‘Charlie Hebdo’ Will Cease Publishing Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

http://www.newsweek.com/charlie-hebdo-will-cease-publishing-cartoons-prophet-muhammad-355272

Right move, or did the terrorists just win?

I think it's right. I see no sense in upsetting people for the sake of it.

It sort of makes a mockery of the people who died needlessly!
I say it's like letting bullies win.

Are they going to stop publishing comedic pictures of Christians and Jews and suchlike too?

eddie wrote:It sort of makes a mockery of the people who died needlessly!
I say it's like letting bullies win.

Are they going to stop publishing comedic pictures of Christians and Jews and suchlike too?

Indeed Eddie, its surrendering to fear, which is the aim of the terrorists.
Now how many more terrorrists will now take this as a sign of weakness to further commit harm, based off this magazine raising the white flag. Today freedom of speech was conqured by fear and I feel such a move is nothing short of a disaster, which like you state makes a mockery of the victims who died defending free speech. How many more terrorists or wannabe terrorists are going to now be inspired by this?

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:It sort of makes a mockery of the people who died needlessly!
I say it's like letting bullies win.

Are they going to stop publishing comedic pictures of Christians and Jews and suchlike too?

Indeed Eddie, its surrendering to fear, which is the aim of the terrorists.
Now how many more terrorrists will now take this as a sign of weakness to further commit harm, based off this magazine raising the white flag. Today freedom of speech was conqured by fear and I feel such a move is nothing short of a disaster, which like you state makes a mockery of the victims who died defending free speech. How many more terrorists or wannabe terrorists are going to now be inspired by this?

Couldn't agree more!! I cannot really understand why they've come to this decision?
It's taking a step backwards!!!

french battle flag....


white cross on a white background

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Indeed Eddie, its surrendering to fear, which is the aim of the terrorists.
Now how many more terrorrists will now take this as a sign of weakness to further commit harm, based off this magazine raising the white flag. Today freedom of speech was conqured by fear and I feel such a move is nothing short of a disaster, which like you state makes a mockery of the victims who died defending free speech. How many more terrorists or wannabe terrorists are going to now be inspired by this?

Couldn't agree more!! I cannot really understand why they've come to this decision?
It's taking a step backwards!!!

I think they done this wishing to calm an already high running tensions in France with the terrorist acts commited this year there. It though will have provided more belief for others to now do the same, that such acts can cower people into submission. Whether what they print is insensitive to some is besides the point. It they print something poor you condemn it as we do any bad article we see. I once wrongly thought you have to censur hate speech, but that does not combat the hate itself, as you have to tackle the problem at its root cause. The world should have stood up united after this attack,with the western media's all printing the same cartoons, to show defiance against terrorism.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Indeed Eddie, its surrendering to fear, which is the aim of the terrorists.
Now how many more terrorrists will now take this as a sign of weakness to further commit harm, based off this magazine raising the white flag. Today freedom of speech was conqured by fear and I feel such a move is nothing short of a disaster, which like you state makes a mockery of the victims who died defending free speech. How many more terrorists or wannabe terrorists are going to now be inspired by this?

Couldn't agree more!! I cannot really understand why they've come to this decision?
It's taking a step backwards!!!

I don't think that mocking people's religion is a step forward really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Couldn't agree more!! I cannot really understand why they've come to this decision?
It's taking a step backwards!!!

I don't think that mocking people's religion is a step forward really.

problem is one mans mocking is anothers inquiry

who gets to say what is or isnt "mocking"

after all ANY discussion by non beleivers could be taken to be "mocking" if the religion was far up itself enough
and almost certainly ANY criticism would be considered thus and silenced.

And finally since when does "religion" have such a precious status that it is protected from the consequences of freedom of thought and speech (beyond the reasonable constraints of "hate speech")

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Couldn't agree more!! I cannot really understand why they've come to this decision?
It's taking a step backwards!!!

I don't think that mocking people's religion is a step forward really.

Mocking is never a step forward and you tackle the problem by learning mutual respect. What happened here though was not a step back but running back to find cover. Again whether something is right or wrong published in the media, the fundemental right should be that people should be able to publish and that we also have the right to condemn, showing why that is wrong. This was not calling to kill people, this was mocking a man that lived, just like many other people that have lived. Learning mutual respect is the key, but this terrorist attack should have been answered in string definace that terror should never be able to conquer your freedom to speak.

I just don't see the point in mocking religion. It doesn't change people's belief, and it just irritates them. In some cases, it leads to murder.

Raggamuffin wrote:I just don't see the point in mocking religion. It doesn't change people's belief, and it just irritates them. In some cases, it leads to murder.

Then the problem is the people who then hold these beliefs in that religion itself.
If these main religions are supposed to teach love, then how is it that they allow hate to rule and overcome them. The fact is each individual faith mocks every other faith by its belief system. It does not allow for other faiths to be right. By their very nature they mock every other faith, so how can people of faith claim to be offended when by their own belief they mock millions of others?

Why should the employees of Charlie Hebdo (and their families) take the chance of being brutally murdered, just to appease those who think this is a win for terrorism and a loss for freedom of speech?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Why should the employees of Charlie Hebdo (and their families) take the chance of being brutally murdered, just to appease those who think this is a win for terrorism and a loss for freedom of speech?

They already did give their lives those that believed in freedom of speech who rane the magazine.
We all risk our lives daily in the face of terrorism, we have in this country for decades and by bowing down to extremism, you just encourage more to think they can commit terror to force their views onto others.
That has been the problem of religion for the last few thousand years, forcing their beliefs onto others.
This was nothing short of allowing terror to win.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Why should the employees of Charlie Hebdo (and their families) take the chance of being brutally murdered, just to appease those who think this is a win for terrorism and a loss for freedom of speech?

They already did give their lives those that believed in freedom of speech who rane the magazine.
We all risk our lives daily in the face of terrorism, we have in this country for decades and by bowing down to extremism, you just encourage more to think they can commit terror to force their views onto others.
That has been the problem of religion for the last few thousand years, forcing their beliefs onto others.
This was nothing short of allowing terror to win.

Why should 'more' employees risk their lives to please you?

Go publish your own cartoons. Let's see you take such risks.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


They already did give their lives those that believed in freedom of speech who rane the magazine.
We all risk our lives daily in the face of terrorism, we have in this country for decades and by bowing down to extremism, you just encourage more to think they can commit terror to force their views onto others.
That has been the problem of religion for the last few thousand years, forcing their beliefs onto others.
This was nothing short of allowing terror to win.

Why should 'more' employees risk their lives to please you?

Go publish your own cartoons. Let's see you take such risks.

Why should any religious person preach to others?
By doing so they are mocking the beliefs of those who do notbelieve in that belief system, but that is okay to religious people themselves. Except of course in countries like Saudi, where they take the view you cannot preach any other beliefs and face punishments and even death. People risk their lives to preach in some of these countries.The fact is, it is the most hypocritical argumentmade by religious people based on sensitivties of their faith, when by the very nature of their belief, they mock every other belief system as wrong.Again we all place our lives at risk and you do not bow down to terror by giving in, when you already face such threats daily. This was nothing short of a propaganda coup for extremism today, which now gives the geen light to more people thinking that terror can help them force their views onto people.

Oh and for the record I have faced such risks, direct threats to kill me by the IRA for wanting to join the British army. I failed the medical, not because I was unfit, far from it, but because of my history of asthma, they cannot take the risk. I faced this threat from within my own family that saw two of my uncles murdered. So I think I have some grounds to understand what it is like to have my own life threatened and I willingly took the risks.

Raggamuffin wrote:I just don't see the point in mocking religion. It doesn't change people's belief, and it just irritates them. In some cases, it leads to murder.

In which case that says more for the believers AND the belief.

religious believers of the murdering kind are little different either in mental stability OR intelligence from "yer average footy hooligan" who will murder you for mocking "his" team.

and religions that call for or encourage (however slightly) such behaviour should not be given the time of day. They have NO place in our society and add NO value.

The more I see the more convinced I am that ALL religions should have their special status concessions (such as the favourable tax exemption and their place in "hate speech law) removed.

Satire serves a higher intellectual purpose. I don't think Charlie Hebdo merely mocked Islam (or any other religion) so much as it skewered the pedestal religious people put themselves upon, such as with this cartoon:



("You better not laugh!")

There's no reason a free society shouldn't be allowed to criticize, critique and even mock religious beliefs, and it reflects poorly on the faithful when they can't take criticism in stride, the way the rest of us are forced to in order to get along in life. Ironically, there are many Muslims who insist that Islam is a religion that invites critique and investigation, but that message is certainly undercut when other Muslims commit murder over a cartoon.

I understand that CH might be doing this to calm tensions in their country, and that's a noble impulse, but it's a sad day when violent threats stifle free expression.

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I just don't see the point in mocking religion. It doesn't change people's belief, and it just irritates them. In some cases, it leads to murder.

In which case that says more for the believers AND the belief.

religious believers of the murdering kind are little different either in mental stability OR intelligence from "yer average footy hooligan" who will murder you for mocking "his" team.

and religions that call for or encourage (however slightly) such behaviour should not be given the time of day. They have NO place in our society and add NO value.

The more I see the more convinced I am that ALL religions should have their special status  concessions (such as the favourable tax exemption and their place in "hate speech law) removed.

+1

Brilliant point and bang on the money.
Catch you later Victor and have agood evening

Raggamuffin wrote:I just don't see the point in mocking religion. It doesn't change people's belief, and it just irritates them. In some cases, it leads to murder.

What if, a law was passed, whereby ANYONE AND EVERYONE could prohibit a word or a picture?

How many words or pictures do you think you'd be allowed to read, watch or use?

It's called freedom of speech Rags. It's why you're allowed to say a lot of stuff on here or other public forums, without getting banned or your speech prohibited.

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

In which case that says more for the believers AND the belief.

religious believers of the murdering kind are little different either in mental stability OR intelligence from "yer average footy hooligan" who will murder you for mocking "his" team.

and religions that call for or encourage (however slightly) such behaviour should not be given the time of day. They have NO place in our society and add NO value.

The more I see the more convinced I am that ALL religions should have their special status  concessions (such as the favourable tax exemption and their place in "hate speech law) removed.

+1

Brilliant point and bang on the money.
Catch you later Victor and have agood evening

Cheers didge

Ben_Reilly wrote:Satire serves a higher intellectual purpose. I don't think Charlie Hebdo merely mocked Islam (or any other religion) so much as it skewered the pedestal religious people put themselves upon, such as with this cartoon:



("You better not laugh!")

There's no reason a free society shouldn't be allowed to criticize, critique and even mock religious beliefs, and it reflects poorly on the faithful when they can't take criticism in stride, the way the rest of us are forced to in order to get along in life. Ironically, there are many Muslims who insist that Islam is a religion that invites critique and investigation, but that message is certainly undercut when other Muslims commit murder over a cartoon.

I understand that CH might be doing this to calm tensions in their country, and that's a noble impulse, but it's a sad day when violent threats stifle free expression.

Well said Ben

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I just don't see the point in mocking religion. It doesn't change people's belief, and it just irritates them. In some cases, it leads to murder.

In which case that says more for the believers AND the belief.

religious believers of the murdering kind are little different either in mental stability OR intelligence from "yer average footy hooligan" who will murder you for mocking "his" team.

and religions that call for or encourage (however slightly) such behaviour should not be given the time of day. They have NO place in our society and add NO value.

The more I see the more convinced I am that ALL religions should have their special status  concessions (such as the favourable tax exemption and their place in "hate speech law) removed.

So you would advise someone to go on mocking a football team, even though they might get murdered for doing so?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I just don't see the point in mocking religion. It doesn't change people's belief, and it just irritates them. In some cases, it leads to murder.

What if, a law was passed, whereby ANYONE AND EVERYONE could prohibit a word or a picture?

How many words or pictures do you think you'd be allowed to read, watch or use?

It's called freedom of speech Rags. It's why you're allowed to say a lot of stuff on here or other public forums, without getting banned or your speech prohibited.

People are free to criticise religion, and to mock it, but if they get killed for doing so, is there much point in standing up for their rights? The world is full of dead martyrs.

Mockery is different to criticism - in some ways it's worse. I don't condone what happened, but it got to the stage where someone wanted to wipe the smug smiles off the faces of the cartoonists, and they were prepared to die themselves in order to do so.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Why should the employees of Charlie Hebdo (and their families) take the chance of being brutally murdered, just to appease those who think this is a win for terrorism and a loss for freedom of speech?

Evening Zack

Do you think that you should shut up because someone else tells you to?

It's all very well saying they shouldn't give in, but you're not the ones going to work every day frightened that someone might kill you. You might change your tune if it was you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

In which case that says more for the believers AND the belief.

religious believers of the murdering kind are little different either in mental stability OR intelligence from "yer average footy hooligan" who will murder you for mocking "his" team.

and religions that call for or encourage (however slightly) such behaviour should not be given the time of day. They have NO place in our society and add NO value.

The more I see the more convinced I am that ALL religions should have their special status  concessions (such as the favourable tax exemption and their place in "hate speech law) removed.

So you would advise someone to go on mocking a football team, even though they might get murdered for doing so?

No...I would shut down the team untll it got better mannered supporters
why should a few intellectually challenged morons shut down conversation?
what part of "my right to take the piss FAR outweighs ANY consideration of your sensitivities" dont you get...
Its YOUR fault if you cant defend your belief/football team in a reasonable manner.
It is YOUR weakness that you resort to murder or whatever...or have any sympathy for those who do.

to resort to violence over a stupid matter of "my god/football team has a bigger dick than yours" is symtomatic of mental inadequacy and social inferiority  complexes...

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


So you would advise someone to go on mocking a football team, even though they might get murdered for doing so?

No...I would shut down the team untll it got better mannered supporters
why should a few intellectually challenged morons shut down conversation?
what part of "my right to take the piss FAR outweighs ANY consideration of your sensitivities" dont you get...
Its YOUR fault if you cant defend your belief/football team in a reasonable manner.
It is YOUR weakness that you resort to murder or whatever...or have any sympathy for those who do.

to resort to violence over a stupid matter of "my god/football team has a bigger dick than yours" is symtomatic of mental inadequacy and social inferiority  complexes...

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the friends and families of those who were killed.

Just wanted to add, there is something to be said for any publication's responsibility for protecting its employees. My newspaper's offices are several stories up in a skyscraper and you can't even get the elevator to go to that floor without an employee keycard. From what I can glean from photos, the CH office is not nearly as secure as I'd want it to be if I worked there.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's all very well saying they shouldn't give in, but you're not the ones going to work every day frightened that someone might kill you. You might change your tune if it was you.

So we should give in to threats? What if someone on here threatened you - would you log off? Shut up?

I think you'd change your tune if we started banning people from posting what they wanted to say.

No Christian words or pictures
No pictures of anyone who is old, ill or fat
No swear words
No use of the word God
No answering a warning made by admin

Etc etc etc


Now how long would you like to do as you're told?

"Don't answer this thread anymore Rags. If you do I will ban you."

Raggamuffin wrote:It's all very well saying they shouldn't give in, but you're not the ones going to work every day frightened that someone might kill you. You might change your tune if it was you.

there is a difference between understanding WHY they took this decision and accepting that the reason they did was an acceptable social occurence

i.e. it is right that they took tis step to protect their staff

it is utterly wrong and unacceptable that they had to....

It would be a correct response by the french govt to remove any "special privilidges" religion has in france from this point onward....

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's all very well saying they shouldn't give in, but you're not the ones going to work every day frightened that someone might kill you. You might change your tune if it was you.

So we should give in to threats? What if someone on here threatened you - would you log off? Shut up?

I think you'd change your tune if we started banning people from posting what they wanted to say.

No Christian words or pictures
No pictures of anyone who is old, ill or fat
No swear words
No use of the word God
No answering a warning made by admin

Etc etc etc


Now how long would you like to do as you're told?

"Don't answer this thread anymore Rags. If you do I will ban you."

Being banned is a tad different to being killed isn't it?

I'm not one for giving in - we should never have given in to those Irish terrorists and pandered to them. However, we're talking about individuals who saw colleagues murdered, and I don't blame them if they're afraid they might be next.

Yes rags, I KNOW it's a 'tad' different to being killed

It was just an example, however small, of what happens when you start to cover people's mouths and minds.
If you don't get what I mean, you're never going to.

eddie wrote:Yes rags, I KNOW it's a 'tad' different to being killed

It was just an example, however small, of what happens when you start to cover people's mouths and minds.
If you don't get what I mean, you're never going to.

Well I don't approve of those cartoons in the first place, and others do, so we're not going to agree what is right.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes rags, I KNOW it's a 'tad' different to being killed

It was just an example, however small, of what happens when you start to cover people's mouths and minds.
If you don't get what I mean, you're never going to.

Well I don't approve of those cartoons in the first place, and others do, so we're not going to agree what is right.

Okay fair point. But you cannot stop people having opinions and you cannot stop people from being able to express them rags, whether you like the opinion or not.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I don't approve of those cartoons in the first place, and others do, so we're not going to agree what is right.

Okay fair point. But you cannot stop people having opinions and you cannot stop people from being able to express them rags, whether you like the opinion or not.

Apparently you can - individual people anyway, as they found out.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I don't approve of those cartoons in the first place, and others do, so we're not going to agree what is right.

Okay fair point. But you cannot stop people having opinions and you cannot stop people from being able to express them rags, whether you like the opinion or not.

Apparently you can - individual people anyway, as they found out.

And that's right, is it? The terrorists were right to kill because they didn't like someone's opinion?
No they were not right, they could've just expressed their opinion verbally.


So we agree then, that it isn't wrong to express your opinion verbally, (voicing) but it is wrong to express your opinion physically (violence)?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Apparently you can - individual people anyway, as they found out.

And that's right, is it? The terrorists were right to kill because they didn't like someone's opinion?
No they were not right, they could've just expressed their opinion verbally.


So we agree then, that it isn't wrong to express your opinion verbally, (voicing) but it is wrong to express your opinion physically (violence)?

I was replying to your claim that you cannot stop people expressing their opinions - the killers did just that.

Yes they stopped those people voicing their opinions
But it wasn't the right way to do it.

If someone stops you from expressing your opinions rags, it's called oppression.

In a war between free speakers and oppressors, I take the said of free speech.
Any other side, means you can only think oppression (when you agree with it of course!) is right.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

And that's right, is it? The terrorists were right to kill because they didn't like someone's opinion?
No they were not right, they could've just expressed their opinion verbally.


So we agree then, that it isn't wrong to express your opinion verbally, (voicing) but it is wrong to express your opinion physically (violence)?

I was replying to your claim that you cannot stop people expressing their opinions - the killers did just that.

and hence terrorism has won....

eddie wrote:Yes they stopped those people voicing their opinions
But it wasn't the right way to do it.

If someone stops you from expressing your opinions rags, it's called oppression.

In a war between free speakers and oppressors, I take the said of free speech.
Any other side, means you can only think oppression (when you agree with it of course!) is right.

They couldn't think of any other way of doing it. Many Muslims have complained before about the mockery, and those people stuck two fingers up at them.

I just think there's no need for people to engage in such mockery, but then I've never been a fan of satire or cartoons. A bit of gentle teasing about human nature is OK, but those people knew how offensive they were being, and now they don't want to put themselves at risk any more. I don't blame them for that.

Capitulation.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell other people what to say.

And the day you allow someone to tell you, then you're no longer living in a free society.

Well what do you want eddie? Do you want these people to continue to put themselves at risk to satisfy your desire for free speech?

You're not in their shoes. Why don't you start up a company taking the piss out of Muslims and put yourself out instead?

I'll also just mention that France have banned the burka - which I don't have a problem with - but they should perhaps understand that if you take away one freedom and uphold another, there will be trouble.

Raggamuffin wrote:Well what do you want eddie? Do you want these people to continue to put themselves at risk to satisfy your desire for free speech?

You're not in their shoes. Why don't you start up a company taking the piss out of Muslims and put yourself out instead?

I'm not asking anyone to do anything for ME, rags?
I'm merely stating my opinion. I hope no one kills me for it.

That wouldn't be very fair, would it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes they stopped those people voicing their opinions
But it wasn't the right way to do it.

If someone stops you from expressing your opinions rags, it's called oppression.

In a war between free speakers and oppressors, I take the said of free speech.
Any other side, means you can only think oppression (when you agree with it of course!) is right.

They couldn't think of any other way of doing it. Many Muslims have complained before about the mockery, and those people stuck two fingers up at them.

I just think there's no need for people to engage in such mockery, but then I've never been a fan of satire or cartoons. A bit of gentle teasing about human nature is OK, but those people knew how offensive they were being, and now they don't want to put themselves at risk any more. I don't blame them for that.

If they couldnt think of any way else to act then they are uncivilised savages that should be wiped clean off the face of the earth
If they took offense THAT deeply then they were "looking for reason to be offended" and totally "up them selves"
people like that have NO place in any decent society.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well what do you want eddie? Do you want these people to continue to put themselves at risk to satisfy your desire for free speech?

You're not in their shoes. Why don't you start up a company taking the piss out of Muslims and put yourself out instead?

I'm not asking anyone to do anything for ME, rags?
I'm merely stating my opinion. I hope no one kills me for it.

That wouldn't be very fair, would it?

Well being fair doesn't mean much if you're dead.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well what do you want eddie? Do you want these people to continue to put themselves at risk to satisfy your desire for free speech?

You're not in their shoes. Why don't you start up a company taking the piss out of Muslims and put yourself out instead?

I'm not asking anyone to do anything for ME, rags?
I'm merely stating my opinion. I hope no one kills me for it.

That wouldn't be very fair, would it?

Well being fair doesn't mean much if you're dead.

No it doesn't. Not fair is it?