Je suis Charlie!

[lepetitmartien]

To set legal stuff right in the case of France:
- Blasphemy is no more a crime since 1789, due to some historical events in France and obvious injustices. It's in the Human rights declaration of 1789.
- Caricature is a right and protected by law.
- Laïcity implies that the State is neutral between religions, and this includes respect to all, including atheists.
- Free speech is guaranteed with these limits (it's NOT the US one):

• No hatred
• No racism, antisemitism, apologia of crimes against humanity.
• No discrimination on sex or sexuality (the protection is not on the sale level as for racism)
• No apologia of crimes and offences, and especially terrorist acts or drugs.
• No public insults
• No public defamation
• No propagation of false news (Foxnews will have to face the 17th court in Paris for this with their "no go zones" in Paris)
• No breach on privacy (there's limits due to the right to inform on public figures)
• No breach on health issues
• And people under police and justice scrutiny are innocent till trial and recognised guilty, so public talks on this should be set accordingly. Our ex president Sarkozy has an issue with this regularly…

(I hope I've been complete)

When the Muhamad caricatures affair occurred, some french islamic institutions have brought Charlie before the 17th chamber and Charlie won over the right to blasphemy and caricature, as it wasn't hatred or racism etc. Plus the record of Charlie caricaturing all religions and races stands by them. They may not be of the best humor always (especially the Val period as editor in chief until 2009) but they pursue stupidity on all fronts, and sometimes it's very funny. Historically the team came from Hara-Kiri which was "stupid and bad", very much so.

Hara-Kiri closed after they titled after the death of De Gaulle: "Tragic ball in Colombey: one dead" (Colombey is the village where De Gaulle had his manor). They got shut down under a false pretense, the only censorship commission works under the "youth protection", you can always find something under this pretence. And the guys founded Charlie afterwards, a little bit more mellow but not by much. I think the only guy of this period still alive is Siné, who was fired by Val in 2009 under false pretence (as the trial judged) and who founded Siné Hebdo then Mensuel now, he's very old, and in hospital for weeks. But Siné Mensuel was out the week after the attacks, with a big title "buy Charlie" and a sad clown under saying "if you don't receive a bullet before you're 50, you've missed your life" (pun on a stupid phrase from a famous advertiser under the Sarkozy presidency "if you don't wear a Rolex before you're 50, you've missed your life".) It was exactly to the (bullet) point.
http://www.sinemensuel.com/communique/achetez-charlie-sine-mensuel-hors-serie-n2/

I resent strongly that the demoes against Charlie are located into countries with neither free speech, nor a free press… And by persons who have not even seen the newspaper as it's forbidden in their country. I don't want to blame them, but they miss the most important points imho.

Now I still haven't been able to catch an issue of Charlie

 

[abax]

Thank you, lpm. I think your explanation is outstanding and as it should be everywhere.

 

[lepetitmartien]

Latest news is the Charlie issue is to be printed still, so more than 7 millions… I've not catch it! And our prime minster made a declaration where he emphatically urged the french youth to learn to live with terrorism as it's here to stay (how great!) Now I wonder where he was the last 60 years (or more) because since the Events of Algeria (troubles then decolonisation of Algeria), there's been terrorist attacks. First the FLN (for independence) and the OAS (against), the OAS was even trying to kill De Gaulle by then. Afterwards, it was far left like Action Directe (similar to RAF or Bader gang in Germany, or Brigade Rosso in Italy), and the FLNC (independence movement for Corsica, until today), one bomb by the independentists for Brittany, the BHV bomb in 78. The islamist (various origins) bombs in 86, 95-96, attacks in 2012, 2015.

For a list see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_France
(the french list is more complete)

So it's not that "new"…

On the law front, it calms down but the engine to add stupid laws is still at works, it's less the united front for it as the political game has taken its rights back. Meanwhile the police and intelligence agencies are working hard at identifying and arresting helpers of the attacks.

 

[Secundino]

Seven million and not a single one gets up to here... Monday I'll try and phone the french consulate.
At least that print will help to let them work. But how do you make a satiric magazine without experienced cartoonists? So sad.

 

[lepetitmartien]

Well, it's not easy to have here either…

 

[NYEric]

It's as if Islamic fundamentalists actually think that the world will change by their violent acts... "Hmm, they blew up my neighbor, I'd better run and join them!" :crazy: Maybe They are delusional enough to think that their acts are simply other than frustrated ventings similar to an unfed infant. Very sad actually. Reality: the world goes on and advances, see the new WTC, it won't go backwards.

Je suis Charlie!

 

[gonewild]

It's as if Islamic fundamentalists actually think that the world will change by their violent acts...
Je suis Charlie!

The World did change because of their violent acts. And as long as the World continues to remain even slightly passive and forgiving, in time the Islamic fundamentalists will win. The issue is all about religion, one side believes in killing their enemy and the other side believes in forgiving their enemy.... Which side do you think will win?

 

[cnycharles]

The World did change because of their violent acts. And as long as the World continues to remain even slightly passive and forgiving, in time the Islamic fundamentalists will win. The issue is all about religion, one side believes in killing their enemy and the other side believes in forgiving their enemy.... Which side do you think will win?

There was already a wave of conquerors that went through Arabia and Europe, this is another wave. Civilization is very fragile, don't assume that things will always be as they've been for the last 60 years.

Even the general basis of Islam is to eventually have all under that rule. So whether it's gently or much more quickly that's what's written. The wording is that they are to be peaceful to their brothers but they don't need to be so to unbelievers, so those in a hurry want to displace them however necessary. ... As it seems, even those we think are also of that religion they don't seem to mind killing along with everyone else so it's actually 'business as usual' and using whatever religious or other cover to justify whatever ends they want. Hitler said he wanted to make a pure 'aryan' (sp) race but I guess he didn't know that aryans were dark. Different starting group but the same destruction in mind

Actually it's 'love thy neighbor as yourself' and love thy enemy, and forgive a Brother. Also there is no prohibition in the latter religion that deals with love, in protecting family and nation as any other would expect to do . If you mean the west tries to be nicer about things than some others before fighting then that might be generally so

 

[TyroneGenade]

The issue is all about religion, one side believes in killing their enemy and the other side believes in forgiving their enemy.... Which side do you think will win?

I suppose it depends on who best limits casualties. If every Jihadists straps dynamite to themselves and we, the forgiving, can keep the causality ratio to less than 1:1, then we win by default. Hooray!

Flak-jackets for everyone!

I would beg to differ, Lance, in that this is a battle between philosophies: one of violent suppression and the other of liberty. The world is full of Muslims who care nothing for Jihad and conquest and just want to be free to live their lives.

 

[Secundino]

...we, the forgiving ... that is just what the 'other side' thinks of themselves, too.
I hope many people have the opportunity to see Sissakos new film 'Timbuktu'. There is no real 'we' and 'them'.
And I am sure, what 'we' call christianity isn't really tamed. In the name of god, with the help of god, ... christianity had already its share of bloodshed. Nobody can hide.

And world and society have changed. Not because of terrorism. But because of the reactions against terrorism. Just one example: there is no free traveling any more.

But there is a silver lining ... in Greece. Tsirpas signed in greek parliament without the presence of religious authorities.
And in Turkey: week after week fearless people confront the police to protect their laizist state, while tens of thousands of refugees cross the border.

 

[gonewild]

But there is a silver lining ... in Greece. Tsirpas signed in greek parliament without the presence of religious authorities.

How does lack of religion in government make the world a better or safer place?

 

[Secundino]

Because, Lance, there is always an option. It is never stay or leave, it is never friend or enemy, it is not 'if they don't, they are in support of violence'. That is black-and-white thinking; but world and human society is much more complex than that, there are much more shadows of grey and even colour.
Monotheist religions have that duality in them: one god only. The rest is infidel, is 'enemy'. Same idea: or you are with me, or you are my enemy. That can't be sane.
Governments, states, and in my opinion even political parties should always be secular. How could they possibly serve all, if in charge, if not so.
People, if they want or need to, may worship to whom they like.

 

[NYEric]

How does lack of religion in government make the world a better or safer place?

Do you think its better anywhere if/where the government carries out the wishes of religious leaders?

But I agree with you; I am getting tired of non-fundamentalist Muslims saying, "Oh, that is not our religion." - At a certain point they should act to prove that position.

 

[Shiva]

But I agree with you; I am getting tired of non-fundamentalist Muslims saying, "Oh, that is not our religion." - At a certain point they should act to prove that position.

The problem is that Islam has no spokesperson that could act like the Pope in the catholic church. So they are left with the asinine excuse they use to defend their religion. And since they are fragmented between their interpretation of the Coran, don't expect any change.

 

[Secundino]

Actually it is sane, the last part, "you are with me, or you are my enemy", this is the sane, basic natural, species behavior Homo sapiens is ingrained with.

Says who? where is the proof of that assumption, that mankind is evil? That already sounds like religion to me - crying for redemption! Imagine it the other way round: if mankind was good, there would be no need to invent god! We can't allow that, can we?! There has never been such thing like 'one mankind' - what there is and always has been is the mix of better ones and not so good ones you see when you look out of the window.

But there are alternatives. It's called civilization. Not related to religion or military. And civil response is needed against terrorism of any kind, not that military, law and order crap that is happening right now: a spiral of violence that leads nowhere.

I am certainly not with you, Lance, but you aren't my enemy. That makes a big difference.

 

[cnycharles]

Being civil to mad bombers won't make them go away, though I hope to be civil to everyone I meet if they allow me to. No matter how civil some people may want to be, there are going to be those who want to bash you over the head for whatever reason. And them to protect yourself from the head badger, you end up having military. You can't have civilization without having some form of military, even if it is only the militia that was supposed to be the only standing army when the us was formed. Whether or not you want to say mankind is evil, or more correctly twisted by things belonging to another discussion it leads to the fact that there are people whose brains are twisted and no amount if being nice to the world and holding hands will fix that. So you then end up needing something to back them off,.... The cycle continues because of this. Japan didn't plan on directly invading the us during ww2 because they knew every citizen family had a gun (a huge army). The us I guess could have 'been nice' and not taken part in that war, but it's likely after everyone else was conquered they would have come here eventually. From viewing history it's impossible to gather that acting civilized only would keep any peace from the part of mankind or what infects mankind to not be peaceable with their neighbors. In the big picture it really is black or white; there are enough that think 'I want what you have' or 'I want you to stop what you're doing' and will die or whip up enough others to do it for them that peace by mankind's hand itself is impossible.

 

[NYEric]

I disagree. I think, like racism, war and violence are under man's control. Everyone just has to realize that it in not beneficial for the community. If we could just stop being so self-centered and greedy, and think of the long term, "oh, there is plenty of water for everyone, Ozone is not my problem, global warming is just a cycle..." we would be better off. Maybe an alien invasion would unite us.

 

[gonewild]

I disagree. I think, like racism, war and violence are under man's control. Everyone just has to realize that it in not beneficial for the community. If we could just stop being so self-centered and greedy, and think of the long term, "oh, there is plenty of water for everyone, Ozone is not my problem, global warming is just a cycle..." we would be better off. Maybe an alien invasion would unite us.

All this and Orchids grow big and bloom beautiful and never die. All fantasy!
Man can not control the nature of his species. If he could he would be God.

Well, maybe the alien invasion part is not fantasy! :wink:

 

[Secundino]

Well, maybe the alien invasion part is not fantasy! :wink:

That would explain a lot, including the K-lite enigma! :rollhappy:

 

[cnycharles]

It's the nanobots that really make things work
Hmm, spose I should help guide this thread back towards the cartoon paper; hope they can find acceptable writers/artists to keep true with their original spirit

Though I haven't read that book, the author I know is basing it all on their own or others' whimsy and not fact. There has been no time in recorded human history where men haven't worshipped something, which is religion. So there is no recorded history of a time before religion to base such writings on. Purely a construct of their or others' opinions. Anyhow thinking of a tribe way back for discussions sake pre-religion, there must be a leader. And leaders have to have rules written or otherwise. If a rule is broken then there is a consequence. Even apes and chickens have their pecking order and what happens if you step out of line? Law enforcement! :rollhappy:
Of course many people have different versions of what they mean by the word religion so discussion can become a twisted mess....
And there certainly was corruption.... Even godless kings in that pre religion time needed finances of some sort to fund whatever needed to be done as I suppose they weren't pure communists, and where there are funds there is that twisted desire to keep 'just a little more' for myself, and there you have corruption. ....but jmho