I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
As you know I am broadly a Hannanite Conservative, for me its an issue of liberties rather than viewpoints, Charlie isn't my sort of publication at all, and there isn't the slightest chance I would have bought a copy if I saw it on the news stand. Events should not be allowed to evolve in such a way that people feel they have lost that liberty to write what they want, even if it is exercised only occasionally.
No one should be murdered for an opinion. No one should be murdered at all. Quite independently of this however, both official and self-styled opinion formers have a responsibility that goes with free speech to argue without offence. They should also argue to the point. But also quite independently of deploring murder as being unjustified, it is fair to comment on the usefulness of the alleged opinion forming. Personally, no matter how free anyone is to make any comment, I question the practical wisdom of seeking to attack and hopefully change the admittedly medieval muslim religion in such a deliberately offensive way. The reality seems that the attacks have not achieved what terrorists had hoped - if indeed there was any rational motive. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article4319427.ece ''Arab leaders have been swift to denounce the Charlie Hebdo massacre, describing it as a perversion of Islamic values'' Sadly as long as our own homegrown nutjobs pound on about 'muslim savages' instead of 'savages who pervert islam' then the 12 deaths will continue to serve the terrorist's aims.
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
No one is submitting to their terror tactics though are they? What has changed?
How can you argue that when all of our newspapers refused to publish the cartoons which are an integral part of the news story? The fact they did not to me at least and I am sure to the terrorists tells them that they won
Because no newspapers published that kind of cartoon before the attacks either, and magazines like Charlie Hebdo still will after, so nothing has changed
The terrorist will have won if more moderate muslims are inflamed by our reaction to it. They want an all out civil war, as I have said many times, but when a bully hits someone and says "hit me back" do you hit back?
The cartoon was an integral part of the news story there was every justification to publish it. If moderate muslims are "inflamed" to the point they become radicalised then frankly they were not particularly moderate in the first place.
We would not be hitting the bully back. The situation is more akin to someone did something the bully didn't like so he hit them and said don't do it again. If we obey then we give into bullying. If we refuse to obey and do it again then it is merely standing up to bullying.
Our press decided to give into the bullies in a shameful display of cowardice simple as that. Any muslim that couldn't get over the offence given by reporting a legitimate part of a legitimate news story (note not a case of giving offence for the sake of it) then they were not moderate muslims.
The press didn't change a thing despite terrorists provocation.. Keep Calm & Carry On
Have you ever seen the Godfather? Remember how Sonny was killed?
Carnyx The way I see it Murphy will find it easier to win tactical Tory and LD votes v the SNP, than win back leftwing Labour voters now backing independence and the SNP or Greens
No matter how much Murphy appeals to Scottish Tories, by voting SLAB they are effectively voting for Milliband not Murphy. I think Murphy, despite his robin hood act of this week, will soon become an electoral liability for SLAB as the press start to highlight his and McTearnas right wing credentials.
I can't see there is the faintest chance of Scottish Tories voting SLAB, voting SLAB makes it more likely its going to be a Miliband government with policies they are going to hate, and the likelihood is Miliband will do a deal with the SNP who will then require their pound of flesh in return, it's lose lose.
I agree 100%. Hopefully we will see an end to both of them in Scotland at least, maybe shock them into actually having real Scottish parties instead of sock puppets worked by London.
You may be quite happy for Scottish voters waste their vote in a Westminster election but in a country called The United Kingdom it is the United Kingdom parliament which passes United Kingdom laws and to pass those laws a party needs a majority in that parliament. Of course one of the major problems for such a party will be struggling to deal with falling oil revenues.
Carnyx The way I see it Murphy will find it easier to win tactical Tory and LD votes v the SNP, than win back leftwing Labour voters now backing independence and the SNP or Greens
No matter how much Murphy appeals to Scottish Tories, by voting SLAB they are effectively voting for Milliband not Murphy. I think Murphy, despite his robin hood act of this week, will soon become an electoral liability for SLAB as the press start to highlight his and McTearnas right wing credentials.
Still cannot believe he has McTernan as his top man , is he really that stupid.
Neither can I - the SNP are already having a field day:
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
No one is submitting to their terror tactics though are they? What has changed?
How can you argue that when all of our newspapers refused to publish the cartoons which are an integral part of the news story? The fact they did not to me at least and I am sure to the terrorists tells them that they won
Because no newspapers published that kind of cartoon before the attacks either, and magazines like Charlie Hebdo still will after, so nothing has changed
The terrorist will have won if more moderate muslims are inflamed by our reaction to it. They want an all out civil war, as I have said many times, but when a bully hits someone and says "hit me back" do you hit back?
The cartoon was an integral part of the news story there was every justification to publish it. If moderate muslims are "inflamed" to the point they become radicalised then frankly they were not particularly moderate in the first place.
The more the cartoons are circulated then frankly the more people might deplore them as legitimate comment. It does seem pretty self evident to me that isam is right to say - ''The terrorist will have won if more moderate muslims are inflamed by our reaction to it.'' As it stands it is the attacks which have offended most muslims.
Where can I get a price on Marine Le Pen as the next president of France?
These terrorist attacks combined with Michel Houellbecq's book are powerful advertising for her. And even before this week, the FN's victory in the 2014 EU elections meant a lot more than UKIP's.
She won't get more than 40% in the final round but it might be worth betting on her if you can cash out before polling day.
She might. If you think she'll get into the second round and then lose, are you going for a scenario similar to Houellebecq's in his novel, where the Gaullists, social democrats, ex-CP and greens all unite against her, a bit like they did for Chirac against her father in 2002? Thing is, her personal style gives her potentially much wider support than that cocky shouter ever had, and there's a clear single marketing message and big momentum. The game has changed. True, cashing out may turn out to be wisest. But - any idea where there's a market?
Comments
But also quite independently of deploring murder as being unjustified, it is fair to comment on the usefulness of the alleged opinion forming.
Personally, no matter how free anyone is to make any comment, I question the practical wisdom of seeking to attack and hopefully change the admittedly medieval muslim religion in such a deliberately offensive way.
The reality seems that the attacks have not achieved what terrorists had hoped - if indeed there was any rational motive.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article4319427.ece
''Arab leaders have been swift to denounce the Charlie Hebdo massacre, describing it as a perversion of Islamic values''
Sadly as long as our own homegrown nutjobs pound on about 'muslim savages' instead of 'savages who pervert islam' then the 12 deaths will continue to serve the terrorist's aims.
Have you ever seen the Godfather? Remember how Sonny was killed?
Of course one of the major problems for such a party will be struggling to deal with falling oil revenues.
https://www.facebook.com/theSNP/photos/a.339647974077.151375.77249349077/10153076186034078/?type=1&theater
Next thing they'll be asking Rangers to release Ally McCoist from gardening leave to join the team !!!
It does seem pretty self evident to me that isam is right to say - ''The terrorist will have won if more moderate muslims are inflamed by our reaction to it.''
As it stands it is the attacks which have offended most muslims.