Guns Guns Guns, Now Paris!

[Malbec]

Let's think about that one for a moment.

I'm not thrilled with the country I live in for what ever reason - economy, dictatorship, bad climate, etc. So I decide to move to another place which seems to offer a better life or at least relief from whatever I've been suffering under. I arrive in my new country and can't read, write or speak the language. My customs don't fit in well with the local culture either. And, I have no skills which allow good employment in the local economy. So of course I now expect the host country, and its residents, to learn my language or, at a minimum, change all the signs and paperwork to a bilingual form. I also expect them to guarantee me profitable employment and when I don't have any skills to qualify for said employment I expect the host country to spend their money to feed, clothe, and shelter me and my family for some unknown period of time into the future, maybe forever. When my life here doesn't turn out to be quite as wonderful as it seemed it would be from my home in Islamistan, I reserve the right to riot in the streets, burn buildings, etc. The idea that I could correct the problems I face here, at least for the next generation, by assimilating into the local culture and making damn sure my kids get a good education is of course offensive to me. The locals should change their ways to match mine, its only fair.

Of course migrants have a responsibility to try to fit in, at least learning the local language and working hard etc. I take issue however with what appears to be a rather one sided portrayal of migration by Rudy where he appears to try to absolve the host nation of any responsibility. France has had a long history of being extremely unfriendly to certain ethnic groups, before the Muslims it was the Jews, it might be worth looking into how that one ended up.

[Malbec]

True......



.....but it's an effing cartoon picture!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625

The Pope thinks freedom of speech 'has limits' and 'you cannot insult the faith of others'.

What a load of ****. What are you going to do Popey if I blaspheme? Burn me at the stake?

Yes of course there's freedom of speech but with that comes responsibility. In this particular case because of the events over the past few weeks a little sensitivity would have gone a long way especially given how explosive things have become in France. Muslims in general, not just extremists have made it very clear that they find images of the prophet hurtful and offensive so Charlie Hebdo go ahead and make him the cover image. Then the caption, 'I forgive you'. Who is it aimed at? Charlie Hebdo to the terrorists? If so then why use an image that all Muslims would find offensive? Is it possible to forgive people who killed 12 guys just a week ago? Is it aimed at the Muslim world in general in which case the logic beggars belief, how can 1.6 billion people bear responsibility and therefore require forgiveness for the actions of three people?

Finally there is the caricaturing of Arabs used which (whether religious or not) French Arabs have repeatedly complained is offensive and racist. I do wonder if Charlie Hebdo lampoons African dictators by portraying them as banana eating apes living in trees, Israeli policies with hook nosed bearded Jews wearing yellow stars and horns in their hair. Maybe a nice slitty eye with a Chinese hat to mock North Korea? Of course Charlie Hebdo is very careful with the way it portrays Jews, a journalist got sacked after he was accused of being anti-semitic. Free speech exists if you're offending one religion but not another? How does that work?

[Big Ben]

As far as I know they mock, let me rephrase that, they insult everyone and everything. It's enough to check out the first page of images google returns to see nothing is off limits for these guys. And TBH I didn't really see anything that comes close to being witty or funny, nothing but pure insults. So while what happened is horrible, it doesn't change the fact that this paper is just garbage. I don't really comprehend why everyone's charlie now and why the french government paid them 1 million euros. Isn't it enough that 2 policemen died trying to defend their right to publish their filth?

[Starter]

Of course migrants have a responsibility to try to fit in, at least learning the local language and working hard etc. I take issue however with what appears to be a rather one sided portrayal of migration by Rudy where he appears to try to absolve the host nation of any responsibility. France has had a long history of being extremely unfriendly to certain ethnic groups, before the Muslims it was the Jews, it might be worth looking into how that one ended up.

Perhaps it was a big mistake to use France as a destination then? How is that the fault of the French people? And Jews never found France to be in the same league of unfriendly as the place next door.

[Starter]

As far as I know they mock, let me rephrase that, they insult everyone and everything. It's enough to check out the first page of images google returns to see nothing is off limits for these guys. And TBH I didn't really see anything that comes close to being witty or funny, nothing but pure insults. So while what happened is horrible, it doesn't change the fact that this paper is just garbage. I don't really comprehend why everyone's charlie now and why the french government paid them 1 million euros. Isn't it enough that 2 policemen died trying to defend their right to publish their filth?

The problem you have when free speech is limited is knowing when to stop. In a free society many people say things which are offensive to others. It's the price you pay for being able to freely express your own views. Banning certain viewpoints may sound good when it's something you find offensive.

The problem is "mission creep". When you have banned the most excessive and unpleasant expressions, where do you go from there? The range of subjects allowed in discourse is now narrower. There are always people who will strongly object to what is now the outer range of expression (after banning the other stuff). Repeat the cycle until you have a tightly controlled society with essentially NO freedom of speech.

[schmenke]

... Isn't it enough that 2 policemen died trying to defend their right to publish their filth?

One of which was muslim.

[Big Ben]

The problem you have when free speech is limited is knowing when to stop. In a free society many people say things which are offensive to others. It's the price you pay for being able to freely express your own views. Banning certain viewpoints may sound good when it's something you find offensive.

The problem is "mission creep". When you have banned the most excessive and unpleasant expressions, where do you go from there? The range of subjects allowed in discourse is now narrower. There are always people who will strongly object to what is now the outer range of expression (after banning the other stuff). Repeat the cycle until you have a tightly controlled society with essentially NO freedom of speech.

I don't advocate for banning them or suppressing free speech in any way. All I say is that IMO that paper before the attack was a piece of garbage and after the attack still is a piece of garbage. Now they've became some sort of heroes of free speech when I see them more as hijackers of free speech... the down-side of free speech if I may, you have to take them too 'cause it doesn't really work any other way.

[Starter]

I don't advocate for banning them or suppressing free speech in any way. All I say is that IMO that paper before the attack was a piece of garbage and after the attack still is a piece of garbage. Now they've became some sort of heroes of free speech when I see them more as hijackers of free speech... the down-side of free speech if I may, you have to take them too 'cause it doesn't really work any other way.

Understood. I was just using your post as a jumping off point for my comments.

[Malbec]

Perhaps it was a big mistake to use France as a destination then? How is that the fault of the French people? And Jews never found France to be in the same league of unfriendly as the place next door.

France specifically recruited Arab workers and soldiers from North Africa and other former colonies, just as Britain did from its Empire. Once the tradition of migrating to France to address French labour shortages was established it was pretty hard to break especially when Algerians, Tunisians and other people from across the French colony were taught to speak French and therefore had other reasons to see France as the natural place to go to. There is a very good reason why specific nationalities chose specific countries to migrate to.

As for Jews, France has had a very healthy history of anti-semitism dating back way before the Dreyfus affair. I accept that many think the Germans were the most anti-semitic in Europe, but reality is that other countries were equally if not more so. When the Germans started asking countries to start deporting Jews to certain death in the liquidation camps, many countries like Italy and Denmark passively resisted despite many of them being under German occupation. With the French the SS had to ask them to slow the deportation down as they couldn't cope with the numbers the French were supplying and also complained that the French were being too brutal. Its worth looking at anti-semitism across Europe, IMO many of the same sentiments are simply being translated into anti-Muslim behaviour recently.

[Rollo]

The problem is "mission creep". When you have banned the most excessive and unpleasant expressions, where do you go from there? The range of subjects allowed in discourse is now narrower. There are always people who will strongly object to what is now the outer range of expression (after banning the other stuff). Repeat the cycle until you have a tightly controlled society with essentially NO freedom of speech.

Should racist publication be allowed in newspapers with a circulation of 3 million?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a..._the_new_black

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c...2011/1103.html
The writing of the Newspaper Articles for publication by Andrew Bolt and the publication of them by the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd contravened s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)

This in particular:
I’m saying only that this self-identification as Aboriginal strikes me as self-obsessed, and driven more by politics than by any racial reality.
It’s also divisive, feeding a new movement to stress pointless or even invented racial differences we once swore to overcome. What happened to wanting us all to become colour blind?
Of course, the white Aborigine - or “political Aborigine” - is not new.
In 1972, Pat Eatock, founding secretary of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, officially became the first Aborigine to stand for federal parliament in the ACT, even though she looked as white as her Scottish mother, or some of her father’s British relatives.
Indeed, Eatock only started to identify as Aboriginal when she was 19, after attending a political rally, so little did any racial difference matter to her before her awakening to far-Left causes.
- Andrew Bolt, The Herald-Sun, 15th April 2009

This has become known as the "Bolt Case" in Australia and the repeal of Section 18C was even one of the points mentioned in the Liberal Party's election manifesto in 2013.
Of course if you remove bits of legislation which regulate aspects of speech such as racism and sexism etc. then the only cause for redress for people injured is through defamation cases which are far harder to prove.

How would you propose to address the issue of people who have been injured as a result of someone exercising their free speech? If people have actual carte blach to say anything they like and publish it in a wide enough context, then what? An organisation such as a newspaper which circulation in the millions has the potential power to utterly destroy people's livelihood's in the name of "free speech" otherwise.

I bet that in the United States that if a similar sort of article was published about a Native American person, there would be serious consequences.