The Anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Yes it's not actually the exact anniversary but close enough, ok?

After the larger jihadist attacks in November, Charlie Hebdo's plight is a footnote compared to the body count God's assassins racked up that night. But what I want to draw your attention to is how this situation was dealt with.

This is the cover Charlie Hebdo printed on the anniversary of the massacre:



Not only did they one-up themselves by not simply lampooning Muhammed but by slandering God as an assassin, one of the men shot during the attack last year wrote an extensive editorial eviscerating Jihadists, religious law and religious belief in general. While they may now be working from a heavily guarded secret location, they did not change their message. They took it even further, and metaphorically stuck their fingers in the eyes of Islamists.

Where is this kind of bravery from everyone else? Even after it happened, the fear, not only of being attacked but of offending the devout, created such a situation that no newspaper or news channel would reprint or televise the cartoon for which their employees were executed. These people gave their lives in defence of one of the defining principles of Western civilization (freedom of expression) and neither the media, nor any of our governments, actually had the conviction to hold up that infamous cover art and say "The fact someone can make this without being lynched or imprisoned is why we're so great and you lot are evil".

Religious belief seems to have this special protection in public discourse. While it is perfectly acceptable to ridicule a Nazi or a Marxist as being crackpots, such language when used against the faithful results in emotional breakdowns in civility and often violence due to the intense emotional attachment religious people have to their delusions. So strong is this that even when someone is killed by these raving lunatics, we still have apologists who come running out of the woodwork to tell us that we should be more tolerant of people's beliefs.

You know what? (*)(*)(*)(*) their beliefs. (*)(*)(*)(*) their ideas. They're WRONG. They're DELUDED. They are denying reality and I will not sit here and entertain this nonsense. If they're offended by my dismissal of their superstitions, they can (*)(*)(*)(*) off, as I am in no way required to give a (*)(*)(*)(*). And if you think someone deserves to be punished, legally or otherwise, for insulting your religion, I kindly ask you to leave the West. I have no power to make you do so (though I'm sure there's probably some places where such speech would violate hate speech laws), but clearly you're not interested in a pluralistic society, so I ask you to leave and find a theocracy that is to your liking.

 

The terrorist attackers of course deserve no support or sympathy …

OTOH, I also have no sympathy and give no support to anyone who abuses Free Speech in such juvenile and deliberately provocative ways as that magazine's cartoonists …

Free Speech is not an ABSOLUTE right … Responsible mature persons learn when and how to be civil and polite ...

 

It's their fault. When Islam gives up its "jihad" and joins the 21st century, that's when the Western World will be more accepting. IE: When they're more accepting of the West. Until then, we're at war and I don't intend to give an inch to these monsters.

 

And so you think the satirists got what they deserved: death for being irresponsible and immature.

 

No … Those are your words, not mine …

But, no … "Satire" is for adults, while juvenile provocation is for … well … kiddies …

I have no sympathy for dippy Salman Rushdie, either …
Do I think he deserves to die for deliberately portraying the wives of The Prophet Mohammed as prostitutes … ???
No, of course not …
But do I feel sorry for him spending decades living in fear … ???
No ...

 

So...it's OK for people to be trying to kill him because they don't like his book?

This makes sense to you? That people deserve to have their lives ruined purely because of the opinions of others?

 

No … Those are your words, not mine ...

But there are limits to "Free Speech" and responsible adults impose them on themeselves -- or receive consequences ...

 

Yet if Charlie hebdo publish anti Jewish cartoons the author gets sacked. White privilege, which means Charlie is a racist rag and needs to be shut down asap by any means.

- - - Updated - - -

If a child is told not to pinch but still does it and gets smacked then whose fault is it?

 

Unless I'm inciting violence, which is basically assault by proxy, no there aren't (or shouldn't be) limits to what I can say.

I will not impose restrictions on my opinions.

I say again: (*)(*)(*)(*) religion. I would rather be dead than not be able to say that.

 

You're not allowed to harm someone because of something they said.

Period.

This is how we keep a civil society, by banning violence as a way of resolving disputes.

Charlie is not racist, how it is their fault France bans Holocaust denial?

 

While the cartoon gave me a chuckle, it is stupid to poke the hornets' nest. These guys don't seem to mind poking over and over...and provoking attacks over and over.

 

Please link to your messages condemning people who ridicule Christianity. I bet you can't.

 

And they expect sympathy when they're stung ...

 

You don't like free speech, do you?

 

"Freedom of Speech" is not an unlimited right …

If you're alone on an isolated remote forest trail you have every right to yell, "FIRE !!!," as loudly and as often as you wish …

In a crowded theatre you have no such right -- at all …

The Charlie Hebdo "cartoons" are deliberately inflammatory …
While they are technically permitted as "free expression," they are clearly intended to provoke ...

 

Terrorism generates fear/terror which generates rationalizations and excuses for terrorism - apologists.

 

I disagree with you. It was posted because the radical islamists said they would murder innocent people if it were depicted. And they did. He made a point that free speech should NOT be bullied by crazies.

 

Oh, I enjoy free speech. I just think these type of comics attract the worst kinds of attention. Like religious extremist attention.

 

And many of us are innocent bystanders who see the picture clearly, since we're neither cynical provocateurs nor violent avengers, and we say,
"A plague on both their houses … !!!"

- - - Updated - - -

"Free Speech" should be rational and helpful to the society, rather than deliberately inciting disorder ...

 

Yes they are. That gives no one the right to respond with violence, let alone lethal violence.

 

It's not holocaust denial its ant anti Jewish cartoons are banned, white privilege.
It is not a civilized society, it is tribal rituals and if you say the wrong thing you can be jailed and persecuted by the brainwashed masses . That is not free speech. We don't even have free speech here its entirely controlled , don't kid yourself

 

That's a great opinion you have. It's also not free speech. What you're saying is we want "kinda free speech".

 

Kind of like 'You say tomatoes and I say apologists'?

But can you dance to it?

 

Yes, but we do have Free Speech Codes.

Way better than free speech.

 

Free speech will never happen. What we have is freedom of speech which is slightly tolerant but not free speech.