Je suis Charlie

why can't we communicate through metaphysical intent?

good question,  my granddaughter does it all the time, I expect she will have to dumb down and use our words soon though

Well, if you told me what it was, lightbaron, I might attempt an answer.

Viddax, first, I agree that speech (and by 'speech' I assume we mean all forms of communication, including written and visual) is not free. I happily accept laws that forbid me from making ad hominem attacks on individuals based on their race, gender, religion, colour, etc. However, institutions and organizations of a religious, political or commercial nature are a different matter. If they promote actions or promulgate ideas that I find objectionable, or even just plain silly, then I have a right to object, protest, mock, or in some other non-violent way show my displeasure and disagreement.

"So if you are right Ceejay then does that not mean that satire and mockery in the face of such violence is pointless and weak: you satire, they kill."
No, it absolutely does not mean that. If it means anything, it means that the men of violence have lost. Yes, the individuals who aroused their ire by publishing some drawings are now dead, but the consciousness of the ideas that they were promoting has now spread to a much wider audience - the whole world, in fact. This time last week, I, along with billions of other people, had never heard of Charlie Hebdo, but this week the magazine has increased its print-run from 60,00 to three million. Does that suggest that the men of violence have won in their attempt to scare people into keeping quiet?

"My point is that if we as a society have enough wit and cunning to mock something for its faults, do we not also have the same capability to educate and inform."
Educate, yes; inform, yes, but mockery is also part of the armoury of disagreement in a liberal society, and let's face it, it's somewhat less harmful than  pumping bullets from an AK-47 into the bodies of unarmed civilians. If we allow this kind of fanatical brutality to govern what we can or can't do, how long is it before the men with the guns control every aspect of our lives, as they do now in many parts of the Middle East under the banner of ISIS. As for the West being 'melodramatic' and ignoring the 'bigger problems' because they are not 'in our own back yard', I just don't think this is true. People, I'm happy to say, are free to march and protest peacefully over things that are important to them, even if they may not seem important to you or me. As for 'bigger problems' elsewhere, we can do absolutely nothing about many of them, but we are at least aware of them because we have a free press and freedom of speech to discuss them, and we are therefore able to make our feelings known to our political representatives who may be able to have some influence at a diplomatic level. If you were living in, say, Raqqa or Mosul at the moment, what response do you think you'd get from the leaders of ISIS if you demanded that the women there be given an education or allowed to wear whatever clothes they wanted? I doubt if your head would remain in close contact with your shoulders for very long.

So sorry, Viddax, but I just can't agree that we should stop saying, writing or drawing things because a gang of psychopaths don't like it.

See 'The Escapist: Je Suis Charlie' (with Movie Bob) for further details, but one point to make is that by committing the killings and murder, in a way the terrorists have dictated the topic. Rather than a mocking cartoon.
Plus I still think that we should stop doing something if a gang of 'psychopaths' don't like it and then retailiate with force, as for the sake of existence there is surely a better way than antagonising the psychopaths. Perhaps understanding, or healing them.
Simply because there are 3 million copies sold, does not mean that is 3 million people who have all got the same idea. Anyway, Terrorism seems to be less about staying quiet and cowering, and more about a sudden sense of terror and or widespread brouhaha and uncalm repsonse. Which is kinda what has happened. Now I think about it the ideal outcome for me is not one of doing nothing, or of a loud bombastic rallying response, but one of calmly reacting and solving the problem and altogether moving forwards. And not one about fixating on the latest problem, making a big scene and then moving on.

I still hold to the idea that no one should have to die for an ideal to be worth something. Je suis désolé Charlie. That sums it up for me: I am sorry, in many ways and for many reasons, but I am not Charlie.

All religions are equally absurd but not all equally murderous or have it in their official doctrine to be disseminated by the sword.
I say: Zero tolerance to all religious fanatics from now on in all parts of the civilized world.
Just kick them out of everywhere.
Je suis Charlie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yW1dG9LC0

Looking at Paris over the past few days, you could be forgiven for thinking that Paris or indeed France as a nation is a beacon for freedom of expression. Leaders of our free world lined up in their tens to stand in solidarity with friends and family of the deceased, but more importantly to take a stand for freedoms of speech and expression.

I think there are a few things that need to be at least looked at.

we should acknowledge that the operation of entering a premises that was guarded by armed police men, the killings and subsequent getaway mark a new kind of sophistication and efficiency and that, for whatever reasons there was a distinct lack of ambition towards getting clean away. also I think it is vital for the long term to establish exactly where and by whom the cell received its training

in regards to the cartoon, there is also the question of motive, because I think it matters. what was the personal motive of the guy who drew cartoon of Mohammed that had Muslims in an uproar some years ago. It has been noted on occasion that the magazine pokes fun at all creed and that it is ok to poke fun at an idea (religion)  if that idea has fundamental flaws. however one should probably take into account that the same cartoonists also draw racist and homophobic drawings. the fan base for the magazine was around 60,000 and had gotten to a point in November of last year where it was making a loss. this week it is set to print five million copies.

David Cameron, who was at the forefront of the unity march in Paris, on arriving back to the UK announced his pledge to ban both whatsapp and snapchat if he is re elected on account of the fact that both apps are immune to snooping by British intelligence.

O Bama, who did not attend the unity march announced plans yesterday to inflict all sorts of rules onto the US internet after Islamic fundamentalists were reported to have hacked the US security system and stolen files about the Brass of its defense forces

France’s actual laws pertaining to freedom of expression are quite repressive. the present administration had a comedian banned from putting his shows on anywhere in France because his material was very anti-Semitic. the same comedian was arrested yesterday because of a status he made on face-book relating to the Paris Killings.

It is also illegal in France to question the official account of WW2, the punishment for such can be up to five years in prison.


freedom of expression in general terms are dwindling and the people taking them away arent angry Muslims with guns, they are being taken away by the very people that marched arm in arm down the streets of Paris to take a stand for Freedom.

Je suis Charlie

You make many good points, Lepperochan, that I would not disagree with. You are right to accuse so many of hypocrisy. I am not sure of your ultimate position, however. If it is to say that free speech is under attack in other areas and that we should be aware of this and doing something about it, then I wholeheartedly agree. If it is to suggest that because free speech is abused we should not try and defend it in a particular case, then I disagree. ‘The price of liberty is eternal vigilance’.

I think that your statement that it is illegal in France to question the official account of WW2 is a little too sweeping. Holocaust denial is certainly illegal, as in several other countries, and there may be something about protecting the ‘honour’ of those accused of collaboration, but I cannot find any details. I would be grateful for any links that you could give me.

I am totally against Holocaust Denial legislation. People like David Irving should be attacked by facts and evidence and made to look silly, as in the Lipstad trial, not made into martyrs for free speech.

If someone has a right (the actual status of rights is a different question) then motive should not restrict that right. Again, I am not quite sure of your position. To point out that things are being said for venal motives, are hypocritical or whatever, is fine (provided that you take due caution of the laws of libel and slander and have appropriate evidence) but if you are suggesting that this invalidates their right to say it, I would totally disagree.

I have no problem with your preference for calmly solving the problem, Viddax, rather than a deal of ‘bombastic rallying’ but I would certainly question its practicality. Extremists are called that for a reason and human beings are notoriously resistant to rational persuasion when it comes to core beliefs.

I would certainly disagree with your suggestion that we should stop doing things that a ‘gang of psychopaths’ don’t like. I would not blame anyone for putting down their pen if they have an actual AK47 pointing at their head, but to put down our communal pens is a more dangerous option, in the long run, than refusing their demands. What next? They do not like homosexuals? Atheists? Jews? Equal rights and education for women? And how will you deal with different groups with contradictory agendas?

Viddax said:Simply because there are 3 million copies sold, does not mean that is 3 million people who have all got the same idea.
I completely agree, Viddax. I heard and saw people who had bought the magazine in Paris when it appeared this week being interviewed on radio and TV, and several said that they did not normally buy it and did not particularly like its contents, but saw the purchase of it as supporting the principle of freedom of expression. This principle is absolutely not about everyone thinking the same, but asserts the right of everyone being free to publish their views (taking into account the safeguards already mentioned) without fear of being arrested or murdered.
Viddax said:Now I think about it the ideal outcome for me is not one of doing nothing, or of a loud bombastic rallying response, but one of calmly reacting.
I would suggest that buying a magazine from a news-stand is precisely an example of 'calmly reacting'. As for 'solving the problem and moving forwards', this makes it sound like fixing a leaking water-pipe. The existence in society of religious fanatics who are prepared to murder people who disagree with them is not a 'problem' that can be so easily solved. I agree it must be addressed, and I also agree that a hysterical response, or 'big scene', is not the answer, but I think the French people responded in a calm and dignified manner.
Viddax said:I still hold to the idea that no one should have to die for an ideal to be worth something.
Again, I agree - no-one should have to die, But people have died, so what do you then do with the ideal? Scrap it? Ignore it? To do that is to accept that if someone, or some group, threatens you with violence over something you believe in, you abandon the belief, and I find that unacceptable.

so many sheep
so little fossil fuel left

Harpy

my position is not static. like most people I value the freedom to express. I don’t really look at the events in Paris as any kind of threat to my freedoms. not in the context of Charlie Headcase anyway. I think the major threat to freedoms come from the heads of state that hijacked the event and created the illusion of international solidarity.

another 54 people were arrested today in France for being anti Semite and expressing their opinion.


motive matters to me. ( though I admit it would be hard to prove one way or another) If the guy drew the cartoon out of malice and with the intent to incite then it would moot the argument about poking fun. the more I see of their cartoons the more I wonder if there is a fundamental ethos of provocation directed at the Muslim community for the purpose of inciting. that is wrong and if true I would say they took a risk and got shot for it ...though taking the hit did put their publication back in focus so its a lose / win situation

most importantly, because this is a global event with many implications I think that the full truth behind the killings must be known before we go talking about how the event was a blow to freedom of expression.

Its not past peoples to create illusions to further a collective agenda. like Atakti said earlier, I can wait til the truth comes out before I make up my mind. though talking about it here helps



I’ll have a look for some links re: French paws governing WW2
killing people is a form of expression too

I think your point is well made, Lepperochan. Intention to incite would certainly move into a grey area. However, generally speaking, if one were actually inciting violence directly, that would usually be regarded as beyond the bounds of free speech, though that is by no means uncontentious. But deliberately being provocative would be an entirely different case.

It would then be an ethical question as to where responsibility lay, with those deliberately provoking, or those who take provocation as justification for causing actual bodily harm. If the former is taken as bearing the greater responsibility, then all it requires is for any believer, in any worldview, to declare themselves mortally offended by any opinion contrary to their own and to stifle that opinion. It would be the death of free speech.

I also see a world of difference between my hammering on the door of my Moslem neighbour and screaming insults to the prophet through his letterbox and publishing insulting cartoons in a magazine that he is not required to read.

As to awaiting for the truth, three points.
   Does the truth ever come out, so as to be beyond doubt?
   Except in the case of some extremely improbable conspiracy theory it is difficult to see how any evidence of hypocrisy, malevolence or deliberate provocation could justify the response. Killing people because you don’t like what they say is wrong. At least in my world view.
   The all important factor is perception. People protest what they reasonably see as an assault on free speech. And they are right to do so. Even if ultimately it is found not to be the case.

lepperochan, it is not today 54 people arrested for being anti-semite and expressing their opinion, but for praise (apologie, in French) for terrorism acts! Not exactly same! And not in relation with freedom of expression!