European Terror Attacks

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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:

78% of Muslims thought that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed should be prosecuted, 68% thought those who insulted Islam should be prosecuted and 62% of people disagree that freedom of speech should be allowed even if it insults and offends religious groups.

only 29% thought that the holocaust occured, 2% denied it happened entirely, 17% think it was exaggerated (which is the stance proposed by most of today’s holocaust deniers), 24% said they had “no opinion” and 23% didn’t know what the holocaust was.

Asked if they would prefer to live under Sharia law or British law, 30% said Sharia while 54% preferred British law.

28% of British Muslims agreed that they dreamt of Britain one day becoming an Islamic state.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.
.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

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.

Well this is one take on free speech.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well this is one take on free speech.

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.

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

The last few pages of this thread in a nutshell

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.

[Ignitionnet]

*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.

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

Originally Posted by martyh

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.

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.

Originally Posted by martyh

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.

I will requote and deal in parts:

Originally Posted by martyh

what you shouldn't do is deliberately set out to cause offence or insult

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

Originally Posted by martyh

especially knowing the likely outcome to people you are responsible for

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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

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

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:

what you shouldn't do is deliberately set out to cause offence or insult

Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' as if it gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so <censored> what."

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

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

.

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

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.

awesome

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

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

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.

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I defer to Stephen Fry

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

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

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.