Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

British Muslims picket Downing Street in protest of Charlie Hebdo cartoons

234 replies

MrsTawdry · 08/02/2015 21:45

So the Daily Mail report it as "thousands" whilst the Telegraph say "at least a thousand"

Can't find ANY other sources for it. How is this ok? Free speech yes...but...

OP posts:
Ubik1 · 09/02/2015 16:05

I don't think anyone is demanding that Muslim people apologise for Charlie Hebdo.

I think people have observed that - in the context of everything that went on in Paris - perhaps the depictions of the prophet in a satirical magazine published in another country wasn't the most important thing to protest about.

But it's a free country. People can protest about drawings if they want to and they are free to ignore the fact that the artists were murdered for doing so.

Inkanta · 09/02/2015 16:09

Ubik you put it well.

OnlyLovers · 09/02/2015 16:45

Ubik, I was only speaking about and in the context of that radio discussion we were given a link to, which seems to be about the question of 'should a whole group apologise for outliers within that group?'.

I wasn't talking about the wider issue of Charlie Hebdo/culpability or otherwise of Muslims in general.

And I agree that 'perhaps the depictions of the prophet in a satirical magazine published in another country wasn't the most important thing to protest about.'

DioneTheDiabolist · 09/02/2015 18:07

Bazoo, you are free to organize whatever peaceful protest you want regarding "depraved murders" just as some Muslims organized this one.

What do you mean about Ubik's Muslim friend's and "double standards"? What do they have to do with Choudray? Do you know them?Confused

Linguini · 09/02/2015 18:23

The double standards if wanting/demanding to live in a country when you are catagorically opposed to the social values of that country. Also the double standards that everyone in the country you moved to is tolerant of you and accepting of your belief system, while being completely intolerant of them abd opposed to them. Maybe?

DioneTheDiabolist · 09/02/2015 18:46

How do you know Ubik's friend's weren't born here?

TheQuiet · 09/02/2015 18:49

some of them directly insult the prophet (cartoons depicting him as a paedophile, for instance).

Who cares drawing the prophet for prophet's sake, really?

Such a cartoon is addressed to the people and is about muslim attitude to wemen and girls.

A satire is a mean of political debate with the people, about the people, not with deity.

All religions suppress freedom of thought by conflating criticism of religion with an offence to god. This is a deliberate fallacy.

Inkanta · 09/02/2015 18:52

'All religions suppress freedom of thought by conflating criticism of religion with an offence to god. This is a deliberate fallacy.'

Good call.

Chipstick10 · 09/02/2015 19:56

I would like to see protests at the depravity carried out in the name of Islam by isis not over a few cartoons by a news corp based in France. Wtaf

DioneTheDiabolist · 09/02/2015 20:34

I would like to see protests about the ten or so bombs and hoaxes planted in Belfast last week. I would also like to see protests to remove most sports coverage from television news programmes.Angry

Now I can't be arsed organizing these protests myself. AIBU to be pissed off that Muslims are not protesting about stuff that I think should be protested about?

Ubik1 · 09/02/2015 20:51

My friends are British Confused

Invisibletribe · 09/02/2015 21:21

Dopey ... I suppose the dragon is a metaphor for the way social, political, economic, religious and cultural pressures manifest themselves in Northern Europe.

The dragon sleeps and sleeps through all manner of provocation until it gets to the point where almost everybody believes the dragon is actually dead. It may even get to the point where people believe the dragon is a myth. And then BANG! All of a sudden, the dragon awakes and incinerates everything.

Very few people ever anticipate the dragon's waking; those that do and speak about it are treated as thought they are, at best, eccentrics because the thought of the dragon awaking is absurd. And even when the dragon does wake, people still don't believe it until it is too late.

In other regions, pressures are released in smaller, more frequent bursts -- more like a sloth of a bears, say, or a pack of wolves. Provocation causes more riots, more skirmishes, more guerilla movements, more paramilitary organisations, more mafiosi ...

Or there are more avenues to release the pressure through shadow state structures, familial or tribal networks, alternative networks of civic provision or more black markets. And, if you are stuck and have exhausted every avenue, there's always the purchasing of privilege through baksheesh.

Northern Europe just does not have these avenues, and you also find Northern European cultures highly value the expression of civic conformity in a manner that you just do not find elsewhere. Historically, Northern European peoples have not had the extreme multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies that you find in Southern Europe, the Middle East or South Asia so the cultures, the beliefs and the civic understandings of Northern Europe don't suit a climate of extreme diversity.

This is why you are getting a lot of mutters about "British values" or "Dutch values" or "German values" or "French values". It's the Northern European "civic conformity" value kicking in, which is pretty much the behavioural foundation for society and the state in these countries. But you can't have conformity to one set of civic values in an extreme multicultural society: it's an oxymoron. Culture, by default, involves beliefs and part of those beliefs pertain to civic values; if you have diverse cultures, you therefore have diverse civic values.

The thing is that modern Northern Europe works wonderfully for immigrants so long as they understand this concept of civic conformity. Modern Northern Europe will pretty much accept and tolerate anyone of any religion, race or creed so long as they behave like an Englishman, a Frenchman etc.

If you don't want this, you can go to other regions that have a greater legacy of extreme multiculturalism but, to my mind, the price you pay for living in such a climate is far higher.

There tends to be a lot more racism and classism between groups and subgroups. Certain industries and occupations are sewn up by particular factions. Politics tends to be more confessional. Pressures are released in smaller and more frequent bursts, and there are more shadow structures, corruption is rife, and you end up having to conform to your "identity", often in a rather restrictive way ... all of which were, incidentally, some of the main reasons that, after partition, a lot of the first wave of Muslim postwar migrants came to Britain in the first place.

To my mind, a lot of more recent British Muslim immigrant communities do not understand just how fundamental the value of civic conformity is within Northern European cultures. They do not understand that supporting "freedom of speech" is an expression of civic, social and cultural conformity in Northern Europe whereby you support freedom of speech within certain conformist parameters. The term "freedom of speech" does not actually mean freedom of speech; it means freedom to say what European society and culture thinks it is okay to say.

keepitsimple0 · 09/02/2015 23:59

Why should Muslims apologise for other people's crimes?

let me muse...

I don't think that people should be responsible for the deeds/acts of other members of their group. However, I do think there is some at least minor shared responsibility (vaguely defined) if those deeds or acts are a natural consequence of the central features of that group.

For example, if members of a cricket club promote cricketness, we shouldn't at all be surprised, and I would say the group has some shared responsibility for that. similarly, if the members of the BNP act like xenophobic racists, we shouldn't be surprised either. So, if one BNP member promotes kicking immigrants out the country, I think all BNP members have some responsibility for that as it central to being part of the BNP.

keepitsimple0 · 10/02/2015 00:03

I do of course realise that being a member of a religious group is far more complicated.

DioneTheDiabolist · 10/02/2015 00:04

What about xenophobic racists who aren't members of the BNP? Are they also culpable Keep?

keepitsimple0 · 10/02/2015 00:54

What about xenophobic racists who aren't members of the BNP? Are they also culpable Keep?

culpable of what? Being xenophobic racists? of course.

Don't get your point.

DioneTheDiabolist · 10/02/2015 01:03

Sorry, I missed your post about religious groups being more complicated Keep.Blush

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you think all Muslims share responsibility for the actions carried out by some Muslims?Confused

Ubik1 · 10/02/2015 07:58

So Catholics should apologise for the IRA's atrocities?

frumpet · 10/02/2015 09:44

I believe in free speech , even if what you are saying upsets or offends me . I also believe that because you believe in something you cannot automatically make everyone else believe the same or change their lifestyle or laws to suit your belief.

I think there have been lots of marches and demonstrations in the past for things that I think are ridiculous . I believed that banning fox hunting was ridiculous , many other people believed the same and marched and demonstrated . Fox hunting was banned. I accepted this even though it was against my own personal views . That's how it works in the UK .

DioneTheDiabolist · 10/02/2015 15:26

That's just the tip of the iceberg Ubik. If we apply that logic, every citizen of the UK is responsible for the wars in Afganistan & Iraq and each death that it caused. Every Jewish person is responsible for the actions of the Israeli government. The concept of Collective Guilt is odious.

850Pro · 10/02/2015 17:06

some of them directly insult the prophet (cartoons depicting him as a paedophile, for instance).

But he was a paedophile????

DioneTheDiabolist · 10/02/2015 17:55

850, marrying a child bride in history was nothing new and Mohammed was not alone in this. Richard II married Isabella when she was 6. He was a widower. As appalling as it seems nowadays, it was considered advantageous to girls to secure a good marriage as early as possible. Judging historical figures by today's standards displays willfull ignorance and serves no purpose.

HexagonAlley · 10/02/2015 18:10

Oh another thread about Muslims being responsible for the actions of every other Muslim in the world?

There hasn't been one of these threads for oh...at least a week.

I wonder when the usual suspects will come crawling out of the woodwork to spout their bilge.

Once again (it's been about 59 times on MN) I must say again I am not fucking responsible for ISIS and you can fuck the fuck off if you think I'm going to apologise for them ok?

waitingowaiting · 10/02/2015 19:15

Marriages of convenience between children have been going back waaaay before Islam. Quite common in ye olden royalty for babies to be promised then married off in childhood (aint right though).

Those bastards proposing that it is hunkey dorey in this day and age to marry primary school aged girls (and yes, including, if not purely for sex), are cometely repulsive to Muslims and non alike.

mrsruffallo · 10/02/2015 19:18

They've got a nerve. It's in bad taste considering what happened to the Hebdo journalists. But at the same time, as British citizens, they have the right to freedom of speech. Sadly, they probably don't grasp the irony f the situation.