Firstly, I wouldn't defend any country with such discriminatory laws, there is no defence. However, if I wanted to raise the issue at the UNHRC, I likely wouldn't be shouted down by a 57-member block for being disrespectful to their religion.

    While I couldn't have named the states, yes I was aware that there are some in the US that prohibit atheists from taking office (I actually thought it was more). However, in reality would these prohibitions stand up to a legal challenge?

    As for Brazil, well, they've probably just been reading some posts by me and MGM.

    There's hardly a country in the world that could be considered a beacon of morality, but we can at least have an open discourse about the law. I'm not sure that could happen in Pakistan.

    I wasn't really talking about opposition in the context of political opponents, I was referring to people questioning Islam itself. I wouldn't contradict you on the motives of most politicians but the blasphemy laws within the OIC don't appear to exist for the benefit any specific political group.

    I wouldn't argue with most of that - please don't think that my criticisms of Islam in any way excuse any other group. But the scale is very different.

    I should probably have qualified this further: I mean in a personal social context. Within my circle of family, friends and colleagues, I wouldn't get any opposition to voicing my distaste to, say, a story about a rapist or murderer. But I find (and it may be only my personal experience - you tell me) when I voice my revulsion of acts like "honour killings" and female subjugation I am frequently met with the response of "you shouldn't be critical of someone's religion" or words to that effect. Not that I let it stop me right enough, but I'm continually disappointed by how accepting people are of these things and how opposed they are to any criticism of it.

    As for the Holocaust, I will admit that I am not comfortable with any law criminalising denial of it. As with the cartoons, no one is disadvantaged as a result of it (denial that is, not the event itself!).

    My argument wasn't based on the quality of Charlie Hebdo, merely the principle. Private Eye :50:

    What you choose to do on London Road is your business of course, but while it's a valid point, the law should still protect you in principle. Once we start making concessions to certain provocations, you have to ask where we draw the line and then we're back to square one, with all and sundry demanding protection from ridicule.

    I think you may be missing the point a little: we seem to be so accepting of the idea that some things are provocative to hardline Muslims and offensive to most of the rest, that we never put it in perspective. It would be refreshing to hear the Ayatollah, or someone similar, say "you know what, maybe we should concern ourselves a little more with the oppression ordinary Muslims are suffering under our laws before worrying about what some rag in France has chosen to do?"
     
  14. BigWilly The Wildcard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    1,951
    Location:
    Maine, USA
    Fav Celtic Player:
    Big Willy
  15. Jungo

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    5,136
    Likes Received:
    1
  16. Jungo

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    5,136
    Likes Received:
    1
    By rest I mean terrorists not Muslims before Any one gets on there high horse
     
  17. Sean Daleer Free Palestine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    75,867
    Likes Received:
    38,025
    How about the terrorists killing innocent people in the middle east with long range missiles and fighter jets, should they be killed as well?
     
  18. Tim-Time 1888 Always look on the bright side of Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    32,396
    Likes Received:
    11,210
    Location:
    Scotland
    Fav Celtic Player:
    Enrico Annoni
    Fav Celtic Song:
    Hail Hail
    I didn't know Isis had access to fighter jets as well now :icon_mrgreen:
     
  19. Sean Daleer Free Palestine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    75,867
    Likes Received:
    38,025
    [​IMG]
     
  20. Jungo

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    5,136
    Likes Received:
    1
    If you mean the Americans and the rest then yes


    Another world war would do the world good. If only a million or so survived and just started again from scratch lol worlds * up