Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

There's some stuff in there which certainly looks like, sounds like and smells like preaching hatred. I wonder if anything was done about those doing the preaching...

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The BBC editorial guidelines: The prophet Mohamed must not be represented in any shape or form.

As read out by Dimbleby on QT


BBC to revise its restrictions on depicting Mohammed

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

In fairness the BBC do have a duty to protect their staff .Depicting Mohamed in pictures is an insult to the religion and deliberatley antagonising Muslims is not what the BBC is there to do

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Just hope gingers and fat people don't jump on the bandwagon then.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

It's a fair point, should the BBC depict Mohammed in any way it sees fit thereby telling the world it doesn't back down from terrorists or should it have restrictions in case making jokes leads to attacks on its staff?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Here is an interesting slant.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Deliberately insulting Muslims is not the same not backing down to terrorists .Going on a shooting spree because a magazine took the pee out of Islam is way OTT ,that does not mean anyone has the right to go around deliberately insulting Muslims

---------- Post added at 10:36 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Yep very good

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

At the risk of sounding stupid.
they take offence to a lot of things.
they'd still go around killing even if you weren't offending them.

the stupidest part of it all is that they want to live in a country that offends them. offends them because you are not of the same belief.

and that you do things that they wouldn't do in their own country. that neither you or they are actually in.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

We are all capable of taking offence at a lot of things, all of us. Where you may or may not live does not determine how you are offended, or by whom. Offence doesn't recognise borders in that sense.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

99% of Muslims in the UK or France or any other Western country are not offended by the country they live in and lets face it ,you yourself have not been over generous in your views of the country you live in .

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

It's 42% not 99%

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I was genuinely curious & mystified as to why it's bad to depict Mohammed, here's what I found.

it's not bad at all in the Qur’an.. BUT Sunni Muslims (the majority) also follow something called hadiths, which are the next best thing after the Qur’an and in there it says. any pictures of people or animals, especially in homes is prohibited.

Ok so I'm more mystified than before, apparently if you're a devout (Sunni) Muslim, no family pics etc at home or you're in trouble.




links: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Try his other name. Muhammad.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The reason is to prevent followers worshipping Mohamed as a god ,in Christianity Idolatry is banned and Muslims see pictures of Mohamed as much the same thing

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

So does this mean that the BBC will follow the same rules for any of the mainstream religions and there representatives. Or is it only those who call out the name of there god or representative before killing in his name ???

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

It means the BBC will show a bit of common sense and not set out to deliberately antagonise Muslims, extremist or otherwise.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Ok, just checking as i don't watch the BBC.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

This is what I think is key to how things go from here.

On one hand publications and broadcasters generally won't want to be seen as intimidated by what happened so will likely not back down from showing more religious satire however there may well be a feeling of wanting to do it more as some kind of show of strength but that might be taken as antagonising or 'revenge' from fundamentalists, potential terrorists and others who supported the killings.

As I mentioned earlier, I have the feeling it's all going to kick off this year.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

78% of British Muslims asked thought those who made the Danish cartoons in 2005 should've been prosecuted for causing them offence and indeed blaspheming against them.

That is actually from a survey, not pulled from my hindmost.

78% of British Muslims find the idea of free speech, which isn't causing anyone any physical harm or putting them in danger, offensive, because Sunni Islam tells them to.

In common with the vast majority of the UK I do not share those beliefs, in common with much of the UK while I have no problem with those holding them I do not respect those beliefs as I find all religions absurd to one degree or another.

Our society doesn't give offence, people choose to take it. Are we to pander to this and indefinitely modify our own laws, as we have been, whenever enough decide to take offence at something?

How many other religions do anything beyond rolling their eyes when they are criticised, parodied or mocked, and what makes this one so special that the BBC should go out of its way to explicitly avoid offending it beyond threats of violence anyone in the public eye questioning it seem to get?

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:26 ----------

They had a chance to all stand together and publish cartoons on the day after the attack and all bottled it.

I have no idea why our press are so much more cowardly than those in Germany and other European nations.

I'm concerned that, rather than kicking off, Labour will come into power and bend over backwards to impose their multicultural, ultra-PC view of how the UK should be with a string of illiberal laws to go alongside the existing set making even the rather weak shadow of freedom of speech we have now seem like the panacea of fredom.

We need a written constitution with freedom of speech that does not endanger life and limb, and I don't consider nutters taking offence and going on a murderous rampage as being included in that, absolutely codified in it.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

But we can deliberately take the piddle though can't we?

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------

Now now, don't throw around statistics and percentages you have no way of substantiating.

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------

That's fine for the BBC, but anyone else is free to antagonise Muslims as much as they want.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Thing is, and I'm not saying I think it's right or wrong but there's a difference between standing together and being antagonistic - where the line is differs from person to person. Some will say we're not doing enough, others will say it's too much and this is what I think the basis for it all kicking off will be.

---------- Post added at 16:39 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

And people obviously will. All I'd say about it is if people deliberately antagonise someone (whether a person, section of society, a community, country, region, religion etc) then they have to be aware of reprisals.

No I'm not saying people deserve it, far from it and neither am I advising anyone to not antagonise or whatever. But those it's aimed at are unlikely to just shrug their shoulders and walk away, as much as we know they should.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

They should have been antagonistic, the free press should have collectively raised their kilts and waved their cocks in the face of radical Islam.

---------- Post added at 15:43 ---------- Previous post was at 15:40 ----------

Why should they?

I don't want to come across as all UKIP-y, but one of the foundations of our society is that we have the right to offend, and the right to be offended.

If you don't like the rules don't live here.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I get what you're saying and I agree in principle but do you really think that won't lead to reprisals? Again I'm not saying it should - but given how the nutters enjoy taking action do you think they'd just walk away?

Why do you think they didn't?



Again I agree completely (although I wouldn't support a right to deliberately offend) but these people have clearly shown they aren't reasonable humans.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

People have no qualms about offending Christianity.

Surely the rules for offence at images of Mohammed are just for other Muslims and not for other beliefs or non-beliefs. There has to be a sense of proportion at having been offended.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Absolutely there does - I agree with everyone who says they ought to lighten up however are they really going to listen to us?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

No. But I seem to remember the phrase "Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord"

Maybe they're so frightened that nothing will happen from their deity that they have to take the law into their own hands.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

None of which is anything to do with the claim that Gary made :rolleyes:


"Bottled it"? I take it from that remark that you support the deliberate antagonising and offending of Muslims ,is that because they are Muslims or because they are religious .I don't really care because in my opinion you and people with your attitude are as much part of the problem as the nutters with the guns


If you think that printing cartoons that are designed to deliberately offend and mock a religion are a sign of solidarity then it is not surprising that you "have no idea"

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

True but I'm guessing it's likely those with faith are unlikely to take such advice from those without.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Very true but with all the heretics throughout the centuries you would have thought that fire and brimstone would be regularly falling from the heavens on the malefactors but... nothing.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

It all depends in what form and to who you take the piddle of .The magazine had a long and very controversial history of offending Muslims and have had reprisal attacks in the past,they have deliberately set out to offend an entire community and unfortunately and sadly people not connected with them have suffered the consequencies

It's a figure of speech you pedantic git :rolleyes:

Why are they ?

---------- Post added at 16:16 ---------- Previous post was at 16:11 ----------

Hold on a moment ,you just said people should be free to antagonise Muslims and now your saying radical Islam ,which is it ? there is a very big difference

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

tbf, they were equal opportunity offenders - they often were satirical to Christians and Jews as well....

But no Christians or Jews tried to firebomb or kill them for it...

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Of course there should and the vast majority of Muslims accept they don't have to go on a shooting spree because someone outside of their religion shows no respect or understanding

---------- Post added at 16:36 ---------- Previous post was at 16:30 ----------

Indeed ,there must be a lesson in there somewhere....... maybe it's not to deliberately insult,offend or antagonise a group of people who have a history of killing people for being offensive .

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Face facts people. Islam is a dangerous mind virus that has no place in the Western world. It needs to be contained and then eradicated like a contagious disease. The question is what politician will have the balls to do it. If no-one steps up to the task, war between the West and Islam may be unavoidable.

You think I'm kidding?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

So appease for fear of reprisal.

What a fine tribute to those who stood up for their legally provided freedom of speech and the press.

---------- Post added at 17:20 ---------- Previous post was at 17:14 ----------

You take it wrong. I support the right, in a modern and liberal society, for a free press to deliberately antagonise and leave open the possibility of offense for any group.

May I also mention that equating 'me and people with my attitude' as being as much a part of the problem as those two terrorists who killed 12 people is an incredibly low and extremely loathsome comment to make.

I would use stronger words but this isn't the place for that.

Evidently an awful lot of editors across Europe seemed to agree that it was a sign of solidarity given they actually did it, and in the case of some in the UK would have done it had they not, and they admitted this, feared for their staff had they done so.

You see this is what you don't get even though I made it quite clear. For me religion isn't something that can't be criticised, parodied and mocked. You may consider it otherwise, I don't, and the law shouldn't.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Or increase the satire and encourage a reprisal? This is what I mean, there's no straightforward response.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Utter rubbish .In the real world if you go around upsetting a bunch lunatics with guns and bombs then you will be blown up or shot nothing whatsoever to do with free speech and your right to use it .If you want free speech then at least accept the responsibility that goes with it.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Just once it would've been awesome if everyone had printed the cartoons. Just a one-off, that way no-one had stuck their head over the parapet if you see what I mean, Russ?

---------- Post added at 17:30 ---------- Previous post was at 17:27 ----------

I do.

That way no one publication stuck its head over the parapet and made a target of itself.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Yes I do, it would have put out a great message however do you think it would have made all the nutter Muslims around the world shrug their shoulders and accept how unreasonable they are?

Or do you think it could have led to something else?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

James O'Brien.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I don't know; it would have been more a gesture for the benefit of 'us' rather than 'them'.

The response to previous terrorist attacks on and off our soil has been to carry on, this feels different for all the wrong reasons. Our press has been thoroughly cowed and I'm worried what's next to be ceded due to fear of these mentalists.

We all knew that much of our press was going out of its way to avoid 'offence', this just put it into sharper focus. It's a real pity, and drawing a line in the sand would've been good.

---------- Post added at 17:38 ---------- Previous post was at 17:36 ----------

Not even remotely interested in apologies, they have nothing to apologise for.

Far more concerned about the majorities / large minorities of British Muslims who, when surveyed, continued to harbour beliefs that were, frankly, alarming.

I don't see how changing our society helps with integration and change, it merely reinforces ongoing behaviour.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

But in the effort to do something 'for' us would we be ignoring the potential repercussions 'against' us?

I'm all for making a collective stand against terrorism but as Marty said earlier if people want to rip the urine out of someone with impunity they have to accept the consequences. Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting the consequences are justified.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Frankly they will find an excuse to attack regardless. I honestly don't think a bunch of reprints of cartoons as a one-off will make much difference.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291

Picking on some more unpleasant bits:

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Then you are wrong ,that is not and never has been the purpose of free speech or a free press

oh i do apologise ,are we getting offended ,well guess what ,given your insistance on our right to free speech .......tough.... deal with it


and how will they feel if next week some more of their staff get shot .It's not solidarity it's stupid and completely unnecessary.

You are completely missing the point .you can of course criticise or mock a religion no one has ever said any different ,what you shouldn't do is deliberately set out to cause offence or insult especially knowing the likely outcome to people you are responsible for and your utter failure to understand that simple concept is what makes you and those with your attitude part of the problem.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

A one-off? I'd agree. A worldwide or nationwide reprint? That's a different story. Don't forget you (as a rational person) are trying to guess the actions of irrational people. That's not going to end well.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Well this is one take on free speech.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I can't stand Cox however he's right, any opinion can be ridiculed however it has to be remembered that ridicule can often cause a reaction and no matter how petty or unwarranted that reaction can be, the person doing the ridiculing is going to be responsible for their actions.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Here's an example. I really can't get my head around those pyjama-type striped trousers bodybuilders often wear in public. I think they look pretty stupid.

If I went up to some 20 stone bloke wearing them and made fun of him for wearing them should I complain if he smacks me out for it? He wouldn't be right in doing that however my making fun of his choice of clothing would be unlikely to get a smile and high-5 from him.

Should he get a sense of humour or be aware that wearing odd stuff like that opens him up to ridicule? Hell yes of course.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The last few pages of this thread in a nutshell :clap:

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The real point of free speech is that everyone is entitled to it..and they are all entitled to my defending their right to free speech.What they are not entitled to is me defending their right to use violence as a response.. but they have a right to respond using any other legal method and I'll defend that too.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

*Sigh* This is why I generally keep this guy on ignore...

Last set of responses, you can knock yourself out afterwards, I will not derail this thread further with disagreements of opinions it deals with way bigger issues.

Fortunately I didn't say that. I merely said that the free press and free speech should have the right to cause offence and to antagonise, not that it is their purpose. The purpose of Charlie Hebdo was to make people laugh through satire and given the number of staff they had they were obviously succeeding.

I am indeed somewhat offended by the comparison and have said I think it was low but at no time have or will I question your right to make it or react beyond to say what I already have.

I am very, very glad that many publications, both online and offline, disagreed with your attitude and reprinted some of the cartoons. It was important both in solidarity and in expressing that freedom of the press should not be cowed by threats of violence.

I will requote and deal in parts:

So apparently the free press, media, art, etc, must not set out to deliberately cause offence or insult. Gotcha, Chief. That leaves things pretty sterile given that there will be those who take offense or insult at pretty much anything.

Unsure if this applies just to religion but merely questioning a certain religion caused offence, so that pretty much leaves that one absolutely unquestionable, and makes any kind of critique impossible.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-i-q...62?autologin=y

So it seems also that by exercising the right, set down in law, to cause offence the media gets what they have coming.

In short the media in this vision have to steer clear of anything that may cause offence, distress, or insult, which in the case of the religion in question and a number of its followers is pretty much any criticism, questioning, or doubt regarding Mohammed and their holy texts, both because it shouldn't be done, full stop, and because the reaction may be violent.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

As far as I can see nobody has said the media shouldn't be printing anything along those lines. The message I'm getting from all this (and is my opinion) is if they do print satire and things ridiculing an emotive subject they have to be aware of possible (and of course totally unjustified) reprisals.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Quite.

Free speech can and does cause discomfort. This doesn't mean, contrary to one opinion on this thread, that anything that may cause discomfort shouldn't be permitted.

Fundamentally offence is not given, it is taken.

In turn how a person or group respond having taken offence is their decision. Everyone in the chain is responsible for their actions, everyone in the chain makes judgement calls.

If we start banning certain topics for fear of repercussions where do we stop? When we have nothing left that anyone could possibly take offence at?

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

Sorry, Russ, but that's exactly what was said.

It was expanded on but either said poster has a poor grasp of the English language, given their use of a conjunction as the next word indicating a new clause, or they are saying exactly that:

Tough to do without deliberately setting out to cause offence or insult, don't you think?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I'm seeing a difference here. Criticising and mocking is one thing - as an example from earlier I do that about Brian Cox all the time. DI'm not going to deliberately try to offend him though, that's a different matter.

I'll be honest here in that I don't like Islam. If I knew a Muslim who was claiming to live within its teachings but on the weekends got drunk, gambles etc then I could (if I was so inclined) criticise or mock him for those failings.

What I wouldn't do is deliberately try to offend him just as I don't see any reason to deliberately offend anyone really. I don't really see the merit in a society that enjoys deliberately offending.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The problem is, though, that again it's up to others whether they take offence, regardless of whether it was the stated intent.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-i-q...62?autologin=y

All the guy did was historical research and he received a bunch of threats and caused a whole bunch of offence.

If you prevent deliberate attempts to offend that's going to make society extremely sanitised. Half of our comedians are banned, Private Eye is gone, etc, etc.

I defer to Stephen Fry

I found a comment made about me earlier in this thread somewhat offensive - big deal.

Those who get offended by criticisms of their faith need to grow up. If their faith is that strong a cartoon shouldn't even bother them in the slightest. We shouldn't pander to such ridiculous contradictions, by doing so we encourage a whole new generation of offence-takers and in turn encourage them to find even more things offensive as it works so well in shutting down criticism.

I, personally, quite like being able to offend and to be offended, and indeed to have someone tell me to stop my whining :)

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The whole point of this particular discussion is to determine how far free speech is allowed to go ,that is the bigger issue :rolleyes:

awesome

equally as many agree with my attitude ,indeed my attitude was influenced by those members of the media who did not feel the need to further antagonise and put their staff at risk or simply felt that publishing offensive material was not needed

There is a huge difference between deliberately offending everybody in a whole religion because they are in that religion and poking fun at a few extremists within that religion ,that is the point you faill to see

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Again I agree entirely. However I stand by my point earlier that if someone does or says something deliberately designed to offend or ridicule they cannot claim repercussions (regardless of how petty or unwarranted) were unexpected especially when dealing with people known for being irrational or unreasonable.

Yeah someone once asked him did that apply when people make offensive comments about homosexuals. That, of course was 'different'.



Again I agree completely. But if you set out to offend someone, as reasonable as you are it would be unreasonable for you to not expect a reaction in some way.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

your problem is you see no difference between deliberately insulting (in this case a whole religion) and mocking a few individuals in a humorous or satirical way .Publishing a naked Muhamed or any of the other Muhamed cartoons on the front page of a magazine is designed purely to insult every member of Islam and it will do just that ,it will not distinguish between the radical jihadists and the peaceful Muslims who simply live their lives and harm no one that behaviour is not needed and never justified .

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

Bloody hell watch out boys the wording rozzers are about :rolleyes:

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

This is the kind of retaliation I'm in favour of, especially as the jihadists will have no idea who to aim their frustrations at :)

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

about time they made themselves usefull

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

This is in danger of descending (or perhaps ascending) into a debate about article 5 of the Public Order Act.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

what are they going to do beat the terrorists to death with their keyboards

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

well it could be useful if their means of communicating was disrupted or bank accounts suddenly emptied (if that's even possible)

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Paris gunman Cherif Kouachi interviewed before death: 'We are not killers'.

Interview.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Because they are, it's not against the law.

both, anyone and everyone. I'm free to antagonise you too. It's great fun.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I just find it ironic that the 2 who murdered at an office of a comic publication, were brought to justice (I consider their deaths true justice) at a printers.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

No idea, but it's not their responsibility to make a stand. It would be great if they did. But you can't criticise harshly if they didn't.

If it was me? I think I would have. I'd like to think I would have.

---------- Post added at 21:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------

Absolutely correct.

But would say then that the BBC should issue guidance not to take the piddle out of body builders? From now on, no more funny photos of body builders on HIGFY?

---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

Bollocks, do you want me to throw you a ring? As you're in danger of disappearing up your own ********.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

utterly stupid comparison

The BBC would not be expected to deliberately insult a whole religion in the name of free speech

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Presumably your ok with Carl coming round and shooting you in the face now seeing as you deliberately set out to offend him.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

No it's not.

I wouldn't expect them to. But I would allow them to.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Nothing deliberate about it just telling the truth ,his attitude and those who subscribe to it are part of the problem imo

---------- Post added at 21:30 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

yes it is ,ask Gary ,he's brill at making comparisons that make no sense



well fortunately it's not up to you and imo they are 100% correct in protecting their staff and their standards

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I don't think they are, I couldn't care less how offensive, how rude, how derogatory someone is nothing justifies what they did, they are/were the whole problem. How far do we bend over to protect ourselves from these extreme terrorists and what happens when they carry on after that.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Crikey, whats going on here. Whats happened is just wrong, why does it need a debate?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Good question Mr Banana. Think it refers to the reaction to what happened now.

Almost a shame I returned a poster to ignore; this thread is tricky to read now but I'll live :)

I'm a people person on the whole, in the same manner as Hannibal Lecter. Pass the fava beans and Chianti.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

and nobody is denying that but while we have such maniacs in the world what purpose is served by purposely insulting the religion they claim to follow

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:56 ----------

scaredy cat

If just for once if you accepted that people have a differing view to you then life may be easier

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------

we know it was wrong and that isn't what is being debated

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

.


Apparently it's very easy to insult Islam. They need to be less sensitive.

If they can't handle their " prophet" being cartooned that's their issue not ours. You can't see that because you're an apologist for them.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

what purpose did killing those two thousand in Nigeria serve, who did they insult. Like Carl I'm a people person to, I tend not to upset people for no good reason but just because someone draws a few cartoons doesn't mean they're part of the problem. Even the leader of Hezbollah has condemned the attacks, you know your a dodge pot when Hezbollah calls you extreme

Oh look, Persians were drawing images of Mohammed centuries ago, with or without a face.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_miniature

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Then they have won. The politics of fear and terrorism have won because you and your ilk would allow it.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

So what is being debated as its hard to decipher?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

If the children in this thread dont stop their petty arguments with each other, I will. :)

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Haha! Mr Banana I approve greatly of your new name Sir!

This is great:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2015/01/24.jpg

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Good, it was your use of it that made me request the change, hated the other one but had no idea how to change it. Much happier now.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I've had a look. and it gets my approval.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

It could be argued that if you look at it like that then they won after nine eleven, when all those hard won freedoms we held so dear were gladly surrendered to the state because we were all scared, MI5 can't cope with analyzing the data they've all ready got on us all but it won't stop them asking for more powers in the wake of this atrocity

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

It'll be interesting to find out whether the two morons who tried to set fire to the offices of a German newspaper which reprinted the cartoons are Muslim or not. Idiot sympathisers or people trying to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I don't get that. The sentiment I've been getting from his posts in this is along the lines of "you can have free speech if you want but be prepared for any consequences as a result".

http://news.yahoo.com/arson-attack-g...065348454.html

That's my worry and is what I reckon we'll be seeing more of.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Some interesting views from Will Self and cartoonist Martin Rowson on C4 news.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152659689741939

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

That's just a ridiculous thing to say and if you had spent time reading the posts in this thread you would know that my argument is purely that if someone or a group of people are going to deliberately set out to insult a group of people known for violent reaction then crying because they react violently is a bit stupid really.The answer is ,and i know this will be hard for you to grasp, is don't set out to deliberately offend ,if you do then be prepared for the reaction .That is not me being an apologist or a Muslim sympathiser it's just common sense
The BBC have a duty of care to the people who work for them ,as do all the other news outlets,they have decided that the risk is to great to the staff so they will not republish deliberately offensive (to Muslims) material .That is not weakness or cowardice by the BBC it is the behaviour of a responsible employer and as highlited by Mr Angry possibly an employer staying within the restictions of free speech as defined by the laws of this country
Part of the problem in my opinion is also that there are people on this forum and in the wider world who are so anti religious as to almost be extremist themselves and that does not help any discussion involving religion ,it usually rapidly decends into a 'them' and 'us' discussion

---------- Post added at 11:00 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

Quite agree with both

---------- Post added at 11:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------

Thank you ,that's exactly my sentiment


I think the same especially given the rise of far right politics in Europe.It may also help if the Muslim community Europewide did something aside from simple condemnation ,perhaps a mass rally accross Europe to start with

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

and what conclusion do we draw if they don't ?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Who's we ? You can draw whatever conclusion you want as can anyone ,i would draw the conclusion that if they don't do something other than platitudes then the wider Muslim community will start to lose support from those who currently support them and peacfull Muslims will suffer as a result

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

we Europeans .

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

meanwhile back home

'What do you expect if you insult Islam?' British hate preacher BACKS the Paris massacres and tells his followers 'Britain is the enemy of Islam'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3OWE0tm4h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Given he's on police bail for similar comments I would suggest he's not going to be keeping his liberty for long.

Whether you agree with his right to say those things or not they're potentially illegal. Disagreeing with a law isn't licence to ignore it.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

'Britain is the enemy of Islam'

so piddle off before we kick your ass.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

:)

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Fear of criticising Islam has given Britain self-imposed blasphemy law, warns former archbishop Carey

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3OWkQRoWL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I posted research about muslim attitudes many pages back and it was ignored as everyone simply carried on with the "muslims don't support or condone this behaviour" line of hogwash.

---------- Post added at 16:36 ---------- Previous post was at 16:27 ----------

You may as well say that we shouldn't stop violent criminals from going about their criminal activities since they wouldn't like that and might turn violent :dozey:

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

If the media continued to publish material designed to ridicule and offend Islam, would you be surprised if the nutter element carried out further attacks or actions against them?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Muzzling the mass media is not going to stop those nutters attacking us so why bother?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Not the question I asked.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Nope, I wouldn't. I don't know what the answer to this is but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't self-censor because a bunch of violent bullies who have their heads in the middle ages can't behave like rational adults.
The only answer that I can think of is for every publication in the western world to agree to publish cartoons about mohammed on a daily basis until muslims grow up and stop chucking their toys out of the pram.