French magazine publishes controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammad - many killed in revenge attack

[ffsear]

Wondering if these hostage situations are distractions that are part of a bigger plot.

 

[DownwardDog]

if these fucks had any style, they would go for a movie style ending for max PR & exposure - more Butch Cassidy that Bonnie & Clyde though

Kay Burley stars in KILO BRAVO.

 

[Pickman's model]

TBF at times some of those Irish lads could have done with a haircut, a wash and a scrub.

yeh but the uda, uvf never dedicated followers of fashion

 

[tony heath]

Oh come on. Don't start blaming people they threatened for this.

We shouldn't start blaming people who alter there behaviour when they're threatened by extremist nutjobs but they are guilty of appeasement.

 

[DaveCinzano]

yeh but the uda, uvf never dedicated followers of fashion

What you talking about? Hipsters before their time, some of them!

 

[Pickman's model]

What you talking about? Hipsters before their time, some of them!

gusty spence an exception: but people like lenny murphy?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We shouldn't start blaming people who alter there behaviour when they're threatened by extremist nutjobs but they are guilty of appeasement.

Rubbish.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The French state lactating is a fairly disturbing image

Doesn't Marianne embody the French state? She's generally portrayed with breasts that wouldn't shock anyone if they lactated.

 

[ddraig]

bbc now linking the 2 events saying the bloke in kosher place has said that he will keep hostages until other siege lifted

 

[Pickman's model]

Doesn't Marianne embody the French state? She's generally portrayed with breasts that wouldn't shock anyone if they lactated.

 

[Mr Moose]

more evocative than the shite little chef/ginsters jokes...... smarty bollocks

You have to concede that they did appear to pull in for a Ginsters today prior to taking hostages.

 

[DaveCinzano]

You have to concede that they did appear to pull in for a Ginsters today prior to taking hostages.

Difficult to imagine getting settled in for a long haul or-I'll-execute-every-last-motherfucking-one-of-you without a Peppered Steak Slice at the very least.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Good chance they have suicide vests to go out with a bang.

Don't ever take any money down to the race track with you.

 

[DaveCinzano]

I mean, no one benefits from a hostage-taker with a rumbling tummy.

 

[quiquaquo]

Two gunmen/women at supermarket apparently:

 

[ViolentPanda]

Free speech is a great thing but we are taught we must accept the consequences or put laws in place to prevent consequences. I'm thinking about free speech at work or in the military, if we speak freely we will be penalised or if we refuse to abide by the desired penalties imposed on us we will be the victims of violence.

Free speech isn't, as some assume from the US model, about being able to say or publish anything you want, regardless of offence, and then be protected from the fallout of the offence you give, it's about accepting the consequences of what you say, as much as it is about being free to say it in the first place.
Whether those consequences are legal and/or social and/or personal will vary with time and location, but there are always consequences. The question is: Are you willing to pay the price? Too often, the people with the biggest gobs have the smallest amount of courage of their convictions.

 

[rekil]

Whatever happened to fashionable rogues & terrorists ? Even the Black September had a certain style about them, never mind the always a a la mode RAF. These two are a bit grubby

This pair posing something of a quandry for the intersectionality crew.



*edit: sort of beaten to it by quiquaquo

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Free speech isn't, as some assume from the US model, about being able to say or publish anything you want, regardless of offence, and then be protected from the fallout of the offence you give, it's about accepting the consequences of what you say, as much as it is about being free to say it in the first place.
Whether those consequences are legal and/or social and/or personal will vary with time and location, but there are always consequences. The question is: Are you willing to pay the price? Too often, the people with the biggest gobs have the smallest amount of courage of their convictions.

Not at all true about the Charlie Hebdo folk, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So unless we are prepared to be treated badly by the people in power who we are speaking out against it's best to keep your mouth shut. I suspect most people can't speak freely with bosses they disahree with.

It never stopped me. I reckon I was thoroughly hated by every boss I ever had on civvy street, and one of the reasons they hated me was that I knew my (and my fellow workers') employment rights, so whenever they tried any shit, I'd publicly embarrass them. You probably wouldn't be surprised what that did for union recruitment.

 

[treelover]

treelover
please back up your post on this thread from yesterday or post a retraction and apology (on the thread) as you have yet again made a false claim
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...n-revenge-attack.299356/page-30#post-13642691
thanks

No way, you have consistently described me as a EDL sympathiser, so do one..

 

[ddraig]

No way, you have consistently described me as a EDL sympathiser, so do one..

no i have not treelover
stop lying, or back up your claims for once
e2a you said i had been warned before so maybe you could at least quote the post where i have been warned?
otherwise you are a liar

 

[imposs1904]

tbh if the woman who gave them the code had had the same backbone as martin doherty, the body count at ch might have been considerably lower.

got kids, pickman?

 

[Mr Moose]

At last, women break another glass ceiling.

 

[DaveCinzano]

At last, women break another glass ceiling.

That'll be the RPG

 

[treelover]

Two main streams come up whenever free speech is discussed, and I think they’re misunderstandings. First is that people think free speech is peripheral, a luxury. Something we can have later, after other things are sorted out, important things like racism. It isn’t; it is the means to deal with these issues.

Second, people often misunderstand free speech itself. They think free speech means that each statement stands alone in a vacuum and cannot be challenged. That if you reply to what someone says, you are denying their free speech. You aren’t. Free speech is a two way process. It means that someone you dislike can say what they please, but it also means that you can respond. In that way, society at large can hear the exchange, can see the issues at stake, can learn from it. It will be easy to see who are the progressives and who are the racists, the reactionaries, because we will see the exchange.

And here’s the thing, free speech is either for everyone or for no-one. If you restrict it, if the state seeks to legislate on who gets it and who doesn’t, to put boundaries on it, then nobody has it. And this is where we hit the problem. People, for honourable reasons, will say it’s important not to offend oppressed groups. Of course, I want to be respectful; I’m on the side of the oppressed. But that reflex – shut down offense - misunderstands how a plural society can best operate. We are not a unitary culture, if ever such a thing can exist. There are many cultures, many ways of being in those cultures.

When people say it’s important to respect and not to offend oppressed groups, they are ignoring the fact that many of the writers who are vilified by fundamentalists, campaigned against, and often as a result shut down by mainstream society, themselves come from minority communities – Salman Rushdie, Monica Ali, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti. This discussion is not confined to what you can say about minority groups, but also – vitally importantly – within minority groups. It won’t do to say that those are middle class writers and that their concerns are middle class concerns, because what you’re doing, what has been done now for decades, is that you are shutting down dissent within these communities. You are handing power to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism, traditionalism, hard conservatism becomes the only acceptable, the only authentic expression of that community. And this is an important point – mainstream civil society, with all its power and laws, its state and its institutions, NGOs, and so on, put their power behind demarking and imposing what is authentic, what is valid, what it means to be a Muslim, a Sikh, a member of an ethnic minority in Britain today. And progressive strands are edited out of that, by the state and civil society.

So that we have the bizarre situation where people from the Muslim Council are outraged that they are criticised for making homophobic remarks. We are in a situation where we have sectionalised, isolated groups saying “I want to say that about you, but you can’t say that about me”. Not, please notice, “You are wrong in what you say”, but “You have no right to say it”.

The heart of this debate is what we mean by free speech in a plural society. Malik is right: people holding placards about free speech and Charlie Hebdo are too late, because in many ways we have already lost the war.

The question of offence needs to be better understood. We need the ability to offend precisely because we have a plural society. We need, rather than sublimate, to openly confront and resolve. We need, rather than to suppress our beliefs, to allow those beliefs to confront each other.

Today, progressives are saying whatever the principles of free speech and freedom of expression, it is important not to offend deeply held sensibilities, not to offend religious and cultural mores.

But that has led us to a situation where we now may no longer have blasphemy laws, but where blasphemy laws have been secularised.

Our ability to challenge power and oppression has been limited, is being limited, yes, by reactionary religious and cultural sensibilities, but also by liberal relativism, and by progressives afraid of causing offence.

Send this excellent post to the Prof, the SWP, the Guardian and others.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Agreed. That post deserves being read.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Leila Khaled was a bit of a style icon back in the day.

You say "style icon back in the day", I say "regular feature in my wank bank back in the day".

 

[D'wards]

What gets me about these horrific acts of religious fanatics is that there is no God, or Allah or whatever. Its all a big fucking waste of time - all this carnage and hate for nothing

 

[tony heath]

Free speech isn't, as some assume from the US model, about being able to say or publish anything you want, regardless of offence, and then be protected from the fallout of the offence you give, it's about accepting the consequences of what you say, as much as it is about being free to say it in the first place.
Whether those consequences are legal and/or social and/or personal will vary with time and location, but there are always consequences. The question is: Are you willing to pay the price? Too often, the people with the biggest gobs have the smallest amount of courage of their convictions.

The price we pay when we offend the powerful or the violent is much higher than with others, we must accept this, we must also accept others will not be willing to stick their necks out and will blame us for upsetting the status quo which is in fact a steady decline in our rights.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not at all true about the Charlie Hebdo folk, though.

I was thinking more of people like Dieudonné and others whose output is mostly excremental prejudice, but who label it as satire so as to avoid the consequences of what they say.