[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

I'm pretty worried about being invaded!!

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Can anyone remind me of the last time a Muslim Nation launched a full scale military invasion of a Western country?

binners - Member

Yes they do. You do. I do. We all do.

Do it at work, you'll get sacked. Do it at school, you'll get suspended. Do it in the street and it's a race to find out what happens first, a punch in the face or a trip in a police car for breach of the peace or similiar. None of it justifies shooting up a magazine but no, you don't have the unadulterated right to wander around insulting people.

monkeyfudger - Member
How much bullying at work do I have to put up with before I get all jihadi?

Depends. Have you got a prophet?

The Mrs keeps saying I only ever think with my penis, does that count? It's kinda like god talking to me.

Can anyone remind me of the last time an Islamic Nation launched a full scale military invasion of a Western country?

Don't think its ever happened.
But only cos none of them can agree on who to invade & they don't have an actual 'invading capability'
Thats what I reckon anyway.

Islamic Nation launched a full scale military invasion of a Western country?

It depends on what you think Israeli is.

Invasion of Spain 711?

[i]Agence France-Presse ?@AFP 3m3 minutes ago

FLASH Charlie Hebdo suspects killed[/i]

Do it at work, you'll get sacked. Do it at school, you'll get suspended. Do it in the street and it's a race to find out what happens first, a punch in the face or a trip in a police car for breach of the peace or similiar. None of it justifies shooting up a magazine but no, you don't have the unadulterated right to insult people.

I do. You do. We all do. I have to accept the consequences of insulting people. The ones you listed. But I have to factor that in with everything I do. As do you. As do we all.

But I still have the freedom to do it, because it is my right in a free society. The same as its everyone else right in a free society. The limits are set by the law. And I'll respect that. But what I won't accept is having the limits dictated by fascists

What we're facing is one group of people dictating that, actually, when certain people are concerned, that right has now been withdrawn. And if one group of people get away with that, I think we can all guess what'll happen next

And this is why, whether we like it or not, we have to do everything in our power as a society, to defend this right.

Do it at work, you'll get sacked. Do it at school, you'll get suspended.

There are a great many things which I have the right to do but doing so at work could get me into trouble - as it happens I'm doing one right this very second by posting this. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[i]The Associated Press ?@AP 2m2 minutes ago

BREAKING: Police forces storm Paris kosher grocery where gunman holds 5 hostages; woman seen leaving.[/i]

But I still have the freedom to do it, because it is my right in a free society.

Do it at work, you'll get sacked. Do it at school, you'll get suspended. Do it in the street and it's a race to find out what happens first, a punch in the face or a trip in a police car for breach of the peace or similiar. None of it justifies shooting up a magazine but no, you don't have the unadulterated right to wander around insulting people.

Drawing cartoons won't cause any of that.

aaaaand.....they're dead (apparently). Didn't think it could end any other way to be honest. The desire for martyrdom, killing police and the weapons.

It's a criminal offence to abuse someone based on race, gender or sexuality. Occassionally religion gets bundled in to that as well (although it shouldn't).

Criticising or ridiculing someones beliefs is not a crime. Nor should it be. Though its obvious there are people who think it should be. These people aren't great fans of democracy and the freedoms it grants us

getting a little close to victim blaming there

My line in the sand would be not criticising Islam where as not drawing the prophet is to just show them some basic respect

if so is there a top ten?

i would think carefully about airing those opinions in the first place.

I suspect they thought extremely carefully about it - that's probably why they did it.

binners - Member
I am not sure why folk confuse freedom of speech and the freedom to insult
Its fairly simple. Insults are part of that 'freedom of speech'.

You can call me a **** for believing that. I'm a grown up. I can take it

Actually it's not simple at all, it's extremely complex. This debate is often started with an assumption that we support freedom of speech. But that is untrue, we place considerable restrictions on what you can and cannot say eg slander laws, laws on incitement, discrimination etc, Furthermore, from a legal perspective the case is based on whether someone feels offended in many cases eg sex, race discrimination in the workplace.

So establishing what is and isn't acceptable is very challenging. On balance I always verge towards greater liberty and freedom ** (and yet find much of the religion bashing on here offensive (*) and surprised that it is not modded stricter. But other issues are - so clearly there are considerable differences of opinion.)

* constant statements that religious people are insane/have mental issues etc.
** rather give folk like Salmond, Farrage! Griffen airtime so that they can condemn themselves out of their own mouths. They are good at doing that.

So establishing what is and isn't acceptable is very challenging

Alex Salmond.

"House" 😀

Nick Cleggs comments today that "In a free society people have to be free to offend each other. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other."

This is patently untrue and flies in the face of UK legislation.

We legally protect the right of some not to be offended.

[indeed - get him trying to explain the currency and the house of cards fell over. That's exactly why people should be allowed to speak! Spooky amount of stalking going on ]

Hmm okay ...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3578432,00.html

Seems like two different sets of rules.

I agree with what THM said in general* if not the specific STW case though it is often rude and I am also guilty of that charge..

What we're facing is one group of people dictating that, actually, when certain people are concerned, that right has now been withdrawn. And if one group of people get away with that, I think we can all guess what'll happen next

Why is this one so important? is this the numero uno top heresy?

* first post and he had not mentioned AS when i read it though he never says edit when he edits. Ps this is an edit 😉

Nick Cleggs comments today that "In a free society people have to be free to offend each other. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other."

Never thought I'd agree with Cleggy, but he's bang on the money there!

"I am anti-Semitic and I am no longer afraid to say so... I want every Jew to live in fear, except if they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die,"

lemonysam - Member

There are a great many things which I have the right to do but doing so at work could get me into trouble - as it happens I'm doing one right this very second by posting this. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

And the reason you left off getting arrested for breach of the peace is?

Oh... and JY, would you go along with christians not being subjected to things like this.....

[img] &q=90&w=479&zc=1[/img]

Is this overstepping the mark of what is acceptable? Because its exactly the same thing that this nutters are killing people for. Gives it a bit of perspective doesn't it. Its patently ridiculous to say that this is somehow verboten The Islamic faith needs to sort itself out and learn some perspective. Because the present viewpoint is not conducive to a living in a free society.

My worry is that people with views like your own will suggest further restrictions on what can and cannot be said, unless anyone gets offended. Then they've effectively won. And why stop there? Whats next?

Time for this again I reckon:

One of these is Free Speech, the other had to be retracted:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Wrecker he made those remarks in 1985 and apologised for them as the article clearly states.

4 hostages dead.

What a mess.

oh no...at least four hostages killed. 🙁

Whats next?

PC gone mental?

I like pies me.. And suppin ale..

I don't mind anyone calling me a ****, so I'll call anyone a ****, even if they've asked me not to, and further more, I'll then demand that they not see that as confrontational..
And then I'll call them a **** over and over again..

Try that logic in the boozer 😆

Wrecker he made those remarks in 1985 and apologised for them as the article clearly states.

I@ binners ts really not that long that we could do this and the islamic faith is not the only one that needs some perspective
I dont think they will suddenly change their mind if we bombard them with images and none of them offend me and Obviously I dont agree with their view but they get a bit Jihadi if they do it.

For example I have a mate who looks like shrek If anyone says this to him in a piss taking way he responds with great anger and mighty fury. He is a big fella as well and he has hit folk for it including very good mates. I have other friends who you can be far ruder to and they take it well and laugh it off. What I do is treat then differently as they respond differently.
Or we can take your approach and tell him he has no right to not be offended and insist he has to learn and change to be more like you. Lets be honest the world would be a better place if they were just like you wouldn't it.
EDIT: I dont mean that to sound as harsh as it does.
Its up to you treat them the same treat them differently has he won or are we just not upsetting him? Bit of both but it clearly annoys him more than I need to do it.
EDIT:

My worry is that people with views like your own will suggest further restrictions on what can and cannot be said, unless anyone gets offended. Then they've effectively won. And why stop there? Whats next?

Just on the news that all 3 Muslim bastards have finally been killed.

....don't often agree with Clegg, he tends to come across as a wet fish most of the time but his comments today are spot on with the right to free speech and the right to offend.

Reuters reportign this as Next weeks' Charlie Hebdo cover;

[edit] now beign reported as fake so removed pendign confirmation.

So is that why his colleagues at the magazine stood up for him for his right to express himself ? He didn't directly insult Judaism exactly did he.

Just on the news that all 3 Muslim bastards have finally been killed.

He didn't directly insult Judaism exactly did he.

Not really a helpful comment.

I think it was designed specifically [i]not[/i] to be helpful. It screams classiness.

Edit- wrong forum!

For example I have a mate who looks like shrek If anyone says this to him in a piss taking way he responds with great anger and mighty fury.

Of course he has a right to be offended, but would your friend murder 12 people in cold blood because someone called him Shrek?

If you come to play here, you accept the restrictions that are placed on what you can and can't say. It's clear, as an example....look at the rules of this forum.

And as you know, there is an element of subjectivity (inevitably) on how this (and any other rules of this type) are managed here and elsewhere.

Under Nick Clegg's analysis John Terry's behaviour may have been tolerated. Happy with that?

Never thought I'd agree with Cleggy, but he's bang on the money there!

He might be right in that should be the situtation, but he is wrong from a legal perspective, he should have asked his wife. Insulting behavior can be an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.