world

Je suis Charlie? Attack sparks debate on free speech limits

73 Comments
By JILL LAWLESS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

73 Comments
Login to comment

I am not Charlie. I do not support offensive provocation disguised as ¨freedom of speech¨. That one single illustration of Mohammed naked, with a star stuck in his ass was enough to me to change my mind about the magazine. Idiots. Second only to the terrorists.

-19 ( +7 / -25 )

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to death your right to say it. - Voltaire

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

Je Suis Charlie

11 ( +12 / -2 )

The point which I dont understand is that why this massacre happened? In a country like FRANCE how did these guys managed to get weapons ? I condemn both the massacre and illustration of Mohammad(PBUH). Freedom of expression and hate speech are two different things. And if we can not distinguish them then terrorists will also ask their right to promote hate speech.

I condemn the massacre.

JeSuisAhmed
1 ( +7 / -6 )

@Junaid

Guns are readily available pretty much anywhere these days.

An American friend of mine made inquiries, basically as a joke/dare in Kitakyushu and was offered something, old but lethal, for 50,000 yen. Not a problem.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I think people forget that there is a French historical tradition of the use of satire to take on the "powers that be" in French society--something that dates back to even before the French Revolution of 1789. As such, you'd think the Muslims in France should have figured this out many decades ago.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

I thought the Algerian / French reporter interviewed on the BBC yesterday said it well. Paraphrased: "you have to have freedom of speech but this wicked attack on Islam by Charlie Hebdo shows the need to have laws that stop people from saying wicked, evil things."

In other words free speech is OK as long as you don't say something I think is wicked. If you do the law should stop you. That's an oxymoron.....

Now what we need is a cartoon of the Statue of Liberty bashing mohammed over the head with her torch with the caption "submission."

Je Suis Charlie!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Don't see what the debate is here. If you choose not to potentially offend, that's your right. If you choose to potentially offend, that's your right also.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Charlie Hebdo specialises in a particularly mocking sarcastic brand of political and satirical lampooning. The magazine has reportedly published recently a cartoon portraying the Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi with a capiton ridiculing him preaching in a mosque. This will be seen as another failure for liberal multiculturalism, western society cannot assimilate or integrate an Islamic state in any form into communities that fundamentally will not tolerate the religious extremism preached in mosques. The debate is what to do next? ..... How does western countries expunge these jihadists festering hatred in communities before committing further atrocities?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I was hoping it would spark a debate on terrorism. These crackpots are not born overnight. For the sake of its future, the West needs to look at how Islamic immigrants integrate or do not integrate into society. Don't get me wrong, I've got many close Muslim friends, all of whom find this event abhorrent. However, within countries like France, there seems to be an ongoing disconnect between the modern secular society and a very small proportion of Muslims. Something either needs to be done to entice these people to participate more fully in wider society, or to offer them other options (such as emigration to countries where they would feel more at ease). The long and the short of it is that the status quo is not a solution.

Finally, I wouldn't go so far as to push for the suppression of freedom of speech, however, those who play with fire do invariably get burnt.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Its interesting that people are now talking about the freedom of speech as if libel, obscenity and state secrecy laws don't even exist.

If someone suggested I go flip off some innocent guy walking down the street and hurl obscenities at him, and I refused, would you call me a coward? Sure you would! If you were 14 years old! But the fact is I would do that if I had good reason. And I see no good reason for sexually degrading pictures of Mohammad in light of the easily predictable reaction.

This is being billed as offense over "pictures of Mohammad". But its vital to realize that these were highly offensive, grotesque and perverted pictures even if the subject were just some random guy. The aim was clearly to provoke and Charlie Hebdo seems to be merely a den of agents provacateurs enticing you to act and think rashly and get more people hurt. Therefore:

Je suis Ahmed.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

At which point do these wicked acts of brutal barbarity push government into taking steps to intern Jihadists suspected of conspiring to commit terrorist acts. Enforced repatriation irrespective to country of birth to a more appropriate cultural environment should be subject to open debate. It time to review every opinion available however politically unpalatable.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@netminder

Yes there are libel, obscenity and state secret laws which are applied where relevant, but a pornographic cartoon of Muhammad doesn't breach those laws, not in France.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

For me, this debate on free speech is blaming the victim and defending medieval barbarism. Freedom of religion should be limited to three rights only: The right of heresy The right of blasphemy The right of apostasy

If you choose to believe in a religion, fine, but I'm not forced to respect YOUR beliefs and what you consider sacred. Asking me to is pushing your religion on me and an assault on my freedom of religion. If you think drawing Muhammad is blasphemy, well I don't and will have no qualm about doing so. If you don't like it... Well that's too bad for you.

Also, I don't believe one instant that religion should be off limits to criticism. If you don't like what someone is saying, then stop listening to him or reading him, or engage him in debate. But no one has a right to not be offended by anything and to ask that potentially "offensive" stuff be made illegal.

Some will say that this freedom is bad because it makes some communities angry and creates tensions... To which I would reply that avoiding anything "offensive" simply hides the tensions and allow them to fester and become more fundamental. It allows for subcultures to emerge that contradict directly a society's basic values because confronting these problematic facets is avoided for the sake of not being "offensive". A great example of that is the UK where a poll on social beliefs was unable to find ANY Muslim who would say that homosexuality is not immoral. In order to maintain social peace and protect religious beliefs from criticism, they let basic homophobia reign in certain communities and never confronted it.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

" a pornographic cartoon of Muhammad doesn't breach those laws, not in France."

Of course not! That was not the point! The point is that much more significant freedoms are already curtailed by law. I would happily trade in the state secrets laws for a law expressly forbidding any and all images of Mohammad. My freedom rests strongly on the one, but really not much at all on the other. I just find it amazing what silly insignificant battles people say they are willing see blood shed over while not even glancing at the much bigger picture.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Je suis Charlie Hebdo. Simply put, freedom of expression will always trump religious dogmatism.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should never be questioned in this type of situation. The man made an offensive depiction of a religious figure, and some extremists think it is worth killing people over it.

Religion should and will always be subject to criticism. Claiming that a religion should never be criticized means that religion has no way to truly defend itself for it's beliefs because it demands silence to questions and expects blind faith and loyalty from it's followers.

Another most contradictory problem for Islam mainly being over them saying how any depiction of Mohammed would be equal to idolatry, and yet elevating him to a divine status that his image must never be depicted at all because it is so holy....which is idolatry of a single human being.

Keep in mind that in many Islamic nations, there is such a thing as a blasphemy law. If you look into why such a thing exists and how it is used, you would understand very clearly that freedom of speech/expression should never be subject to such restrictions.

8 ( +8 / -1 )

@HonestDictator

Actually, in Islam, the depiction of any living thing is forbidden.

Muhammad isn't a special case....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

netminder, this will forever be one of many human moral and political conundrums, indeed the very separation of church and state. Centuries of political and legal evolution have reached a point that freedom to satirical lampoon other faiths and religious beliefs both in writing and caricature is not only part and parcel of modern weatern society but positively encouraged. Government and religious institutions are not sacrosanct to be excluded.

I do have sympathy for your position out of a common respect. To murder indecriminatly, to terrorise into submission is not a new phenomenon. Society response will be harsh and unforgiving, many generations of Muslims will inevitably be viewed with inceasing suspicion as they go about there daily lives.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

We forget who opened this whole can of worms. Those who got on the bandwagon to bomb a country that had NOTHING to do with the 9-11 bombings of the World Trade Center. Weren't the hijackers all Saudi, why punish Iraq...there's your source...We destroyed countries, killed thousands and really helped Iraq where people die every day. Now I'd like to see GB, Rummy, C.Rice and Chen be put on the front of “Je ne suis pas Charlie” — I am not Charlie — showing them collecting their cash and ..... what else should they deserve? anyone offended by cartoons...well, I'm not...

-6 ( +3 / -8 )

What most people forget with every right/privilege also comes a duty and limitations.

A right/privilege is NOT a free for all card that allows you to do anything you like.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to carry a gun, etc are fine as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@It"sME

No. Freedom of speech is exactly what it says.

I'd agree that saying, for example, "Kill homosexuals", would be in breach of any kind of civilised society's rules and shouldn't be allowed. But simple mockery of religious or political leaders is surely a sign of a healthy society.

Would you want to live in Thailand, with her laws forbidding insults directed at the king?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Freedom of Speech was introduced to allow criticism of the government, it does NOT cover hate speech, incitation, etc.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

'Freedom of Speech was introduced to allow criticism of the government'

Not just the government.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

We forget who opened this whole can of worms. Those who got on the bandwagon to bomb a country that had NOTHING to do with the 9-11 bombings of the World Trade Center. Weren't the hijackers all Saudi, why punish Iraq...there's your source...

I seem to recall that France was dead set against the US 'coalition' invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Recall the Freedom Fries, etc.

Many forget that Books like Gulliver's Travels, etc used to be banned because they were critical of their Government. If zfreedom of Speech is so powerful why are many groups and certain topics still controversial and often censured.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Freedom of speech is supposed to be unrestricted because it is the underpinning of democracy." -Scott Pelley

"Courage often looks like stupidity to cowards." -Salman Rushdie

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I am Charlie. Free speech that is only free as long as it does not offend people who react with violence is not free speech. The very reason that we should all see the cartoons is precisely the insane reaction of this group. We have had artworks called "Madonna in cow dung" and "Piss Jesus". I am pretty sure that Catholics were offended by that. But did they issue death threats and burn down embassies? No, and that is the issue here.

Let us not be fooled: The only reason that journalists and politicians want to cave under Shariah blasphemie law is the threat of violence, and nothing else. If nobody`s feeling must ever be hurt, would should also not cartoon the like of Ron Hubbart and Kim Yon Un. In fact, there would no cartoon of anybody, ever.

But in this case, the only group that we want to give this special guarantee not to hurt their feelings is the one that threatens us with death. If we give in, that is capitulation. We might as well adopt Shariah right here and now.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

I like how Free Speech must be unrestricted, recall a few incidents were those advocates gotbrather riled.

There ate a few commercials I recall well from Japan. One featured a person of African-American origin, another 6yrs ago used a monkey instead of a recently elected head of state.

Interesting how some people/groups can be selective when it comes yo others right of Freedom of Speech/Expression.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Its me:

" There ate a few commercials I recall well from Japan. One featured a person of African-American origin, another 6yrs ago used a monkey instead of a recently elected head of state. "

I don´t know what incident you are talking about, but was any of hose accompanied by and enforced with with death threats? Or are you simply talking about people protesting this or that cartoon? Of course everybody should be allowed to protest, just as the cartoonist should be allowed to cartoon.

Can you explain what you are trying to say?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Death threats were issued as well as boycotts from certain countries.

It is not only creators of Muslim stuff that receive deaths threads regularly but all types of people that post controversial stuff that upsets some people.

The one CM I am talking about is the EMobile one that used their old mascot character.

African Americans, Jewish people, sdians, etc are also easily offended by some depictions/stereo types.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

We have a right to free speech in western societies, so long as we don't commit hate crimes. I'm perfectly within my rights to state I dislike a certain religion if I want to, but I am not within my rights to commit crimes against members of that religion or incite crimes against them. If muslims want to believe stories about a so-called prophet, a man who was essentially a war monger who started hearing voices after going mad, they have the freedom to do so. They also have the freedom to worship Allah and believe the words of Mohammed if they want to. They can do this in mosques that we allow them to build and in faith schools that we permit in our non-Islamic countries. But if someone commits an act that could be conceived as a hate crime against Islam, muslims only have the right to complain to the authorities. They have no right to do much else because many western societies allow a very high degree of satire and freedom of expression. They don't have the right to start murdering people they don't agree with. They have to accept the laws of the countries they choose to live in.

The problem is not so much about the press being offensive for a laugh or to make a point, the problem is some muslims being too easily offended. I think some of these cartoons went too far, but they were not illegal in France, meaning no French muslim had any right to respond to them with anything other than words. Christians in western societies have got used to people mocking their beliefs and don't respond to mockery with violence. Muslims in western societies need to learn to do the same, and in all fairness most of them have. But most muslims in western societies have not integrated into those societies due to the very different values and freedoms. I know muslims who say they are moderate but would never allow my son to marry their daughter for religious reasons. So even moderate muslims generally won't accept concepts such as international marriage unless it is between muslims. They are primarily controlled by the leaders of their mosques and the words of the Koran, even the moderates, so they too have little regard for our essential freedoms and remain un-integrated. That's very sad, and does make me wonder why so many muslims with no ability to leave their backward religion behind choose to live in western countries.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Forgot to link:

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'I like how Free Speech must be unrestricted, recall a few incidents were those advocates gotbrather riled.

There ate a few commercials I recall well from Japan. One featured a person of African-American origin, another 6yrs ago used a monkey instead of a recently elected head of state.

Interesting how some people/groups can be selective when it comes yo others right of Freedom of Speech/Expression.'

I think people generally tread more carefully about ridiculing something a person is unable to do anything about such as race. That doesn't mean it's necessarily off-limits but I'd shout down anyone maliciously ridiculing the disabled. However, when it comes to opinion or belief in the case of politics or religion, you should expect and maybe even deserve both barrels. They are your opinions and many find them preposterous and even dangerous ( contrast prosperous, democratic, irreverent France to theocratic hell-holes with blasphemy laws ). You can't go running for cover with false parallels with racism when someone ridicules your ideas.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Jimizo.

Don't worry I am easily offended.

Said that I have had many friends over for a visit and they were shocked at some old commercials, flags, etc posted in a pub or restaurant and said those had been banned back home decades ago and would never be accepted.

Japan: EMOBILE's Racist Commercial Depicts Obama …: http://youtu.be/si-lSLv9b4E

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Its Me:

" Freedom of Speech was introduced to allow criticism of the government, "

Well, that is very pertinent here, because for the islamists, islam IS the government. They want Shariah to have priority of the secular constitution. Note also that the Charlie murderers simply acted out Shariah law. In countries like Pakistan, the government would have arrested and killed the Charlie cartoonists, cfg. Pakistan criminal code 295c.

" Death threats were issued as well as boycotts from certain countries. "

By who, and when? North Korea perhaps? In that case, do you also suggest we observe North Korean law out of respect?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

They have to accept the laws of the countries they choose to live in.

And that is the real crux of the situation. The muslims that carry out these extreme acts are doing so in Western societies that reject and forbid this under law. Muslims are hiding behind their religion, meaning that they believe their religion is more important and should override host country laws. Here's a good read on that.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Would you want to live in Thailand, with her laws forbidding insults directed at the king?

Well, since you mention it, we have Draw Mohammad Day.

When is Offend the King of Thailand Day? Oh. Nobody wants to do that one? Why not? Because you don't expect any Thais to try and kill over it?

See, that's just it. Divining intent is never an easy thing. But what is the intent here? Seems to me the great hope in drawing such very offensive pictures of Mohammad was to incite violence.

Excuse me if I don't jump at that bandwagon. I absolutely despise people who instigate trouble and get people killed just to prove they can do it, even if I despise killers more. I despise Cherif Kouachi. I despise Said Kouachi. I despise Hamyd Mourad. I despise Charlie Hebdo.

Je suis Ahmed.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The problem is not so much about the press being offensive for a laugh or to make a point, the problem is some muslims being too easily offended. I think some of these cartoons went too far, but they were not illegal in France, meaning no French muslim had any right to respond to them with anything other than words.

This is the crux. In Western countries, we allow for vocal protest - whether that be through actual physical protests/gatherings with signs, through articles in the news/magazines/blogs, or even though cartoon satire. We do not allow for physical retribution. If someone doesn't like something, they are allowed to say they don't like it all the want. They are not allowed to physically attack someone/somewhere.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

'When is Offend the King of Thailand Day? Oh. Nobody wants to do that one? Why not? Because you don't expect any Thais to try and kill over it?'

Thai people probably wouldn't kill over that. That's a very interesting issue and perhaps you should consider why that is. Also, Charlie Hebdo is a satirical French magazine dealing with issues relevant to its readership. The king of Thailand isn't generally relevant or interesting to most in France. The issue of Islamic terrorism in Europe is a huge issue which has claimed hundreds of innocent lives and is attempting to pressure Europe into surrendering ideals just as precious to them as any held by the religious. For a satirical magazine not to deal with this issue or single it out for kid gloves treatment would have been an obscene surrender. Satire among other things points out stupidity and backwardness and nothing is more stupid or backward than fundamentalist religion.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

netminder:

" When is Offend the King of Thailand Day? Oh. Nobody wants to do that one? Why not? Because you don't expect any Thais to try and kill over it? "

The Thai blasphemy laws apply only for Thailand. It is up to the Thai parliament to change them if they want to. Now, if radical Thai royalists issued and carried out death threats for cartoonists living in other countries, then yes, I would ask for a cartoon Thai King. But they don´t. I think that illustrates the difference.

Hampton:

" the problem is some muslims being too easily offended. "

It is not just "some muslims", it is Shariah law. That is why several muslim countries are pushing for world-wide law against cartooning Mohammed, as it exists in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But I do not want the West to submit under islamic Shariah law. Do you?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@LostinNagoya

+1

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Satire is a heady mixture of irony , ridicule, sarcasm, humor, and mockery its aim is to criticize behaviorally the self-righteousness of our political establishment and ocasionally perceived religious intolerance, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam there is no direct discimitary pejorative insult. 21st century communications technology will bring sartorial comment into living rooms. Some will jar the senses but has to be viewed for what it is worth. The satire in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest is a example to modern society fetishism of self importance.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

WilliB, there is nothing in anything I write that would show any support for shariah law. Islamic States like Pakistan will never be able to tell countries in North America, Europe etc. what we can and cannot lampoon. Our press is free to use satire and we will not cow-tow to muslims or give way to terrorists. If muslims have a real problem with this, the only practical suggestion is for them to leave our free lands and go back to some of the holes they and their forefathers left. I would wish them every success with their new lives back on Islamic soil and thank them heartily for leaving.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Hampton:

" . If muslims have a real problem with this, the only practical suggestion is for them to leave our free lands and go back to some of the holes they and their forefathers left. "

So what if they don´t leave? In that case we should accept Shariah? Or do you want forced deportation of something like 40 million people from Europe?

How about a more realistic approach: A clear legal stance to refuse Shariah. Guarantee free speech for all. And if you make restrictions to free speech (such as outlawing calls for violence), apply that to ALL speech, and don´t excempt "religious" speech from it. Ironically, you can look at some (the few that there are) moderate islamic countries to see what can be done. E.g. check out the constitution of Azerbeijdjan: It states that hate speech in the name of religion is not allowed, period. That puts a lid on the radical imams of the type that indoctrinated the Kouachi brothers. That is why you don´t see Azerbeijani jihadis.

But Europe does not have that. Europe has a wishy-washy idea of "religious freedom" and as a result enjoys a home-grown jihad.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

WillieB.

Islamic warriors don't need ships or submarines to get to Europe, they can just drive there.

Another problem is a huge wave of refugees from Syria, etc that come via ship or from north Africa. We get nailed if we turn them back or refuse to accept them, funnily enough most of those want to settle in Austria or Germany.

Italy/Greece are their most common landing points.

Also look up pergida and the anti/pro-muslims demonstration in Germany.

Europe us not as pro-muslim/ immigration as you believe, many new lawdps are being constantly passed to limit refugees/immigrants. As they cost us too much.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@hampton

I do agree that Pakistan can not dictate North America , Europe or any other state(whether Islamic or not). But (dont you think) same goes for Europe and America. For Example: They should also stop putting their noses in Pakistan`s business. Like after Peshawar Massacre Pak GOVT. decided to hang all terrorists to death but some European organizations have problem with the decision.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

No one has the right never to be offended. Censorship just panders to the intolerant.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

netminder:

" WilliB, nobody called for assassinations in foreign countries over cartoons until the cartoons were made. You are putting the cart before the horse. "

No, you are. The reason the cartoons (Charlie Hebdo as well as the previous Danish ones) were made is precisely because of the history of islamist intimidation. And the murderous reaction showed that they are needed.

As for "intentionally inciting Muslims", well how do you call the "Piss Christ" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ) images or the "Madonna in elephant dung" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili)? If they were not intended to "intentionally incite Catholics", what are they? I am an atheist, and I find them pretty offensive. But did you notice the reaction? Catholics did NOT react with world-wide riots and death threats. That is why I´d agree that while artists should have the right to do this, it is needless provocation. On the other hand, IF the Catholics had reacted like homicidal maniacs and demanded Catholic Blasphemy laws, I would want Piss Christ and Madonna in Cow dung everywhere. Wouldn`t you? Or would you pre-emptively submit under Catholic Law?

As for the Thai king and Obama, they are living real persons, so it is a different situation anyway.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The right to free speech is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. It is the right of the individual and organization, although the onus is generally on those parties to use it sensibly and sensitively. You might argue that this hasn't been done by Charlie, but in a Liberal Democracy you don't die for doing so. The rule of law governs this.

If Muslims in France or anywhere else do not agree with the basic tenements of Democracy, there are plenty of countries that will suit their sensibilities more adequately.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I wonder if those readers here who want to pre-emptively apply islamic blasphemy laws also then agree that Sony was right in cancelling the Kim Yong Un film? I am mean, I am pretty sure that that file would "incite" the followers of the fat little dictator (oops, am I allowed to say that, or is that too disrepectful)?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I am offended by the people who think that the attacker's actions could be in any way justified or defensible, and that there should be any debate around this issue other than the outright condemnation of the attack. By that logic doesn't that mean that the debate should stop?

After all, I'm offended therefore by their logic, no matter how irrational or indefensible my taking offense is, they should immediately withdrawn their defense of the attackers. Unless of course they're just massive hypocrites?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The debate......

Do you believe in free speech or do you believe in killing when you don't like what they say or print!?

Not very hard and really not that hard to decide.

You are either for the Muslim religious fanatics or you are against them.

No leftist wiggle room......Anyone that tried to use the leftist wiggle room would be shot by the Muslim terrorist....

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

'No leftist wiggle room......Anyone that tried to use the leftist wiggle room would be shot by the Muslim terrorist....'

Give the hysterical anti-commie nonsense a rest. I think we've had enough of extremism recently, including yours.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I repeat. I am Charlie.

To be an honest Charlie one must be tolerant of the non-Charlies, no matter how repellant their points of view might be.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ever since the nation's founders put the words "free" and "press" together, newspapers have been at constant war with the reading public.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There seems bleeding heart unanimous support here for the cult of intolerance... justifying and renaming that position with 'freedom of speech' catch phrase. I feel for the victims of this attack... that doesn't mean I support them. Their use of editorial terrorism should NOT be tolerated and/or turned into cause for the ignorant. They chose to associate themselves (the publication staff) and join the intolerance... therefore, are themselves guilty by association. These 'victims' are not martyrs, nor are they heros.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I do agree that Pakistan can not dictate North America , Europe or any other state(whether Islamic or not). But (dont you think) same goes for Europe and America. For Example: They should also stop putting their noses in Pakistan`s business.

There is a saying here in the US, "If you don't want me in your business, then don't make your problems my problem" When the US was able to find OBL in Pakistani borders as well as border hoppers from Afghanistan it showed just how bad Pakistans security with Afghanistan really was, because they were too busy keeping their eyes on India. It goes back much further than that, but I could go on forever about what led to what etc. that caused the US and western countries to become involved further beyond their own borders.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@kchoze: Good post. If someone offends your religion, then let them do it. According to your beliefs (whatever they may be) they will get their ultimate judgement someday, and it is not up to a person to go and "shoot up" a place to act for god.

People ask where they got the guns, from the same religious organizations that promote the censorship of others speech rights. Just because guns may be banned in a country, that only means that the people who follow the law will not be able to legally own a gun. Those who have no intention of following those laws, will find ways to get guns.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As a French, I'm totally disgusted by this article and its title. Non, ce n'est pas negociable. There is no debate on our freedom. You're just looking for excuses. The killers are no philosophers, no thinkers. They were plain criminals. Their only cause was crime. Their project was to kill, to shock, to scare and to get their 15 minutes of fame.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Frungy

I am offended by the people who think that the attacker's actions could be in any way justified or defensible, and that there should be any debate around this issue other than the outright condemnation of the attack. By that logic doesn't that mean that the debate should stop?

Oh, I support the right of people to post their islamo-fascist hate here. Just expect to be shouted down with great expedience, because we can exercise OUR right of speech to show where other people are wrong.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Anyone who thinks rights and freedoms are up for debate is a fool. Rights are individual and they exist because you exist. They can't be taKen, not voluntarily, not by vote, not by religion, not my majority whims, not by minority complaints and absolutely not because some violent thugs from a violent culture don't like What was said. The debate should be how Do we keep government, religion, tyranny and violent thugs from trying to take away rights.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

JimizoJan. 11, 2015 - 11:09PM JST Give the hysterical anti-commie nonsense a rest. I think we've had enough of extremism recently, including yours.

Freedom to speak and to print ones opinions and thoughts are great liberties we in Western nation have the ability to do and as Evelyn B. Hall said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Freedom and liberty must never be surrendered to radicals, those rights must be fought for. Sadly some folks get angry when you make that point, but at the same point that is what makes the West a great place to live.

So, please by all means continue to believe what you wish and I and the rest of those that love freedom will also. :)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Some here evidently don't understand something very simple: My liberty to swing my fist ends where my your begins.

Corollary: Don't go sticking you nose in my fist swinging.

In a free civilized society, I can swing my fist and say pretty much whatever I wish. And don't go sticking your nose where it has no right to be.

-Je Suis Charlie

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

JTDanManJan. 12, 2015 - 07:28AM JST Some here evidently don't understand something very simple: My liberty to swing my fist ends where my your begins.

If we followed that advice in the US, Nixon and his kin would be the rulers of the US of A and not the people. Some may argue that his kin still rule us but that has yet to be proven.

JTDanManJan. 12, 2015 - 07:28AM JST In a free civilized society,

In a free society you could do and say JUST (key word) about anything you wised and have no problem. (I placed a period for a reason) But, if you yelled FIRE (when there wasn't one) in a crowded theater, well, that is a crime. People would be hurt.

JTDanManJan. 12, 2015 - 07:28AM JST I can swing my fist and say pretty much whatever I wish. And don't go sticking your nose where it has no right to be. -Je Suis Charlie

But, if we followed that mindset (use of fear/threat of violence) there would still be simpletons ruling over us (ie Kinds, Queens, insane politicians) that we couldn't get rid of.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

No one's religious beliefs trumps the inalienable rights of any other person.

How many battles and wars have been fought over religious beliefs? And that includes the religion of Statism. We are all human. Let us all respect each other.

Je suis Jean ValJean."

1 ( +2 / -1 )

But did you notice the reaction? Catholics did NOT react with world-wide riots and death threats.

WilliB, when you toss in a wiki link you really should at least take a glance at it. Prints of the Piss Christ have gotten death threats from the first and even up to recent years. I am thankful there have been no actual deaths though.

Somebody here said something about evolution. Its been a long and slow process in the west, with our governments and Christianity, as much as people like to forget. Everyone has had time to adjust. This has not happened in many parts of world, including many if not most Middle Eastern countries. Yet people expect them to magically keep up from a distance. Well they can't. Even so, there has been no war declared over these pictures. There has not even been a true wave of terror attacks strictly over the pictures. There has been a lot of yelling and death threats, same with the Piss Christ.

But the deaths? Yes, there have been some. Muslims who support that? Yes, and even I think there are too many. But I am not in awe of those facts. I am awe that the deaths and supporters are so few considering how so much of the Muslim world has not gone through the same evolutions as we have!

Its going to take time for that to change. My advice is not to push it. And if you do? People are going to die to no avail. Patience, time and stability are vital to this equation. And let us not forget that the instability of many Muslims countries is founded on the meddling of the colonial powers and that is a giant reason why Muslim countries and others are behind in social evolution. France has not forgotten that, and its why they have so many Muslim immigrants.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I am just worried how long the Je suis Charlie movement will last another 6 months, another year.

Way too easy to jump on the bandwagon right now and many will soon move on as other problems and issues will take over.

Also this can turn into a vast anti-muslim movement with people overreacting. We all have seen the backlash from 9/11.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@HonestDictator

Somehow I dont agree with the example. PAK and US both are companions in war against terrorism specially against Afghanistan. PAK is the one who provides food and weapons to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

OBL was found and KILLED in PAK(the point is killed he wasnt captured alive). Whereas European organizations are opposing the death penalty for terrorists. Why? So that they can escape somehow and again create problems not only for PAK but for the rest of world as well. You can not take about human rights for those who dont even know the meaning of being human.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yeah, lets put restrictions on free speech. From now on, nothing should be allowed that might possibly offend someone, or run contrary to their religious beliefs. Lets have nothing at all referring to religion, politics or even personal beliefs. Nothing that could possibly hurt anyone's feelings. Anything controversial at all, forget about it. Anything bad happens, just don't report it.

Then we will all live in peace and harmony, and when terrorists kill someone they won't even have the excuse that the Western media was responsible because they published a cartoon picture of their prophet.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Realist

While I appreciate your sarcasm, I think you miss the salient problem before us:

It is not that everyone's sensibilities need to be respected. It is that religious sensibilities need to be respected.

Because the belief in God is special.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Charlie Hebdo publishes much much more than just pictures of Mohammad! Basically it is a very insulting magazine, it aims to arouse and provoke. If my actions provoke a hostile reaction then I would desist or prepare for conflict-it is normal no? Murder is not the answer nor is mindless provocation!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I agree with you kurisupisu.I personally wouldn't be making fun of Mohammad to begin with or someones beliefs, they know that radical Muslims are going to have a fit about it.It does help to have wisdom in this world.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Freedom of speech and freedom of stupidity are to different things so stupid and provocative cartoons should not be regulated by any freedom but common sense and carefulness could help in avoiding any trouble..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites