MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
I'd Rather Die Standing Than Live on My Knees - Charlie Hebdo Pays the Price for Free Speech
- Thread starter CensoredBoardsSuck
- Start date
I strongly believe all muslim terrorists should be waterboarded with pig's blood until they die of disease.
Also, punishing innocent civilians for the wrongdoings of a government is absurd... But you can't expect much from muslims, they aren't the brightest of humans on the planet. In fact, I'd wager pigs are more intelligent than most of them are.
I'm still waiting for the day that muslims are deported from all western countries, and are left in the desert to continue to kill each other as they have been doing for thousands of years. How can we expect a religion to be tolerant to western society when they can't even tolerate different sects of their own religion.
Also, punishing innocent civilians for the wrongdoings of a government is absurd... But you can't expect much from muslims, they aren't the brightest of humans on the planet. In fact, I'd wager pigs are more intelligent than most of them are.
I'm still waiting for the day that muslims are deported from all western countries, and are left in the desert to continue to kill each other as they have been doing for thousands of years. How can we expect a religion to be tolerant to western society when they can't even tolerate different sects of their own religion.
Last edited:
The movie Obama 2016 explain everything clearly. And why our head of government. Turns his head.
I still wonder how many with the "Je suis Charlie" signs really are Charlie today. Charlie Hebdo was bleeding financially with bankruptcy imminent before the massacre. There was hardly any support when it requested donations given its dire straits.
Rather than stop Charlie Hebdo, the terrorists ensured that it will live on - at least temporarily.
With the recent tragedy and the anti-Islamic sentiment, it is easy for everyone to say "je suis Charlie". But do they really support the principle of free speech? Or do they really just support the satirizing and mocking of Islam?
Would they just as readily support Charlie Hebdo as the equal opportunity offender that satirizes and mocks Christianity too?
I haven't had a chance to see this yet. But I am aware of the growing special forces operations in a lot of countries. He seemed to be fascinated with drones when he first came to office.
America's Secret War in 134 Countries | The Nation
America's Secret War in 134 Countries | The Nation
I'm no Christian, I don't follow any organized religion for that matter, but Christians wouldn't kill someone over a cartoon... At least not in this day and age.
And as far as the crusades go... I was under the impression that middle-eastern Christian nations were conquered by the sword of islam, and subsequently Christians started the crusade in an attempt to both convert and take back the land that was taken from them.
Either way, all religions have moved past the middle-age mindset of convert or die... Except for islam, and that is where the problem lies.
Also, killing someone because they disrespect your religious beliefs is, once again, absurd. I'm much more likely to piss on a religion that gets so upset at me for doing so that they would want to kill me.
Last edited:
He wasn't really an equal opportunity offender...
French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe
A Left-wing cartoonist is to go on trial on Tuesday on charges of anti-Semitism for suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to Judaism for financial reasons.
By Henry Samuel in Paris
27 Jan 2009
Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.
"L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad."
A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off."
Mr Val's decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech.
Last week, the anti-capitalist, anti-clerical Sine, who recently founded his own weekly magazine, Sine Hebdo, took Claude Askolovitch, the journalist who first accused him of anti-Semitism, to court for slander in a separate case.
"When I heard that I was being treated as anti-Semitic, my blood ran cold," he said during the trial, adding that if Mr Askolovitch had turned up in person, "it is not a trial he would have had but a head butt."
Sine is the defendant in Tuesday's court case in Lyon, southern France. The plaintiff is the anti-racism and anti-Semitism group, Licra.
The issue of anti-Semitism, already sensitive in a country still marked by the Alfred Dreyfus affair - the Jewish army captain wrongly accused of spying in the 19th century – has become even more charged in recent weeks due to Israel's Gaza offensive; France was hit by a series of anti-Semitic acts, including firebomb attacks on synagogues.
The young Mr Sarkozy, who is now the leader of his father's party in the president's old fiefdom, the chic Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine, has since married. He has denied converting to Judaism.
True. Anti-Islam and anti-Christianity - no problem. But Charlie Hebdo apparently practices self-censorship if there is a backlash and cartoons are perceived to be anti-Semitic; French cartoonist Siné won a 40,000-euro French court judgment for wrongful termination after he was fired.
Siné had a history of making anti-semitic statements but that did not prevent Charlie Hebdo from originally hiring him and expressing his viewpoint in cartoons for the paper:
I have no doubt that some of those currently supporting Charlie Hebdo's right to criticize Islam would not support Charlie Hebdo's, or anybody else's right to satirize and mock Christianity. Does a double standard exist in society? Absolutely. But at the same time, the freedom to satirize and mock Christianity is not in jeopardy.
The bigger and far more troubling and dangerous double standard exists in the media. The media pride themselves on being in the vanguard of the defense of the freedom of expression, and when it involves the freedom to criticize, mock, satirize, etc. Christianity or Judaism, they practically fall all over each other with the adulations for bravery. When it comes to criticizing Islam however, they're conspicuously silent. It's easy to criticize something when you don't fear retribution in the form of physical violence. It's a little harder when it could get you killed. And that's the point.
The media refuse to publish the Charlie Hebdo *Mohammed* cartoons, not out of concern for offending Muslims, but out of concern for their own lives.
The media have no qualms about offending Christians and Jews by satirizing and mocking Christianity and Judaism. Quite the contrary. Depictions of a crucifix in a jar of urine, or of the Virgin Mary coated in excrement are routinely published and promoted by Western media as high art. One of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Mohammed and a Jew was shown by the media this week with Mohammed pixilated, however, the Jew with the stereotypical hooked nose was not.
If the media were truly brave, if they were truly committed defending liberty and the freedom of expression, they would have stood in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and published those cartoons on the front page of their news papers and magazines the very next day. If they had stood in solidarity before the attack, they could have dispersed the risk - you can't kill them all. Instead, the media shrunk away as they always do, hiding their cowardice behind the facade of not wanting to offend, while leaving Charlie Hedbo and a few others to bear the brunt of Muslim anger.
And that is what led to the Charlie Hebdo attack this week. Charlie Hebdo stood alone doing what the media weren't brave enough to do, while the media were busy congratulating themselves for their bravery. And THAT is the epitome cowardice. The media should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves. But we both know they're not. What happened to Charlie Hebdo won't prevent them from giving out more worthless bravery awards to journalists for promoting and reporting the next work of art that mocks something that Christians hold dear. And all the while, the handful of truly brave cartoonists and journalists will continue mocking and satirizing and criticizing EVERYBODY, including Islam and Muslims, until the next attack comes along. And it WILL come along - the media's capitulation this week just guaranteed it.
Charlie Hebdo gave Jews their fair share.
"hey yids, what's gassin ?"
“1 million off the six, in exchange for Palestine!” Mocking the Holocaust (Shoah).
Carlie hebdo fires the Jews from his crew "-outta here, yids ! -without us the quality will decrease..."
"flatten your bellies !" (assuming they fat because they are eating well)
"an arab lick a yid's ass" / "does racism sell ? a jewish woman's ass".
Last edited:
I have no doubt that some of those currently supporting Charlie Hebdo's right to criticize Islam would not support Charlie Hebdo's, or anybody else's right to satirize and mock Christianity. Does a double standard exist in society? Absolutely. But at the same time, the freedom to satirize and mock Christianity is not in jeopardy.
The bigger and far more troubling and dangerous double standard exists in the media. The media pride themselves on being in the vanguard of the defense of the freedom of expression, and when it involves the freedom to criticize, mock, satirize, etc. Christianity or Judaism, they practically fall all over each other with the adulations for bravery. When it comes to criticizing Islam however, they're conspicuously silent. It's easy to criticize something when you don't fear retribution in the form of physical violence. It's a little harder when it could get you killed. And that's the point.
The media refuse to publish the Charlie Hebdo *Mohammed* cartoons, not out of concern for offending Muslims, but out of concern for their own lives.
The media have no qualms about offending Christians and Jews by satirizing and mocking Christianity and Judaism. Quite the contrary. Depictions of a crucifix in a jar of urine, or of the Virgin Mary coated in excrement are routinely published and promoted by Western media as high art. One of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Mohammed and a Jew was shown by the media this week with Mohammed pixilated, however, the Jew with the stereotypical hooked nose was not.
If the media were truly brave, if they were truly committed defending liberty and the freedom of expression, they would have stood in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and published those cartoons on the front page of their news papers and magazines the very next day. If they had stood in solidarity before the attack, they could have dispersed the risk - you can't kill them all. Instead, the media shrunk away as they always do, hiding their cowardice behind the facade of not wanting to offend, while leaving Charlie Hedbo and a few others to bear the brunt of Muslim anger.
And that is what led to the Charlie Hebdo attack this week. Charlie Hebdo stood alone doing what the media weren't brave enough to do, while the media were busy congratulating themselves for their bravery. And THAT is the epitome cowardice. The media should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves. But we both know they're not. What happened to Charlie Hebdo won't prevent them from giving out more worthless bravery awards to journalists for promoting and reporting the next work of art that mocks something that Christians hold dear. And all the while, the handful of truly brave cartoonists and journalists will continue mocking and satirizing and criticizing EVERYBODY, including Islam and Muslims, until the next attack comes along. And it WILL come along - the media's capitulation this week just guaranteed it.
Which is exactly why we should be all the more adamant about mocking islam and muslims at every chance we get.
But... What I really want to know is how many more people will need to die at the hands of muslim extremists before liberals denounce them and stop throwing around the laughable phrase that islam is the "religion of peace."
They are a cult of death masquerading around as a religion of peace... Nothing more, nothing less.
Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Be Offended
By Karl Sharro
As a satirist who focuses on the Middle East, I’ve bumped up against my share of boundaries. Two years ago, for example, I struggled with how to satirize the tendency of some Western observers to distort conflicts in the Middle East by attributing those conflicts to “ancient rivalries” rather than, say, contemporary political struggles. Ultimately, I decided that the best approach would be to push that logic to its absurd conclusion by writing a "tribal" guide to the region, which relied on familiar stereotypes about Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, and others. I hoped readers would understand that these caricatures were meant not to be crude and bigoted, but rather to show how disconnected the ancient-rivalries thesis is from reality. And readers did understand—for the most part. This ability to test the boundaries of good taste, and even to be offensive, is essential to effective satire. But it’s now under threat.
Following the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris and the cold-blooded murder of 12 people, a familiar refrain rang out in some quarters. The assault on the satirical magazine, so the argument went, represented a collision of cultures: a Western one that champions freedom of speech and an Islamic one that does not tolerate offenses to its religious symbols. But one of the real storylines here isn’t some clash of civilizations; it’s the steady erosion of freedom of expression and the rise of the right to be offended—in the West as well as other parts of the world.
The culture-clash interpretation of the horror in Paris transcends political divides in the West. On the right, some http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/islam-sharia-democracy-pluralism/2014/12/29/id/615310/ (claim) that Muslims’ beliefs are incompatible with modernity and Western values. On the left, some construe the attack as a retaliation for severe offenses, essentially suggesting that Muslims are incapable of responding rationally to such offenses and that it is therefore best not to provoke them. The latter explanation is dressed up in the language of social justice and marginalization, but is, at its core, a patronizing view of ordinary Muslims and their capacity to advocate for their rights without resorting to nihilistic violence. This outlook also promotes the idea that Muslims and other people of Middle Eastern origin are defined primarily by their religion, which in turn devalues and demeans the attempts of Arab and Middle Eastern secularists to define themselves through varying interpretations of religion or even by challenging religion and its role in public life. By seeking to present religion as a form of cultural identity that should be protected from offense and critique, Western liberals are consequently undermining the very struggles against the authority of inherited institutions through which much of the Western world’s social and political progress was achieved.
Related Story
Is ISIS Funny?
Given that I often deal with the issue of jihadism in my satire, the Charlie Hebdo attack highlighted the dangers that my colleagues and I face when we mock extremists. Still, there is a risk in framing what we do as satirists and cartoonists as a heroic battle against extremism. For one thing, this implies that only ‘worthy’ works of satire should be defended on the grounds of free speech. For freedom of speech and expression to mean something, they must be defended on their own terms, not because of their political usefulness in the fight against extremism.
This is a critical distinction given the current climate in the West, where a culture of taking offense has found fertile ground and is increasingly restricting what artists and writers are able to do and say. The British writer Kenan Malik traces the origins of this trend to 1989, when the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomenei issued his infamous fatwa against Salman Rushdie for allegedly blaspheming Islam in The Satanic Verses. In From Fatwa to Jihad, Malik argues convincingly that the response to the fatwa and similar threats has been counterproductive, coming to pose a grave threat to free speech. “Internalizing the fatwa has not just created a new culture of self-censorship, it has also helped generate the same problems to which self-censorship was supposedly a response,” he writes. “The fear of giving offence has simply made it easier to take offence.”
This dynamic, in turn, is breeding an insidious form of censorship, which is much more powerful and constraining than official censorship, and more difficult to confront. As the United Nations noted in 2014, threats to freedom of expression in North America and Western Europe are now coming more from private organizations than governments, with the principle especially contested online. We hear regularly of plays, books, and artwork—be it an anti-slavery exhibition in London accused of “complicit racism” or an irreverent Bible production in Northern Ireland branded as “blasphemous”—that are kept from the public because they could cause offense to one group or another. The slightest whiff of controversy is often enough to make publishers and curators bow to the intimidation. The demands to censor Charlie Hebdo cartoons aren’t driven by a uniquely Muslim sense of outrage.
A Tunisian friend once told me a telling story about the time he was invited, along with fellow activists, to a seminar on freedom of speech run by an EU organization. The instructors focused on the benefits of restrictions on the freedom of speech, such as hate-speech legislation and avoiding offensive language, but the activists were far more interested in learning how to assert their freedom to speak, write, and break social and political taboos. These days, I sense exhaustion about preserving such freedoms in the West, whereas activists and citizens in Arab and Middle Eastern countries are eager to establish these freedoms and leverage them for social and political change.
In my own experience, I encounter more concern about my writing and drawings being offensive from Westerners than from fellow Arabs (I’m Lebanese and based in London). “Are you allowed to say this?” they ask, betraying anxiety about what constitutes acceptable speech today and a desire for an external authority to validate the exercise at the expense of autonomous decision-making.
The murders in Paris have certainly brought the struggle for free speech into stark relief. But it’s premature to expect the episode to reverse the trend toward more restrictions on expression in the West. This week, for instance, the gush of support for freedom of expression was quickly countered by backlash against an op-ed written by Anjem Choudary, in which the radical British Islamist justified the Charlie Hebdo attack by claiming that Muslims don’t believe in free speech and that France shouldn’t have allowed the cartoons to be published. Many people argued that he shouldn’t have been given a platform in the press, particularly at a moment like this (for a sense of the intensity of the response, just look at Twitter).
But restricting free speech further, even in the case of so-called hate speech, would be precisely the wrong response to the carnage in Paris. Instead, we should reassert the rights of satirical magazines and radical preachers alike to express their views, and the freedom of anyone and everyone to challenge them. That’s the best lesson to learn from this tragedy.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-hebdo-i-and-the-right-to-be-offended/384404/
By Karl Sharro
As a satirist who focuses on the Middle East, I’ve bumped up against my share of boundaries. Two years ago, for example, I struggled with how to satirize the tendency of some Western observers to distort conflicts in the Middle East by attributing those conflicts to “ancient rivalries” rather than, say, contemporary political struggles. Ultimately, I decided that the best approach would be to push that logic to its absurd conclusion by writing a "tribal" guide to the region, which relied on familiar stereotypes about Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, and others. I hoped readers would understand that these caricatures were meant not to be crude and bigoted, but rather to show how disconnected the ancient-rivalries thesis is from reality. And readers did understand—for the most part. This ability to test the boundaries of good taste, and even to be offensive, is essential to effective satire. But it’s now under threat.
Following the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris and the cold-blooded murder of 12 people, a familiar refrain rang out in some quarters. The assault on the satirical magazine, so the argument went, represented a collision of cultures: a Western one that champions freedom of speech and an Islamic one that does not tolerate offenses to its religious symbols. But one of the real storylines here isn’t some clash of civilizations; it’s the steady erosion of freedom of expression and the rise of the right to be offended—in the West as well as other parts of the world.
The culture-clash interpretation of the horror in Paris transcends political divides in the West. On the right, some http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/islam-sharia-democracy-pluralism/2014/12/29/id/615310/ (claim) that Muslims’ beliefs are incompatible with modernity and Western values. On the left, some construe the attack as a retaliation for severe offenses, essentially suggesting that Muslims are incapable of responding rationally to such offenses and that it is therefore best not to provoke them. The latter explanation is dressed up in the language of social justice and marginalization, but is, at its core, a patronizing view of ordinary Muslims and their capacity to advocate for their rights without resorting to nihilistic violence. This outlook also promotes the idea that Muslims and other people of Middle Eastern origin are defined primarily by their religion, which in turn devalues and demeans the attempts of Arab and Middle Eastern secularists to define themselves through varying interpretations of religion or even by challenging religion and its role in public life. By seeking to present religion as a form of cultural identity that should be protected from offense and critique, Western liberals are consequently undermining the very struggles against the authority of inherited institutions through which much of the Western world’s social and political progress was achieved.
Related Story
Is ISIS Funny?
Given that I often deal with the issue of jihadism in my satire, the Charlie Hebdo attack highlighted the dangers that my colleagues and I face when we mock extremists. Still, there is a risk in framing what we do as satirists and cartoonists as a heroic battle against extremism. For one thing, this implies that only ‘worthy’ works of satire should be defended on the grounds of free speech. For freedom of speech and expression to mean something, they must be defended on their own terms, not because of their political usefulness in the fight against extremism.
This is a critical distinction given the current climate in the West, where a culture of taking offense has found fertile ground and is increasingly restricting what artists and writers are able to do and say. The British writer Kenan Malik traces the origins of this trend to 1989, when the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomenei issued his infamous fatwa against Salman Rushdie for allegedly blaspheming Islam in The Satanic Verses. In From Fatwa to Jihad, Malik argues convincingly that the response to the fatwa and similar threats has been counterproductive, coming to pose a grave threat to free speech. “Internalizing the fatwa has not just created a new culture of self-censorship, it has also helped generate the same problems to which self-censorship was supposedly a response,” he writes. “The fear of giving offence has simply made it easier to take offence.”
This dynamic, in turn, is breeding an insidious form of censorship, which is much more powerful and constraining than official censorship, and more difficult to confront. As the United Nations noted in 2014, threats to freedom of expression in North America and Western Europe are now coming more from private organizations than governments, with the principle especially contested online. We hear regularly of plays, books, and artwork—be it an anti-slavery exhibition in London accused of “complicit racism” or an irreverent Bible production in Northern Ireland branded as “blasphemous”—that are kept from the public because they could cause offense to one group or another. The slightest whiff of controversy is often enough to make publishers and curators bow to the intimidation. The demands to censor Charlie Hebdo cartoons aren’t driven by a uniquely Muslim sense of outrage.
A Tunisian friend once told me a telling story about the time he was invited, along with fellow activists, to a seminar on freedom of speech run by an EU organization. The instructors focused on the benefits of restrictions on the freedom of speech, such as hate-speech legislation and avoiding offensive language, but the activists were far more interested in learning how to assert their freedom to speak, write, and break social and political taboos. These days, I sense exhaustion about preserving such freedoms in the West, whereas activists and citizens in Arab and Middle Eastern countries are eager to establish these freedoms and leverage them for social and political change.
In my own experience, I encounter more concern about my writing and drawings being offensive from Westerners than from fellow Arabs (I’m Lebanese and based in London). “Are you allowed to say this?” they ask, betraying anxiety about what constitutes acceptable speech today and a desire for an external authority to validate the exercise at the expense of autonomous decision-making.
The murders in Paris have certainly brought the struggle for free speech into stark relief. But it’s premature to expect the episode to reverse the trend toward more restrictions on expression in the West. This week, for instance, the gush of support for freedom of expression was quickly countered by backlash against an op-ed written by Anjem Choudary, in which the radical British Islamist justified the Charlie Hebdo attack by claiming that Muslims don’t believe in free speech and that France shouldn’t have allowed the cartoons to be published. Many people argued that he shouldn’t have been given a platform in the press, particularly at a moment like this (for a sense of the intensity of the response, just look at Twitter).
But restricting free speech further, even in the case of so-called hate speech, would be precisely the wrong response to the carnage in Paris. Instead, we should reassert the rights of satirical magazines and radical preachers alike to express their views, and the freedom of anyone and everyone to challenge them. That’s the best lesson to learn from this tragedy.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-hebdo-i-and-the-right-to-be-offended/384404/
Interesting - and funny. I've read about less obvious insults leading to prosecution - up to 6 months in jail for hate speech (which pretty much excludes Christians and Muslims). I figured if he wanted to target the real insult police without risking his life, he just had to violate those laws. Maybe he did and got a pass, though.
Personally, I think the "terrorism" will continue with or without the insults now that a violent culture has been welcomed into most of Europe with open arms. The french might have to re-learn the art of personal defense at some point.
Mr. Deltoid
New Member
Yea the French are fucked they let a ton of these violent backwards ass islamist into their country and they breed a double or triple the rate the French do. There are areas called no go zones where the police don't even go that are under sharia law basically and it's getting worse all the time. I don't think England is to far behind them either.
We let them into our country as well, and greeted them with open arms, to boot. The same shit will be happening in America as well. The only reason Europe is going down in flames faster than we are is because their countries are a rocks throw away from middle-eastern countries.
Deport all muslims from western countries, any failing to agree will be executed... Brutal? Yes... But what other choice is there.
This is NOT the time to continue to be politically correct towards islam... The west gave them a fair chance to assimilate with our cultures, and they squandered that chance.
The time is nigh, gentlemen.
100 years ago? Where to start with the bad decisions... WWI was pretty much the wrong decision for all of Europe, and the US too. In the US, the Fed was probably the worse decision (or best scam), but imposing income taxes and building a federal military rank pretty high on the bad decision scale.
Similar threads
