Attack on French satirical magazine who posted jokes about the prophet Mohammed - 12 killed

[streak]

Associated Press is one of many press bureaus that has chosen to not show the satirical cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, by cropping and blurring pictures or through just textually explaining them. This is their choice to make and I respect their concern about not offending many of their readers. It may not be in their mission to be edgy and criticial. Fine. Personally, I would preferred it if they had been willing to be more offensive, but again, it is their choice to make and I understand it. They also removed the satirical cartoons from their database of graphics, promptly spurring the conservative magazine The Washington Examiner to demand that they also remove any pictures that might be offensive to other religions, in particular Christianity. Not believing in making an exception for muslims, --although one might argue that other religions aren't as sensitive towards art that criticises their beliefs -- AP did as requested. So now images that are critical and offensive to any large religion is purportely removed from AP's important graphics database.

If you don't really believe in the power of criticism through satire nor of the importance of being critical towards religions and basically everything else we humans do and think, then I guess this is all fine, but I think it is a another sad outcome of the massacre in Paris.

I think it is a sensible thing to do, its a real tense time and emotions are running high. I have no issue with these cartoons being published but lets not be inflammatory at this moment in time.

Is is really a tense time? During the Mohammad caricatures in 2006 it really was a tense time with huge protests in Arab countries, storming of embassies, etc.

On the contrary, I would say that now is the time to show that the terrorist haven't won anything, that they gained nothing through the murdering of journalists and cartoonists, by publishing the cartoons over and over. Would that result in a tense time? Perhaps. Would it be worth it? I think so.

No its not worth it. 12 people have died because of this. Of course tension is high. How do you think you would feel if you were French Muslim? There is going to be a massive backlash because of this.

There are serious serious issues in France with a large minority of its population, and a big extremist problem, which no one wants to address. Instead, we get essays on free speech. Free speech isn't the issue as such. The French will not give in and will stick to their ideals.

The issue here is how to stop extremism. why are these people doing this? why are growing numbers of young muslims going to Syria and places like that and getting military training? Why?

[SoulMonster]

Associated Press is one of many press bureaus that has chosen to not show the satirical cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, by cropping and blurring pictures or through just textually explaining them. This is their choice to make and I respect their concern about not offending many of their readers. It may not be in their mission to be edgy and criticial. Fine. Personally, I would preferred it if they had been willing to be more offensive, but again, it is their choice to make and I understand it. They also removed the satirical cartoons from their database of graphics, promptly spurring the conservative magazine The Washington Examiner to demand that they also remove any pictures that might be offensive to other religions, in particular Christianity. Not believing in making an exception for muslims, --although one might argue that other religions aren't as sensitive towards art that criticises their beliefs -- AP did as requested. So now images that are critical and offensive to any large religion is purportely removed from AP's important graphics database.

If you don't really believe in the power of criticism through satire nor of the importance of being critical towards religions and basically everything else we humans do and think, then I guess this is all fine, but I think it is a another sad outcome of the massacre in Paris.

I think it is a sensible thing to do, its a real tense time and emotions are running high. I have no issue with these cartoons being published but lets not be inflammatory at this moment in time.

Is is really a tense time? During the Mohammad caricatures in 2006 it really was a tense time with huge protests in Arab countries, storming of embassies, etc.

On the contrary, I would say that now is the time to show that the terrorist haven't won anything, that they gained nothing through the murdering of journalists and cartoonists, by publishing the cartoons over and over. Would that result in a tense time? Perhaps. Would it be worth it? I think so.

No its not worth it. 12 people have died because of this. Of course tension is high. How do you think you would feel if you were French Muslim? There is going to be a massive backlash because of this.

There are serious serious issues in France with a large minority of its population, and a big extremist problem, which no one wants to address. Instead, we get essays on free speech. Free speech isn't the issue as such. The French will not give in and will stick to their ideals.

The issue here is how to stop extremism. why are these people doing this? why are growing numbers of young muslims going to Syria and places like that and getting military training? Why?

In fact, thousands of people have died because they dared to offend power structures. It it worth it for them? I think only they can answer that. Has something good come out of what they have done, which benefits us all? Most definitely. As such, I see Charlie Bedo as part of a very important democratic mechanism. I might not like how they have done things, but criticising religions/ideologies/political parties/public figures/organizations/thoughts/beliefs, even when it offends, is a right we can't risk to lose.

What I would feel if I was a French muslim? That's very hypothetical. I would hopefully be sad that terrorists who claim to have the same religion as me would massacre journalists because they had the courage to ridicule aspects of my religion. Secondly, I would voice my opinion that now is the time to protect freedom of expression - even when that freedom leads to people being offended. As far as fearing a backlash, yeah, I would be afraid of that because people don't understand that the actions of the terrorists don't have support among most muslims.

How to stop extremism is a separate issue. And a tough one. To do that we need to stop radicalization of youth, meaning that we must work to end discrimination of people (fight poverty, job exclusion, racism against minorities), we must promote equality between majorities and minorities, spend more resources on succesful integration, we must make sure youth have meaning and purpose in lives so they aren't drawn to extremism, and we must talk together. Especially talk together. And criticise ideas and opinions without losing respect for inviduals. Secondly, we must stabilize areas of conflicts world-wide, becaue places Syria and Iraq are breeding grounds for extremism. We must change foregn policies to be more about helping and supprting than punishing. Diplomacy and relief before bombs and drones. And we must promote businessand tourism between countries because a lot of conflicts come from misunderstanding between people who are for most part the same.

But we must still stand firm when people are being oppressed and when countries flaunt human rights. And this means that we must never stop criticising aspects of regimes, nations, religions, ideologies that we believe are wrong. That's a compromise we can't make. Was this what Charlie Hebdo was doing? I absolutely believe that their caricatures and jokes were making fun of aspects of religion that should be criticised, and as such their journalism falls within a great tradition. Theirs wasn't necesarrily the form I would have chosen, but it is extremely hard to make laws that censor forms when it is agreed that the content is okay. Much better to not try to make limitations to freedom of expression and rather work for people not being so offended by mere words and cartoons. Because when you allow yourself to be offended by what other people are simply expressing, you are giving them power over you to hurt you whenever they want -- and that's not a good situation to be in, is it? And maybe that's one of the problems here? We have muslim regimes that have protected themselves -- through censorship and limitations to freedom of press and speech -- from mocking and ridiculing criticism, meeting western socities where this artform is highly cherished and defended, and with little experience with this they are simply too sensitive to not be offended. Other religions among us have developed tougher skin. They have been desensitized to critisim that offends.

So should we stop criticising Islam (replace 'Islam' with any other thing)? Nope. Not even through satire? Nope.

[Len Cnut]

They think that the work they do is worth the risk, that criticising powerful structures in our society through satire is so important that they are willing to do it even when facing potential death.

I don't, i think it's pointless and it is just the exacerbating of a sore situation. The whole thing is coming from a position of me, me, me, me, me, me, not the issue, not solving anything, not doing a service to society...but just exercising my right because it's there for me to exercise, i don't agree with that, i think it caused needless deaths. It's a self-ccentric attitude that will lead us to the pits 'I'M insulted because you dissed MY God', 'I'M insulted because you're infringing MY rights to make cartoons about your God', none of this is helping, none of this is a positive dialogue, none of this is for any kind of greater good. Call it wishy washy hippie shit if you will but y'know what, it's better than people dying.

They also know that if other comedians, other newspapers, other people weren't so afraid to offend Islam and so afraid to criticise things that deserve criticism, then they wouldn't stand as alone and be such an obvious focal point for extreme terrorism.

Newspapers and comedians don't criticise Islam, are you fuckin' serious?!?! See now you're chatting shit, almost every major comedian these days has an Islam bit in their act, it's actually become that much of a stereotype that you're getting comedians now that are making jokes based around the fact comedians CONSTANTLY peg Islam. Which newspapers are you fucking reading that are not criticising Islam?!?! I can't believe you just said that, seriously, comedians and newspapers don't criticise Islam?!?!

I happen to agree with Charlie Hebdo on this. I might not have the guts to do what they do, nor be in a position to do it, but I applaud them for their courage and mission

I applaud any mans courage to say what he's thinking, especially if it's controversial and likely to put his life at risk, on some level, yes, that takes guts. But i also happen to think it's foolhardy and disingenuous. Guts on their own are not necessarily a commendable thing, a terrorist that blows himself up in pursuance of his cause has guts but that don't make it a good thing.

I don't believe in this idea of dealing with every single person and group and denomination the exact same way. You have the RIGHT to and should have the right to...but it's stupid to suggest that there should be an across the board way of dealing with everybody because you are negating the concept of individuality and individual sensitivities. Now you can turn around to that and say you don't care about individual sensitivities because all that mattters to you is your rights well, see how far that attitude takes you in life. The answer is not very. In fact I'd go so far as to say that a person who behaves in such a manner is socially retarded and a danger to themselves. You can't have a society based on individuality and individual rights but then turn around and deal with said society with none of the discernment that is necessary to effectively deal with groups whoose individuality the very fabric of your society encourages, thats just not sensible.

Everybody has a sore spot, individual sensitivities, you dig into any group and you can find some shit that is provocative to them, Americans really revere their flag (to be fair most countries do), now if i went to a protest regarding, i dunno, reparations to the black community by America and at that protest i burned an American flag, my reasoning for doing so being a symbolic rejection of what went on during slavery times under that flag. Now do i have the right to do so in a free society? Yes. Is my reasoning kinda airtight if i was take it to a debating table? Yes because no ones gonna disagree with the idea of rejecting what went on under that flags name during slavery, is it sensitive, intelligent or productive on any level? No, no and no and the reason for that is it's deliberately knowing where someones sore spot is and poking it with a view to getting a reaction out of them and some times that reaction can result in your ending up with a harp in hand and wings on your back. Would they be wrong in killing me over a flag? Of course they would but that doesn't absolve me from the responsibility of doing that stupid shit and purposely seeking to provoke.

Satire is valuable but it's also to be handled with care and when you seek to make provocative art with a view to provoking a reaction you can't control the reaction always so perhaps, and this is what has been my contention throughout this fuckin' thread, they could've gone a different way about it. Y'know, other than, OK, what winds muslims up the MOST? Oh yeah, ridiculing and trivialising their prophet! I think that'll get the best reaction from them, it'll be the most effective satire too because they'll TOTALLY get my point and they'll all turn around on a penny and go 'YES! We were wrong and Charlie Hebdo was right!'. I mean what is the point in any art or satire, to be understood yes, for the message to get across. Would you say the message got across here? Or did it just cause a massive kick off that resulted in 12 dead people?

There are similar things applicable to every culture in the world, so what we have is a choice, either we can all go around ignoring everything everybody is sensitive about and purposely seek to poke at that part of every denomination that results in kneejerk emotional responses and pointless violence...OR we can take each other for what we are, be aware and sensitive enough to not just take the easiest route of going for the most offensive possible to provoke a reaction and cause what is a massive cock up.

You can sit there and call it really commendable etc but honestly, from where I'm standing it's kinda cheap, it's like not having any good ideas of how to do this shit so you just resort to the easiest most convenient lowest common denominator insults to provoke a reaction. You can assign the name satire to something but satires a very broad thing, there's high end satirical theatre and then there's a lot cheaper satire, they are not all of the same value and just because you sign that name to it doesn't mean they all operate on the same level.

In a convoluted sense i have a tendency to sometimes do similar on this forum, insult people in quite horrible and off key ways because it's easy and i know it'll work, don't make me a big clever boy though, it just makes me a dick in that instance. When all else fails go for the thing that you KNOW will work, it's lazy and it's cheap and it suggests a lack of wit.

What I'm saying is it's not hard to take the piss, everybody can do it. What is hard though is to take the piss but at the same time get a point across through it that communicates something valuable, first and foremost to those who you are satirising and everybody else after that. Cuz it's easy being US and laughing at THEM...but when us and them are both laughing, both 'getting it' thats when satire has worked.

It's is NEVER a bad thing to be sensitive, it is NEVER a bad thing to try and understand people, it's one of the key difference between us and the terrorists...or should i go stand with the terrorists?

Edited January 10, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Len Cnut]

i also agree with Len when he says the problem must be resolved through compromise. with moderate Muslims i mean. in order to helps them put aside the grudges they hold against their governments and present a united front against terror together with other people. it might include a ban on the caricatures of the Prophet if necessary. and a permission to wear burqas, idk (have no idea why they were banned in the first place). although when someone says like X is an asshole and i don't justify him, but Y should have seen it coming, because such and such, i think he does justify an asshole and i can't agree with that

I don't know how much more explicitly I could've condemned the terrorists and how much more clearly I could state, over and over again, in umpteen different ways, that the terrorists are wrong and wrong in the first instance and the ONLY...thats ONLY party that can really be said to be at fault here. But that doesn't mean one party couldn't've done something to avoid it. How that is justification in your mind i have no idea. And furthermore i can't be responsible for peoples interpreting of what I'm saying, i don't know how many other ways there are to say this shit.

[magisme]

If you don't want to understand the other side's argument, I guess you'll just do mental gymnastics to misconstrue what they're saying. Good luck, Len, but I've done this in too many threads about political shit on this board, so you're on your own now.

[Len Cnut]

I think I'm gonna take the Mags ferry on out too, not really a lot left to say, if i haven't been understood yet then, well, i dunno, maybe i dont explain myself good.

[Dazey]

Can I be best man at your wedding fellas?

[SoulMonster]

Lenny,

Arguing that Charlie Hebdo did what they did ONLY to offend is silly and suggests you don't really know much about them. I am not saying there aren't people who offend just to offend, but political satire mostly doesn't.

I never said comedians and nespapers DON'T insult Islam. I said they are afraid to do so.

Lastly, to comment on your last part: I never said we ONLY should use offendig satire to critisise. It is part of our toolbox and when used correctly it is highy efficient.

Edited January 10, 2015 by SoulMonster

[netcat]

How that is justification in your mind i have no idea.

it was actually this part of your argument, Len, that made my cheeks all flushed

Sometimes it's valuable to look beyond your rights and consider the purpose of your exercising 'x' right in a given situation, what am i doing, why am i doing it, what purpose is it gonna serve, as opposed to 'i have the right so i'm just goin' to, full stop', to me thats really immature and juvenile in terms of the mentality...just like crazy fuckers who go out and kill people cuz having the piss taken out of em makes their cheeks all flushed...but then all you end up with is juvenile meeting juvenile

apart from that... the more i read about the whole situation, the more i start to understand that it was not an accident but a regularity. and there is only one way Islam and liberalism can coexist peacefully on the same territory - through the mutual compromise. if that is what you're trying to say, i understand and mostly agree

p.s. the nature of this compromise is the subject of a broad public debate

Edited January 10, 2015 by netcat

[Len Cnut]

Arguing that Charlie Hebdo did what they did ONLY to offend is silly and suggests you don't really know much about them. I am not saying there aren't people who offend just to offend, but political satire mostly doesn't.

Sorry, aren't you the guy who said:

I happen to agree with Charlie Hebdo on this. I might not have the guts to do what they do, nor be in a position to do it, but I applaud them for their courage and mission (although I might disagree with HOW they do it, I really haven't seen enough of their caricatures to have an opinion of that)

And despite this handicapp you've thought it reasonable to suggest that lives should be laid down in pursuit of this. Reminds me of the politicians who pass bills without knowing what the shits about.

I never said comedians and nespapers DON'T insult Islam. I said they are afraid to do so.

And this fear is evidenced by their constantly doing it to the point of stereotype? You're not making any sense.

Lastly, to comment on your last part: I never said we ONLY should use offendig satire to critisise. It is part of our toolbox and when used correctly it is highy efficient.

Right and i was saying this weren't an instance where it was highly efficient ergo it was a bad move.

I was gonna leave this be, wasn't I?

Can I be best man at your wedding fellas?

Only if you and Evie wear matching Arsenal strips

[streak]

Associated Press is one of many press bureaus that has chosen to not show the satirical cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, by cropping and blurring pictures or through just textually explaining them. This is their choice to make and I respect their concern about not offending many of their readers. It may not be in their mission to be edgy and criticial. Fine. Personally, I would preferred it if they had been willing to be more offensive, but again, it is their choice to make and I understand it. They also removed the satirical cartoons from their database of graphics, promptly spurring the conservative magazine The Washington Examiner to demand that they also remove any pictures that might be offensive to other religions, in particular Christianity. Not believing in making an exception for muslims, --although one might argue that other religions aren't as sensitive towards art that criticises their beliefs -- AP did as requested. So now images that are critical and offensive to any large religion is purportely removed from AP's important graphics database.

If you don't really believe in the power of criticism through satire nor of the importance of being critical towards religions and basically everything else we humans do and think, then I guess this is all fine, but I think it is a another sad outcome of the massacre in Paris.

I think it is a sensible thing to do, its a real tense time and emotions are running high. I have no issue with these cartoons being published but lets not be inflammatory at this moment in time.

Is is really a tense time? During the Mohammad caricatures in 2006 it really was a tense time with huge protests in Arab countries, storming of embassies, etc.

On the contrary, I would say that now is the time to show that the terrorist haven't won anything, that they gained nothing through the murdering of journalists and cartoonists, by publishing the cartoons over and over. Would that result in a tense time? Perhaps. Would it be worth it? I think so.

No its not worth it. 12 people have died because of this. Of course tension is high. How do you think you would feel if you were French Muslim? There is going to be a massive backlash because of this.

There are serious serious issues in France with a large minority of its population, and a big extremist problem, which no one wants to address. Instead, we get essays on free speech. Free speech isn't the issue as such. The French will not give in and will stick to their ideals.

The issue here is how to stop extremism. why are these people doing this? why are growing numbers of young muslims going to Syria and places like that and getting military training? Why?

In fact, thousands of people have died because they dared to offend power structures. It it worth it for them? I think only they can answer that. Has something good come out of what they have done, which benefits us all? Most definitely. As such, I see Charlie Bedo as part of a very important democratic mechanism. I might not like how they have done things, but criticising religions/ideologies/political parties/public figures/organizations/thoughts/beliefs, even when it offends, is a right we can't risk to lose.

What I would feel if I was a French muslim? That's very hypothetical. I would hopefully be sad that terrorists who claim to have the same religion as me would massacre journalists because they had the courage to ridicule aspects of my religion. Secondly, I would voice my opinion that now is the time to protect freedom of expression - even when that freedom leads to people being offended. As far as fearing a backlash, yeah, I would be afraid of that because people don't understand that the actions of the terrorists don't have support among most muslims.

How to stop extremism is a separate issue. And a tough one. To do that we need to stop radicalization of youth, meaning that we must work to end discrimination of people (fight poverty, job exclusion, racism against minorities), we must promote equality between majorities and minorities, spend more resources on succesful integration, we must make sure youth have meaning and purpose in lives so they aren't drawn to extremism, and we must talk together. Especially talk together. And criticise ideas and opinions without losing respect for inviduals. Secondly, we must stabilize areas of conflicts world-wide, becaue places Syria and Iraq are breeding grounds for extremism. We must change foregn policies to be more about helping and supprting than punishing. Diplomacy and relief before bombs and drones. And we must promote businessand tourism between countries because a lot of conflicts come from misunderstanding between people who are for most part the same.

But we must still stand firm when people are being oppressed and when countries flaunt human rights. And this means that we must never stop criticising aspects of regimes, nations, religions, ideologies that we believe are wrong. That's a compromise we can't make. Was this what Charlie Hebdo was doing? I absolutely believe that their caricatures and jokes were making fun of aspects of religion that should be criticised, and as such their journalism falls within a great tradition. Theirs wasn't necesarrily the form I would have chosen, but it is extremely hard to make laws that censor forms when it is agreed that the content is okay. Much better to not try to make limitations to freedom of expression and rather work for people not being so offended by mere words and cartoons. Because when you allow yourself to be offended by what other people are simply expressing, you are giving them power over you to hurt you whenever they want -- and that's not a good situation to be in, is it? And maybe that's one of the problems here? We have muslim regimes that have protected themselves -- through censorship and limitations to freedom of press and speech -- from mocking and ridiculing criticism, meeting western socities where this artform is highly cherished and defended, and with little experience with this they are simply too sensitive to not be offended. Other religions among us have developed tougher skin. They have been desensitized to critisim that offends.

So should we stop criticising Islam (replace 'Islam' with any other thing)? Nope. Not even through satire? Nope.

Extremism is the issue though!

Charlie Hebdo would have got threats, and worse case- get firebombed like they did. It is the extremist element that took it that step too far.

Free speech isn't the issue here, its the fact that extremist elements exist in France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe. Nothing has been done about it.

Those 11 people could have been saved. I have heard this said these last few days, was there an intelligence failure?

[Len Cnut]

OK, so it's not pertinent to release cartoons today. But like MB said, what if tomorrow some nutters go shoot up a newsagents because he's selling Maxim and FHM? They're not high literature, and they're already controversial, so I suppose we could stop printing them for fear of violent reprisals. Next week a lady is beat up for baring an ankle, so people start being prudent and make sure they're always wearing high socks.

Yeah but my position has continually been that we shouldn't have these across the board responses to shit and each case should be taken on individual merit, taking into account all relevant factors, what you are doing is transplanting my proposal regarding an actual happenstance onto a hypothetical situation which, by virtue of being hypothetical, is ill-defined meaning the details, subtlities and vagaries and not there. A result of which is it's impossible to address cuz it's not a real situation with the requisite detail that being a reality bring about. All responses and actions are not applicable all the time.

But your Mohammed Ali anecdote brings up the point of fear, and living in a climate of fear.

And you don't see anything like that in the responses that you and Soulie have been putting across? Cuz I do. Right at the heart.

Ali knew of the very real danger of being attacked by racists at the time. Bundini took a gamble, and got beat up. But it seems the decision to say whether an action is prudent or not can only be decided after the fact, because if Bundini had somehow changed the minds of some of the people in that restaurant and made them change their views, then it wouldn't be so silly after all.

Meanwhile, back in the real world

It's freedom to do what you like vs. security, and while I do find it hard to align myself to the extreme of almost-total freedom with minimum security but greater loss of lives, I also don't feel comfortable with the option of living a life of zero risk but maximum security. You can say it's not a choice, that this is the world we live in and the choices have been made for us by other agents, but then how is change effected?

I don't need to know THE answer to be able to know when I'm hearing the wrong answer. It's not fear, it's common sense, you think the champ of the world was afraid of someone, you don't think he had guts? The guy stood up in front of the US Government, declared himself a man before the world and refused to go to war, was stripped of his right to make a living, risked getting asssinated, changed hearts and minds through being an example of peace...THAT was a fight worth fighting, going into the whites only restaurant just to get your head kicked in proves nothing. Nothing at all. It would've been a bad move and the wrong way to do shit, which goes right back to my initial point, pick your shots. One fight was a fight worth fighting, one that would get somewhere, would be fruitful, it was the longer, harder, more arduous fight and the champ was up for it. The other was stupid and dangerous and resulted in nothing but stripping yourself of your dignity in front of a bunch of people.

Yes, perhaps the cartoonists' drawings weren't the greatest battlefield for freedom of speech, maybe Bundini didn't make the biggest leap forward in Civil Rights that day, but how can you quantify the effect? And how do you know when you can make a difference? How is Bundini walking into a whites-only restaurant different than Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white man?

I don't think it's much different at all but then I don't think civil rights were achieved in America in the best possible way they could have been.

'm not saying I disagree with you that life is precious, but I'm trying to come to the point of asking when is quality of life greatly affected? You said people who find those cartoons funny could have gone without their chuckle that day, but I guess my point is saying that how much should we be victims to outside agents? Obviously everyone is to some extent but part of my point is that as there are so many agents like you say, that you can't be expected to avoid every potentially dangerous one.

Like i say, each instance is judged on its own merit, you weigh shit up, you look at the world around you and you make your judgement based on what is the best possible path, like i said reality is a very detailed and nuanced thing, i can't sit here and say to you OK, 'x' has to happen and then it's time to get the bayonets and muskets out, my way of looking at this shit is trying to find a way to avoid getting the bayonets and muskets out...not waiting for it like Christmas Eve. You follow your heart and your mind with this shit, it's not like a 'well at least wait til some shots ring out!' thing.

[MB.]

Side question: I've been looking through some of Hebdo's cartoons. RIP, but did the guy ever do one that was the least bit clever or insightful or thought provoking? Everything I've seen so far is really lowest common denominator shit.

Charlie Hebdo is the name of the magazine and not a guy. Just to let you know. There are multiple cartoonists working for that magazine from all over the world. It is actually a very anti racists magazine, but also anti organised religion.

This was just an obvious target, but it could have been anything. ISIS has been calling out to their followers in Europe to do attacks. This was the most logical one, but if not they would have find another target. Maybe they done only a jewish store, but it was just waiting for an attack to happen and probably more will follow. Well, I know, I am not going to a jewish museum or store anytime soon.

Those 11 people could have been saved. I have heard this said these last few days, was there an intelligence failure?

There actually was. These guys were followed by the french intelligence for years and for some reason that stopped. They said a money problem, but I think they just made a mistake. Edited January 10, 2015 by MB.

[Marj]

A mistake? I'm not sure I beleive in this type of mistake.

I'm I the only one wondering how two men, well prepared, military trained, wearing mask, who managed to escape in Paris and it's traffic jam....who murdered in cold blood the cleaning guy (who had seen them and could identify them) and a police officer begging for his life...could forget an ID??? Seriously??

I wasn't a fan of that magazine, but I'm just like everyone very shocked and so sad that those poor poor guys had been killed. Out of respect for who they were I just don't follow that "Je suis Charlie" thing. I'm not sure they'd like it.

[SoulMonster]

and there is only one way Islam and liberalism can coexist peacefully on the same territory - through the mutual compromise. if that is what you're trying to say, i understand and mostly agree

Compromises is usallu a vital tool of realpolitik but I don't think it is a good idea in this case. At least not if we by compromise mean that we will limit of freedom of speech and freedom of press. If we do that, and it is absolutely possible to, say, make it illegal to publish pictures of Mohammed, then we open ourselves for similar demands from other relgigions. And in fairness, I don't think we can make an exception for Islam. Not that it can't be argued that muslims are more provoked and offended than others and thus require special protection from insults, but because other religions won't see it that way and will demand equal treatment. This would mean awakening or a return of blasphemy laws, which I think would be a really bad thing. We can't get away from this slippery slope.

But more importantly, this is NOT the time to make such a compromise, even if we wanted to. We could have done it prior to the massacre on Charlie Hebdo, but if we do it now, and regardless of whether we do it based on nothing but a desire to not offend muslim and NOT because we want to avoid further terrorist attacks on the free press, it will still go down in history that terrorists made Europe revert to darker times when religions held special protection from critisism, a criticism everyone and everything else is regularly subjected to. And everyone will believe that terrorism is a viable method for deciding what we are allowed and not allowed to say and write in our supposedly free press.

Arguing that Charlie Hebdo did what they did ONLY to offend is silly and suggests you don't really know much about them. I am not saying there aren't people who offend just to offend, but political satire mostly doesn't.

Sorry, aren't you the guy who said:

I happen to agree with Charlie Hebdo on this. I might not have the guts to do what they do, nor be in a position to do it, but I applaud them for their courage and mission (although I might disagree with HOW they do it, I really haven't seen enough of their caricatures to have an opinion of that)

And despite this handicapp you've thought it reasonable to suggest that lives should be laid down in pursuit of this. Reminds me of the politicians who pass bills without knowing what the shits about.

I never said comedians and nespapers DON'T insult Islam. I said they are afraid to do so.

And this fear is evidenced by their constantly doing it to the point of stereotype? You're not making any sense.

Lastly, to comment on your last part: I never said we ONLY should use offendig satire to critisise. It is part of our toolbox and when used correctly it is highy efficient.

Right and i was saying this weren't an instance where it was highly efficient ergo it was a bad move.

I was gonna leave this be, wasn't I?

Can I be best man at your wedding fellas?

Only if you and Evie wear matching Arsenal strips

Yes, l happen to think that our freedom of speech and feeedom of press is worth human lives.

Comedians are not constantly attacking Islam . Some are. Many aren't at all. Besides, I was talking about comedians and newspapers. I should have included cartoonists. After 2006 people have been very afraid to use imagery of Mohammed and other sacred areas of Islam as part of their criticism/routine. Basicallly, the death threat and murder attempt at that Danish carttonist succeded in stifling us. Charlie Hebdo refused to change their practice and make an exception for Islam, and became victims.

[SoulMonster]

Free speech isn't the issue here, its the fact that extremist elements exist in France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe. Nothing has been done about it.

Those 11 people could have been saved. I have heard this said these last few days, was there an intelligence failure?

I wrote a lot on how to prevent radicalisation. We are obviously not doing enough in Europe to stop this.

As for the 12 that died. You could say that if they hadn't insisted on making fun of Islam they wouldn't have been killed. You could say that if France had done more to prevent radicalisation it wouldn't have happened. You could say that if France had monitored their "radical elements" better, it wouldn't have happened. Or that if they had given Charlie Hebdo better protection it wouldn't have happened. Or even, to take a stroll further backwards in the chain of cause and affect, that if we had done better at fixing problems in Iraq and Syria, that it wouldn't have happened. I think all of this is correct to various extents.

As for an intelligence failure. I have no idea. It is very easy to point fingers at France police and security and say they should have been able to prevent this from happening before it did, but I doubt they can monitor every person in France who might be liable to do something like this in the future. Better to protect potential targets and work-long time to prevent further radicalisation.

[Len Cnut]

Yes, l happen to think that our freedom of speech and feeedom of press is worth human lives.

Which you can't conclusively argue this is, which is where you become wrong. Now you can attempt to rephrase and, in doing so, completely reconfigure and alter my position in your assessment...but all that does is show how wrong you are here.

Comedians are not constantly attacking Islam . Some are. Many aren't at all.

I bet i can take 20 of the top of comedians in the world, stand up etc and I'll bet you the vast majority have a bit on Islam. Jim Jefferies, Bill Maher, Chris Rock, Kat Williams, name em, reel em off and I'll tell you which ones have bits on Islam.

Besides, I was talking about comedians and newspapers

Same applies.

I should have included cartoonists.

Well you make your mind up what you mean, settle on it and I'll address it when you know what you're talking about okay?

After 2006 people have been very afraid to use imagery of Mohammed and other sacred areas of Islam

Yes, as evidenced by 'lets draw Muhammad day' or whatever that shit was

[SoulMonster]

Yes, l happen to think that our freedom of speech and feeedom of press is worth human lives.

Which you can't conclusively argue this is, which is where you become wrong. Now you can attempt to rephrase and, in doing so, completely reconfigure and alter my position in your assessment...but all that does is show how wrong you are here.

Comedians are not constantly attacking Islam . Some are. Many aren't at all.

I bet i can take 20 of the top of comedians in the world, stand up etc and I'll bet you the vast majority have a bit on Islam. Jim Jefferies, Bill Maher, Chris Rock, Kat Williams, name em, reel em off and I'll tell you which ones have bits on Islam.

Besides, I was talking about comedians and newspapers

Same applies.

I should have included cartoonists.

Well you make your mind up what you mean, settle on it and I'll address it when you know what you're talking about okay?

After 2006 people have been very afraid to use imagery of Mohammed and other sacred areas of Islam

Yes, as evidenced by 'lets draw Muhammad day' or whatever that shit was

Of course what the journalists in Charlie Hebdo did was to execute their freedom of speech and press freedom. And as I have said numerous times, what THEY did was quite possibly not worth dying for, thatæ's only for them to decide.

Draw Mohammed day was an outlier. For most parts media became more careful about insulting Islam after 2006. As for comedians, I suppose your choice of comedians are a bit more edge than the average . I for once can barely remember seeing a comedian touch the subject of Mohammed in any way that was reckless.

[Len Cnut]

Of course what the journalists in Charlie Hebdo did was to execute their freedom of speech and press freedom. And as I have said numerous times, what THEY did was quite possibly not worth dying for, thatæ's only for them to decide.

So far you've said it is worth dying for and now it's quite possibly not. Make your mind up.

For most parts media became more careful about insulting Islam after 2006. As for comedians, I suppose your choice of comedians are a bit more edge than the average

Not really, you see on terrestrial TV here, current affairs shows like Have I Got News For You, you see it in stand up CONSTANTLY, in fact i can't think of a major comedian that hasn't touched upon it.

[SoulMonster]

Of course what the journalists in Charlie Hebdo did was to execute their freedom of speech and press freedom. And as I have said numerous times, what THEY did was quite possibly not worth dying for, thatæ's only for them to decide.

So far you've said it is worth dying for and now it's quite possibly not. Make your mind up.

For most parts media became more careful about insulting Islam after 2006. As for comedians, I suppose your choice of comedians are a bit more edge than the average

Not really, you see on terrestrial TV here, current affairs shows like Have I Got News For You, you see it in stand up CONSTANTLY, in fact i can't think of a major comedian that hasn't touched upon it.

I have NEVER said what the journalists did was worth dying for, I have many times explicitly stated that that is only for them to know. I have said that freedom of expression is worth dying for, in totality, not EVERY example of freedom of expression. This distinction is important.

We have to disagree on whether the 2006 Muhammed debacle led to a more careful media in regards to offending Islam.

[Len Cnut]

Of course what the journalists in Charlie Hebdo did was to execute their freedom of speech and press freedom. And as I have said numerous times, what THEY did was quite possibly not worth dying for, thatæ's only for them to decide.

So far you've said it is worth dying for and now it's quite possibly not. Make your mind up.

For most parts media became more careful about insulting Islam after 2006. As for comedians, I suppose your choice of comedians are a bit more edge than the average

Not really, you see on terrestrial TV here, current affairs shows like Have I Got News For You, you see it in stand up CONSTANTLY, in fact i can't think of a major comedian that hasn't touched upon it.

I have NEVER said what the journalists did was worth dying for, I have many times explicitly stated that that is only for them to know. I have said that freedom of expression is worth dying for, in totality, not EVERY example of freedom of expression. This distinction is important.

We have to disagree on whether the 2006 Muhammed debacle led to a more careful media in regards to offending Islam.

OK, so, in this discussion you said freedom of expression was worth dying for...but you didn't mean the cartoons around which the discussion was based? Despite saying it several times? Well in that case you're either crap at making a point or lying, neither does your point much good.

And based on your final point all i can deduce is either that you live in a remote outhouse somewhere with no access to any kind of media OR...you're just plain lying. I mean Christ Almighty, people are afraid to criticise Islam? I thought thats all you ever heard these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FdEUADYTfU

When you get into comedians like Kat Williams, Eddie Griffin, the vast majority of the Def Jam alumni, shit, I'd have to trawl through all of their specials to pick out the bits on Islam for you.

Here's an entire documentary about people terrified to speak up about Islam, you can tell how scared they are by the way they are screaming 'ALLAH, ALLAH, WHO THE FUCK IS ALLAH?!?' and 'MUHAMMAD IS A PEDO' at the top of their lungs.

[Heisenberg]

IN SOLIDARITY WITH A FREE PRESS: SOME MORE BLASPHEMOUS CARTOONS

BY GLENN GREENWALD

@ggreenwald

Defending free speech and free press rights, which typically means defending the right to disseminate the very ideas society finds most repellent, has been one of my principal passions for the last 20 years: previously as a lawyer and now as a journalist

. So I consider it positive when large numbers of people loudly invoke this principle, as has been happening over the last 48 hours in response to the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

Usually, defending free speech rights is much more of a lonely task. For instance, the day before the Paris murders, I wrote an article about multiple cases where Muslims are being prosecuted and even imprisoned by western governments for their online political speech – assaults that have provoked relatively little protest, including from those free speech champions who have been so vocal this week.

I’ve previously covered cases where Muslims were imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting “extremist” videosto the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases ofjobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or (much more dangerously and rarely) Judaism. I’m hoping this week’s celebration of free speech values will generate widespread opposition to all of these long-standing and growing infringements of core political rights in the west, not just some.

Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending. One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them.

But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,”announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”

Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted, such as the one mocking the African sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens (left). Others went far beyond maligning violence by extremists acting in the name of Islam, or even merely depicting Mohammed with degrading imagery (above, right), and instead contained a stream of mockery toward Muslims generally, who in France are not remotely powerful but are largely a marginalized and targeted immigrant population.

But no matter. Their cartoons were noble and should be celebrated – not just on free speech grounds but for their content. In a column entitled “The Blasphemy We Need,” The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat argued that “the right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order” and “that kind of blasphemy [that provokes violence] is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good.” New York Magazine‘s Jonathan Chait actually proclaimed that “one cannot defend the right [to blaspheme] without defending the practice.” Vox’s Matt Yglesias had a much more nuanced view but nonetheless concluded that “to blaspheme the Prophet transforms the publication of these cartoons from a pointless act to a courageous and even necessary one, while the observation that the world would do well without such provocations becomes a form of appeasement.”

To comport with this new principle for how one shows solidarity with free speech rights and a vibrant free press, we’re publishing some blasphemous and otherwise offensive cartoons about religion and their adherents:

And here are some not-remotely-blasphemous-or-bigoted yet very pointed and relevant cartoons by the brilliantly provocative Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff (reprinted with permission):

Is it time for me to be celebrated for my brave and noble defense of free speech rights? Have I struck a potent blow for political liberty and demonstrated solidarity with free journalism by publishing blasphemous cartoons? If, as Salman Rushdie said, it’s vital that all religions be subjected to “fearless disrespect,” have I done my part to uphold western values?

When I first began to see these demands to publish these anti-Muslim cartoons, the cynic in me thought perhaps this was really just about sanctioning some types of offensive speech against some religions and their adherents, while shielding more favored groups. In particular, the west has spent years bombing, invading and occupying Muslim countries and killing, torturing and lawlessly imprisoning innocent Muslims, and anti-Muslim speech has been a vital driver in sustaining support for those policies.

So it’s the opposite of surprising to see large numbers of westerners celebrating anti-Muslim cartoons - not on free speech grounds but due to approval of the content. Defending free speech is always easy when you like the content of the ideas being targeted, or aren’t part of (or actively dislike) the group being maligned.

Indeed, it is self-evident that if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in “solidarity” with their free speech rights. In fact, Douthat, Chait and Yglesias all took pains to expressly note that they were only calling for publication of such offensive ideas in the limited case where violence is threatened or perpetrated in response (by which they meant in practice, so far as I can tell: anti-Islam speech). Douthat even used italics to emphasize how limited his defense of blasphemy was: “that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended.”

One should acknowledge a valid point contained within the Douthat/Chait/Yglesias argument: when media outlets refrain from publishing material out of fear (rather than a desire to avoid publishing gratuitously offensive material), as several of the west’s leading outletsadmitted doing with these cartoons, that is genuinely troubling, an actual threat to a free press. But there are all kinds of pernicious taboos in the west that result in self-censorship or compelled suppression of political ideas, from prosecution and imprisonment to career destruction: why is violence by Muslims the most menacing one? (I’m not here talking about the question of whether media outlets should publish the cartoons because they’re newsworthy; my focus is on the demand they be published positively, with approval, as “solidarity”).

When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words. Why aren’t Douthat, Chait, Yglesias and their like-minded free speech crusaders calling for publication of anti-Semitic material in solidarity, or as a means of standing up to this repression? Yes, it’s true that outlets like The New York Times will in rare instances publishsuch depictions, but only to document hateful bigotry and condemn it – not to publish it in “solidarity” or because it deserves a serious and respectful airing.

With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.

To see how true that is, consider the fact that Charlie Hebdo – the “equal opportunity” offenders and defenders of all types of offensive speech -fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic (the writer was then charged with a hate crime offense, and won a judgment against the magazine for unfair termination). Does that sound like “equal opportunity” offending?

Nor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offensive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, wasrepeatedly cancelled by theaters due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt wasparalyzed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks weredeluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologize out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religioussectarianism.

The New York Times‘ David Brooks today claims that anti-Christian bias is so widespread in America – which has never elected a non-Christian president – that “the University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.” He forgot to mention that the very same university just terminated its tenure contract with Professor Steven Salaita over tweets he posted during the Israeli attack on Gaza that the university judged to be excessively vituperative of Jewish leaders, and that the journalist Chris Hedges was just disinvited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.

That is a real taboo – a repressed idea – as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticizing Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles –including the U.S. Congress – that one barely notices it any more.

This underscores the key point: there are all sorts of ways ideas and viewpoints are suppressed in the west. When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication ofthose ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offensive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images; additional research was provided by Andrew Fishman

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

[SoulMonster]

OK, so, in this discussion you said freedom of expression was worth dying for...but you didn't mean the cartoons around which the discussion was based? Despite saying it several times? Well in that case you're either crap at making a point or lying, neither does your point much good.

Yes, I have said that freedom of expression is worth dying for but I have NEVER said these particular cartoon are worth dying for. Haha, yes, blame me for you not getting it. I am not saying I am not bad at making points, but in this case it seems like you're the only one who hasn't been getting it.

And in case you still don't get it how a totality can be worth dying for although each case of dying won't, let me try a few analogies.

Uhm, wars? Crapy analogy, really, me being a pseudo-pacifist and all, but let's try it anyway. And this analogy can't be used for anything but to compare the totality aspect. I am NOT saying that executing freedom of expression is a war, or anything like that. Lives are usually expendable in a war and you are okay with certain losses fighting a war. But each individual loss may not have been worth it, e.g. if they resulted from a melee based on false intelligence, failed strategies, etc. You could zoom in on each loss of a life and ask, "was it worth it?", "was that particulat part of the war worth it?", and the answers may clearly be no. But the totality of it, when you look at the additive lives lost, at the end of the war, you may say that the cause were worth the lives lost, even if you may feel that the circumstances around some of those deaths were regretable.

Shitty analogy. Let's try another one: Building a garage the old-fashioned way with hammer and nails. You expect, what, 1000 nails to be hammered in. At the start of the project you expect a few sore thumbs, but it will still be worth it. It's a low price to pay. But each hammer stroke that hits your fingers are a mistake. Each of them shouldn't have happened. But when you finish the last tiles on the roof and look back at the result, you don't mind those sacrifices.

This analogy may be better: End of segregation in the US from 1900 to 1970s. So the anti-segregation laws, to a large extent, were in effect but weren't enforced in the South. People started to challenge this by refusing to go to seperate toilets, to demand to be registreted for vote, to demonstrate, etc. Duing this period there were numerous loss of lives, blacks were killed by whites, whites were killed by blacks, there were bombs from the KKK; blank panthers beliving in violence, peaceful demonstrations turned to riots, violent police, etc. Was it all worth figting for? I believe so. Was it worth dying for? I would say so. Was EACH occasion of someone losing a life worth it? Absolutely not.

Actually segregation, or rather the abolishment of segregation, is similar to freedom of speech, We expect to live in a country where we have freedom of speech and were everyone is treated alike. And people die as a result of these things still. Whether it is taking freedom of expression to its extreme and offending others, or being selected by white supremacisst because you are a black lawyer known for your politics. IS it always worth dying for? Probably not. But are these principles, these pillars of democracy, worth fighting for and, yes, dying for. Absolutely. There are hundreds of thousands who have already died for us to have these rights, they are really worth figting for still.

And as a digression, taking freedom of speech to its extremes would probably be hate speech, e.g. trying to whip up hatred among populations and start violence. This reminds me of the slogan "Kill all cockroaches! Kill all cockroaches!" that were screamed out on national radio in Rwanda the months and days before the horrible genocide in that country, and which caused the majority Hutus to kill Tutsis en masse, neigbour killing neighbour, relative killing relative, leaving a hundreds of thousands dead. That was hate speech to its darkest. And I agree that this is a reasonable limitation to our freedom of speech. Of course an atheist standing on a soap box in Oslo screaming we should kill all Christians isn't the same as what happened in Rwanda, the context is vatly different and the potential danger is negligable. But we have enforced the hate speech law in Norway too. Breivik is not allowed to publish his thoughts in letters to admirers and ideologically peers in fear that he is establishing a terrorist network and is promoting similar acts as he committed. What Cherlie Hebdo did was, of course something else entirely.

I don't have time for this. My point is, and have always been, that freedom of expression is worth dying for. But not necesarrily by offending muslims through satire. That is a decision that ONLY the journalists in Charlie Hebdo could make.

[Len Cnut]

And in case you still don't get it how a totality can be worth dying for although each case of dying won't, let me try a few analogies.

Didn't really need the analogy, just clear statement in the first instance. or even the 25th instance. Clearly you've haven't got the time to think your logic out either. Maybe perhaps reserve opinion until you do, so it's a little better defined?

Edited January 11, 2015 by Len B'stard

[netcat]

and there is only one way Islam and liberalism can coexist peacefully on the same territory - through the mutual compromise. if that is what you're trying to say, i understand and mostly agree

Compromises is usallu a vital tool of realpolitik but I don't think it is a good idea in this case. At least not if we by compromise mean that we will limit of freedom of speech and freedom of press. If we do that, and it is absolutely possible to, say, make it illegal to publish pictures of Mohammed, then we open ourselves for similar demands from other relgigions. And in fairness, I don't think we can make an exception for Islam. Not that it can't be argued that muslims are more provoked and offended than others and thus require special protection from insults, but because other religions won't see it that way and will demand equal treatment. This would mean awakening or a return of blasphemy laws, which I think would be a really bad thing. We can't get away from this slippery slope.

But more importantly, this is NOT the time to make such a compromise, even if we wanted to. We could have done it prior to the massacre on Charlie Hebdo, but if we do it now, and regardless of whether we do it based on nothing but a desire to not offend muslim and NOT because we want to avoid further terrorist attacks on the free press, it will still go down in history that terrorists made Europe revert to darker times when religions held special protection from critisism, a criticism everyone and everything else is regularly subjected to. And everyone will believe that terrorism is a viable method for deciding what we are allowed and not allowed to say and write in our supposedly free press.

Look im not fond of it either. And I know it’s gonna be difficult and most people are not ready for it yet. But sooner or later you (European countries with large Muslim minorities) will have no choice but to compromise. Unless you want to deport all Muslims. Or ban Islam. Or kill 100 random Muslims for every murdered civilian. Well that would be not very liberal.

French socialists for years told muslim immigrants that they are French people like everybody else and France is their Homeland. So it’s not surprising they believed in it and now they want to live and act like they are home. Also you must take into consideration that in future Muslim population will grow and European population will decrease.

Also im not talking about compromising with terrorists, obviously. Im talking about regular Muslims. A new social contract that would satisfy most of reasonable people on both sides. Will it stop terrorism once and for all? Obviously not. But it (alongside with better social adaptation mechanisms you’ve mentioned) will prevent many people from radicalizing. And it will help to detect terrorist attacks in preparation as Muslim population in general will be much more loyal to the government and much more intolerant to the radicals and potential terrorists.

profit