It appears that many leading Muslims in France have a better understanding of civilized values than the censorship and murder cheerleaders from the white left do.
“Murder Cheerleaders” is a great band name.
There’s a difference. If a woman is wearing a miniskirt, she’s wearing it because that’s what she wants to wear. The France cartoonist situation is more akin to, a woman wearing a T-shirt that says “F_ _ _ Mohammed” (or F____ someone else, or something else.) It’s someone going out of their way to antagonize someone.
Why shouldn’t the people who want to murder over cartoons be antagonized? Is your position that they should be given candy and pats on the head? Why are you defending them?
Oh well. Unlike message boards and college campuses we shouldn’t capitulate to the hecklers’ veto or the mob. Sparing someone some feels isn’t sufficient reason to empower the hypocritical ruling class with the ability to silence people.
Not a lot of gray area here. I don’t hold much brief for folks who mock other peoples’ religions just for shits and giggles, but that’s neither here or there. Citizens don’t have the right to kill people who aren’t trying to kill them, full stop. I’m not a fan of the state doing it either.
I defend their absolute right to do something so clearly fucking stupid.
There are people out there who do indeed see a short skirt as an offensive affront..
Was the woman involved in that incident going “out of her way to antagonize”? Now that she realises how offensive her clothes are to some people I suppose she should moderate her dress in future?
Or political rallies.
I’ve been saying that for years, but the people I say it to tell me I should “leave the country” if I don’t like it.
I respect and appreciate their response to the situation.
Yet if only say 1% of French Muslims are “radical” how many is that? Just looked it up and google says France has 3.5 million Muslims. Thats 35,000 radicals plus muslim immigrants and refugees coming in. Major problem.
Then add in Islam is growing in France and once their population outnumbers the others and they can take over the government and make laws, what will happen then?
So the article goes on and on about how offensive CH cartoons are to muslims; then claims the Sine firing was over “misrepresented” antisemitism. Yeah, ok, so when the author doesn’t like something, it’s Islamophobia, but if Jews don’t like something, they just gotta suck it up.
Look, CH is extremely offensive, and not my cup of tea at all, and yeah, it’s racist sometimes. Is it racist the way the Proud Boys are racist, or the way that Dave Chapelle jokes are racist? That’s up for debate. But the idea that they are uniquely offensive to Muslims is ludicrous. Just because you agree with them when they criticize jews and Christians but disagree when they criticize Muslims doesn’t make it uniquely bad.
And just because Islamic law forbids depicting Muhammed is no reason to prevent everyone else from doing it, even if it IS offensive to then. Abortions are not just offensive to Christians, in their mind it is murder; but Christians can take their religious law and fuck right off if they want to apply it to everybody. Jews don’t get pork banned because it’s offensive to them. If Muslims don’t want to see depictions of Muhammed, they don’t have to look.
Yes, that would be ridiculous. Good thing I’ve already specifically pointed out they’re racist to at least Jews and Blacks as well, then, isn’t it?
Ok so we should ban anything that offends anyone, like abortions which offend Christians?
No. Just the things I don’t like.
At least now you’re being intellectually honest
And what if 0.0001% of them are “radical”, how many is that? That’s a whole 3.5 radicals! And that’s not counting immigrants, who naturally are all evil and want to take our jobs and ravish our womenfolk. I mean, if we’re just randomly pulling numbers out of the air and ascribing evil intent willy-nilly.
In the event this ludicrously improbable scenario takes place, democratic rule will continue to apply. Shouldn’t the elected majority have the right to make laws?
Basically, your post is the same hysterical anti-Muslim fearmongering we’ve been seeing for two decades now. Yes, there are violent radicals in the Islamic community and they are reprehensible in every way. But the problem is the “violent radical” part, not the “Islamic” part, and there are violent radicals in all communities whether we want to admit it or not. And tarring all Muslims with the same brush not only doesn’t make “us” safer, it makes everyone less so. Please stop.
When have I not been?
All of my abortions were purely done to offend Christians unlike all of my caricatures of Mohammed which were solely done because of medical need.
Maybe you’d have a point if the offensive cartoons people were so mad about were the ones making racist statements against Muslims, like the one with the pregnant women demanding welfare. But it seems like the cartoons that are causing the problems here are the ones that portray Muhammed; and that’s just complete and utter BS, for the reason put forward very eloquently here:
The only society that would restrict THAT sort of speech is one that cows to religious law, and I don’t want to live in such a society. Not when the American Right tries to tell gays which businesses will and won’t serve them, and not when a few radicals get angry about cartoons of Muhammad.