To wish our press made a stand for enlightenment values....

[Babycham1979]

....and all published the cartoons of Mohammed on their front covers tomorrow.

The right to freedom of expression and to cause offence are fundamental principles that underpin European values and liberal western democracy; surely the only response to the Charlie Hebdo shootings is for our society to make a stand against this kind of fascist terrorism and show that we can't be cowed by bullying.

Some people may be offended, but that's the price you pay for reaping the benefits of living in a modern, liberal, secular society. If our media bows down to this kind of violence, surely the nut-jobs have won? Self-imposed censorship is still censorship.

It is appeasement, pure and simple.

RanomNPC I agree that it would be appeasement for Charlie Hebdo to change what they publish as a result of terrorism. I disagree that for, say, The Guardian not to publish cartoons that why wouldn't ordinarily publish just because people want them to make a point now is not appeasement. It's editorial policy based on a number of previously established grounds. That's all I'm saying.

The Guardian and other media in this country will not publish any of the cartoons, I'm sure about that. Not even Private Eye. They didn't after the Danish cartoon problem a few years ago, and they won't now.

You might as well say that the doctors carrying out terminations "play into the hands" of evil Christian terrorists

That is a slightly different context though and we need to judge our reactions and responses within the context of the issue we are focussing on.

i'm glad you mentioned 'Christian' terrorists though, given how they behave in the same way as 'Muslim' terrorists and have done so as far back as recorded history - why is it only islam that is being targeted and demonised by our governments and media? (and it isn't due to the events of 9/11 alone).
The current situation in the US with regards to seriously curtailing womens rights - in reference to accessing free contraception/advice/abortion/autonomy over their own bodies - which is just a tiny step away from taking their rights away altogether - is largely ignored by the western governments and media. There is no outrage over the actions of those religious terrorists in the way we are outraged by the action of these religious terrorists.

I know they won't. They've explicitly said they won't. But I don't think that's appeasement. They're not publications that publish that kind of content as a rule (and I don't mean specifically Muhammad cartoons, I just mean that kind of strong satirical cartoons).

The current situation in the US with regards to seriously curtailing womens rights - in reference to accessing free contraception/advice/abortion/autonomy over their own bodies - which is just a tiny step away from taking their rights away altogether - is largely ignored by the western governments and media. There is no outrage over the actions of those religious terrorists in the way we are outraged by the action of these religious terrorists.

The specific incident you may be referring to (a student that wanted access to contraception under her health plan) was literally all over US papers. It wasn't "largely ignored".

As for christian terrorism, are you claiming there are swathes of abortion doctor shootings that go unreported by the media? Dare to look up the stats on that?

I think I misunderstood your point originally, Lorelei. I don't condemn the UK media for not publishing them, but I'm in favour of them publishing them if they wish.
It's fine the OP quoting Voltaire, but it's never the likes of the OP that do the dying, is it? She's not taking any risks demanding that the media publish these cartoons; the British media needs to make the judgement call by taking the safety of their employees into consideration. I don't condemn them for that.
Before anyone misunderstands this post, as they will, I believe in free speech. I believe in the right to offend ( within legal restrictions), and I believe totally in liberal democracy's right to defend itself against medieval lunatics.

We agree Random In case you missed my first point, I work at a national newspaper. I'm keenly aware of the need for editors to take the safety of their employees into account.

As you say, I believe in free speech. If you want to publish them, do but I don't think all papers now should because some people think they should make a point as the OP suggests.

Sorry, Lorelei. I'm always moaning at people to RTFT, and I've ignored my own advice

Ha ha. No worries. I rambled a bit in the middle so probably muddied my own points.

I don't know. I for one wouldn't want to put myself or others at risk by publishing that. But also, it seems a bad reaction, I mean, let's just offend Muslims in retaliation. It wasn't, after all, about the cartoons, it was a show of power. The policeman shot was Muslim and I think it would be sad publishing even more offensive cartoons as a way to commemorate the victims and say fuck you to terrorists. I'd support cartoons about the terrorists themselves though.

no, i'm not claiming that at all written, i was replying to upthechim post...nice attempt at trying to twist my words though

There is a big difference between the mere 'reporting' of events and the actions of the media and governments. i first came across 'abortion-doctor killings' and girls/women being forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies in the US when i was 13 years old (we did a presentation on it in our RE class in school) and at the age of 35 i see it is STILL happening and womens rights are STILL being eroded - and the governments are ALLOWING it!

The curtailing of women's rights in the US by christian fundamentalists and terrorists IS being largely ignored. i mean they've allowed christian fundamentalism to become enshrined in their policies - policies which affect ALL women regardless of their choice of religion.

the mere thought of islamic fundamentalists and terrorists doing the same is so abhorrent to us that we rise up against it but we don't do the same in the face of christian fundamentalism and terrorism.
i mean the media doesn't portray the actions and activities of the Westboro Baptist Church in the same way it does when extremist muslims behave in the same manner - does it?

Sugar, loathsome as the WBC are, they don't cut peoples heads off with breadknives, do they?

Not read thread but see what your saying, its tricky isn't it....

Esp when dealing with un educated people its playing into their hands...giving them grounds to whip up a storm...out rage etc..

We can only educate them all out of it....starting in schools teaching tolerance and philosophy etc.

A long time ago - 90's a politcics proff at uni said main thread was rise of extremism and back then it was know several student unis had been taken over.

Maybe the satire, bit by subversive bit, helps pick away at the sacredness of the cow, until it is a toothless not so sacred cow, loses it's power and can't dictate to anybody anymore

To a degree yes, Marie Antoinette subversive cartoons....etc

but on other hand if there is no absolute control in first place and fear, then there is also nothing to take away...and nothing to fear

and what Random - that makes them better than islamic fundamentalists and they deserve to be treated less harshly?!

"They drew some satirical cartoons. That's it. And they were executed fir it."

It really isn't that simple.

Endlessly satirising the dispossessed with pen and pencil in published form when the object of the satire does not possess the wherewithal to retaliate and defend itself in similar form is grotesque.

Sugar, you're all over the place. If the WBC break the law, they'll be punished for it. What's your point?

People satirise and take the piss out of the WBC all the time. Protestors stand next to them with alternative placards.

The Arab Muslim world is constantly pumping out cartoons in their newspapers that are extremely offensive to Jews (mocking the holocaust etc) yet as soon as someone draws a cartoon of their Prophet, suddenly everyone is supposed to have "respect" and not offend them. Why does it only go one way? And if the excuse is cultural differences then we shouldn't harp on about all cultures being equal if one must be mollycoddled and given special privileges in case its feelings get hurt.

Okay, stop!
This is brilliant and just sums up what I think - in cartoon form. Joe Sacco is a genius.

Joe Sacco: On Satire – a response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks

i first came across 'abortion-doctor killings' and girls/women being forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies in the US when i was 13 years old (we did a presentation on it in our RE class in school) and at the age of 35 i see it is STILL happening and womens rights are STILL being eroded - and the governments are ALLOWING it!

And that was likely the last time an abortion doctor was killed.

There is a tension between people's right to protest abortion, and crossing the line into harassing women into not having them. The former should not be curtailed, the latter should. If the government is allowing the harassment (and I doubt this happens except in isolated incidents), then they should clamp down on it).

so france can self-censor from a moral point of view if it chooses.

the fact that france is not even handed about expression IS bad. Looking at the comedian you posted, some of his charges sound dubious. his wiki page lists that he was charged for "public insult of people of Jewish faith or origin". There is no further description of it, so it's hard to comment on it, but on the face of it it sounds like it could possibly be similar to what Charlie has done (although, Charlie's magazines also "insulted" jews, so it possible the incidences weren't the same). There are other ways in which france does not support free expression, religious symbols in schools for example, and I think france is wrong on that decision.

But that doesn't france's stance on this case wrong, it makes their stance in the other cases wrong.

I love Joe Sacco, I've got all his books. Can't see that article on my phone though, for some reason.

i'm glad you mentioned 'Christian' terrorists though, given how they behave in the same way as 'Muslim' terrorists and have done so as far back as recorded history - why is it only islam that is being targeted and demonised by our governments and media? (and it isn't due to the events of 9/11 alone). The current situation in the US with regards to seriously curtailing womens rights - in reference to accessing free contraception/advice/abortion/autonomy over their own bodies - which is just a tiny step away from taking their rights away altogether - is largely ignored by the western governments and media. There is no outrage over the actions of those religious terrorists in the way we are outraged by the action of these religious terrorists

I don't think that Christian terrorism justifies the atrocity in Paris. And Yes, CHristians went on the Crusades a bit like the Islamic notion of jihad. But that was a thousand years ago. Seriously, we've moved on a bit from there.

And however much I abhor the Christian murderers of doctors, they're not murdering people for publishing cartoons FFS. The one act doesn't excuse the other.

They're both vile, unreconstructed mania.

RandomNPC love him too. You'll enjoy this when you see it later.