"Disgusting": Erdogan Vows Action Against Charlie Hebdo Cartoon On Him

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Charlie Hebdo, the French satire magazine known for its controversial cartoons, is well-known for claiming 'freedom of speech' to take shots at everyone. But it once fired a major contributor for alleged anti-Semitism. <a href="https://t.co/ZUzqcGLULT">pic.twitter.com/ZUzqcGLULT</a></p>— TRT World (@trtworld) <a href="https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/1321819577874030593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Madplayer]

can do all of it in the states you'll get hate but its not unlawful and that's what I want Europe to do

their selective freedom of Speech is wrong

but instead of banning this hate speech (like what people on PP are purposing) I believe open other hate speech laws

That's why I am defending his right to tweet hateful stuff

You will not get just hate in the US for it, your career will be defacto over. In many European countries it is banned altogether. You must know it.
In some US states, there are laws which ban people from running any campaign of boycott against Israel and in some of the states the govt officials have to take an oath of not indulging in anti-Israel activities before they could join office. Do your homework and see what a sham this freedom of speech and expression is. If you are a muslim, they are drawing a line for you and telling you that they will allow people to humiliate you but they will disallow it for some others. The very least you could do is not succumb to the fancy wordplay. Baaki you are smart enough.

 

[Zaz]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Charlie Hebdo, the French satire magazine known for its controversial cartoons, is well-known for claiming 'freedom of speech' to take shots at everyone. But it once fired a major contributor for alleged anti-Semitism. <a href="https://t.co/ZUzqcGLULT">pic.twitter.com/ZUzqcGLULT</a></p>— TRT World (@trtworld) <a href="https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/1321819577874030593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

As stated its all a sham

 

[Madplayer]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Charlie Hebdo, the French satire magazine known for its controversial cartoons, is well-known for claiming 'freedom of speech' to take shots at everyone. But it once fired a major contributor for alleged anti-Semitism. <a href="https://t.co/ZUzqcGLULT">pic.twitter.com/ZUzqcGLULT</a></p>— TRT World (@trtworld) <a href="https://twitter.com/trtworld/status/1321819577874030593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Show this to all Indians thumping their chests on this forum. So much for freedom of speech.

 

[Mueez]

Just saw the Erdogan cartoon. If that is what they made for Erdogan I can't imagine what they did for Prophet PBUH.


Truly disgusting, what's even more disgusting is that such crass material can get published in mainstream media. I guess in France it must be ok to lift women's skirts while they are walking down the streets. Seems like a part of their culture.

It is really shameful brother. It doesn’t only personally attack Erdogan, it also shows how disgusting those people think about women.

Humanity is nowhere to be found, these days...

 

[Mueez]

“Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. As for freedom of the press, it is enshrined in the law of 1881. But this freedom has limits: racism, anti-Semitism, racial hatred, and justification of terrorism are not opinions. They are offences.“

What the French law says about freedom of expression.

If it includes anti-Semitism where is Islamophobia?

Hypocrisy at it’s best.

 

[Varun]

“Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. As for freedom of the press, it is enshrined in the law of 1881. But this freedom has limits: racism, anti-Semitism, racial hatred, and justification of terrorism are not opinions. They are offences.“

What the French law says about freedom of expression.

If it includes anti-Semitism where is Islamophobia?

Hypocrisy at it’s best.

Islamophobia is a relatively new-gen term.

France was a key part of World War II and anti-Semitism probably got baked into it decades and decades ago.

 

[Madplayer]

Islamophobia is a relatively new-gen term.

France was a key part of World War II and anti-Semitism probably got baked into it decades and decades ago.

Term might be new but actions are old.

France's hypocrisy towards freedom of expression just points towards the endemic Isamophobia and the french tradition, yes tradition of hate against Islam

Here are some examples:

French court bans Christ advert
Advertisement for French designers Marithe and Francois Girbaud. The controversial poster has already been banned in Italy France's Catholic Church has won a court injunction to ban a clothing advertisement based on Leonardo da Vinci's Christ's Last Supper.
The display was ruled "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", by a judge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm

The following year, a French rap star faced prison for calling the country a 'slut' (he later avoided it).

Source: https://www.nme.com/news/music/monsieur-r-1318360?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Around 2016, France criminalised Boycott of Israel. (Though later an ECtHR judgement found boycott campaign against Israel cannot be criminalised).

‘Liberal’ France also punishes anti-Israel activists.

Source: https://www.haaretz.com/amp/jewish/the-french-law-that-battles-bds-1.5322519

A great piece by @ggreenwald on why the entire post-Charlie Hebdo “free speech” march in Paris was a fraud.

From 2015: https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27...-land-of-the-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-march/

In 2011, British fash designer John Galliano was found guilty of anti-Semitic rant.

But freedom of expression if anyone abuses Muslims.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14833259

Just this year, the French parliament passed a new law that forces social networks to remove certain hateful and illegal content within 24 hours.

Branded as ‘blow to freedom of speech’.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonc...edom-of-speech/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

In 2010 France introduced a rule to protect its national flag from ‘insult’ after a photo of a man wiping his bottom caused outrage.

Mocking prophets is freedom of expression but wiping bottoms with French flag is an insult.

The absolute hypocricy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10744040

The French hatred for Muslims goes back centuries to its even dirtier colonial past.

Under the ‘Cremieux Decree’ Algerian Jews were granted speedy citizenship and given every right a citizen.

Algerian Muslims couldn’t own land until they left Islam.

Read: Cremieux Decree

This year, France made it mandatory to wear masks during Covid-19 but Islamic face coverings remain banned?!!

(PS- These links have been taken from a thread on twitter)

 

[Itachi]

can do all of it in the states you'll get hate but its not unlawful and that's what I want Europe to do

their selective freedom of Speech is wrong

but instead of banning this hate speech (like what people on PP are purposing) I believe open other hate speech laws

That's why I am defending his right to tweet hateful stuff

What I believe is, opposing something should be within the legal system.

If you believe something is hate speech, then use the constitutional power that you have and fight for it.

The system may not be fair, and it may take long time but in the end, if you play your cards right, you will achieve success atleast to some level.

But the heroism against so called speech that doesn't coincide with what you believe shouldn't be encouraged. It will just create more extremists as people have different tolerance level and there's no standard framework to ascertain when you need to go into hero mode as some pper have suggested.

 

[CricketCartoons]

What I believe is, opposing something should be within the legal system.

What happens when the legal system itself doesnt provide relief? under which law can muslims ask a ban on derogatory carttons by ch?

 

[liam26]

Muslims should stop complaining and accept the fact that your Religion is open to ridicule in the West. The West has been mocking Christistianity for many decades now, no reason why Islam should get a free pass.

More you whine more cartoons will be published and projected everywhere. More beheadings and killings would lead to a backlash .

 

[Itachi]

What happens when the legal system itself doesnt provide relief? under which law can muslims ask a ban on derogatory carttons by ch?

Then you fight as a community to elect representatives so that constitution could be amended if existing ones isn't suffice.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Then you fight as a community to elect representatives so that constitution could be amended if existing ones isn't suffice.

this is like a jhunjhuna (baby rattle toy) and at best will take decades, as you have to get more people of your faith, then dominate in constituencies, then dominate in majority of constituencies, then elect people who will get the laws changed, and tough luck if some laws cannot be amended.

You need to understand that violence by common people ( as opposed to violence by criminals) happens for a reason. It happens when there is no justice.

 

[Gilly]

What happens when the legal system itself doesnt provide relief? under which law can muslims ask a ban on derogatory carttons by ch?

This question has been done to death in the west, in the UK they produce hundreds of cartoons of the royal family who are just as sacred to UK people. politicians that you will lobby to change laws are also constantly having cartoons of themselves and their families drawn all the time. Stopping the drawing of cartoons will not eliminate radical extremism, in fact it will inspire the extremists to use terrorism to make everyone obey their religion..

 

[Itachi]

this is like a jhunjhuna (baby rattle toy) and at best will take decades, as you have to get more people of your faith, then dominate in constituencies, then dominate in majority of constituencies, then elect people who will get the laws changed, and tough luck if some laws cannot be amended.

You need to understand that violence by common people ( as opposed to violence by criminals) happens for a reason. It happens when there is no justice.

I never said it will be an easy and quick process.

And I disagree with common people taking law in their hands be it fair or unfair.

 

[CricketCartoons]

This question has been done to death in the west, in the UK they produce hundreds of cartoons of the royal family who are just as sacred to UK people. politicians that you will lobby to change laws are also constantly having cartoons of themselves and their families drawn all the time. Stopping the drawing of cartoons will not eliminate radical extremism, in fact it will inspire the extremists to use terrorism to make everyone obey their religion..

True, stopping the cartoons will not eliminate radicals. But drawing the cartoons, supported by state, will move even the moderate ones to radicalism. The cartoons are creating problems, not solving it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I never said it will be an easy and quick process.

And I disagree with common people taking law in their hands be it fair or unfair.

It is fine that you disagree, but it doesn't change the reality. Reality is that people died and will die in the cycle of violence, because instead of listening to the victims and providing them relief, the tyrants want the victims to put up with it.

 

[Gilly]

True, stopping the cartoons will not eliminate radicals. But drawing the cartoons, supported by state, will move even the moderate ones to radicalism. The cartoons are creating problems, not solving it.

If the drawing of cartoons turns moderates into extremists then something is wrong with islam. No other religion have these problems.

 

[Giannis]

If the drawing of cartoons turns moderates into extremists then something is wrong with islam. No other religion have these problems.

People inciting hatred and violence are the problem and in this case it's the French government.

 

[CricketCartoons]

If the drawing of cartoons turns moderates into extremists then something is wrong with islam. No other religion have these problems.

You can carry on believing that, and losing the youth to radicalism and innocents will continue to die. All because I want to exercise my right to draw and publish derogatory cartoon mocking the faith of millions.

 

[Gilly]

You can carry on believing that, and losing the youth to radicalism and innocents will continue to die. All because I want to exercise my right to draw and publish derogatory cartoon mocking the faith of millions.

And you can carry thinking your religion gives you the right to force other countries to obey your religious laws.

 

[CricketCartoons]

And you can carry thinking your religion gives you the right to force other countries to obey your religious laws.

I am not a muslim btw. it is basic human right that people are not subjected to religious harassment.

Where there is no justice, there will be blood.

 

[Gilly]

I am not a muslim btw. it is basic human right that people are not subjected to religious harassment.

Where there is no justice, there will be blood.

There are far more severe cases of people being subject to religious harassment than cartoons. Like I said before cartoons are normal and accepted in some countries, these countries have the basic human rights to decide their own laws in their own country.

 

[CricketCartoons]

There are far more severe cases of people being subject to religious harassment than cartoons. Like I said before cartoons are normal and accepted in some countries, these countries have the basic human rights to decide their own laws in their own country.

If such cartoons are normal then the reaction to the religious harassment is also normal. If state decides what is right, the individual can also decide what is right.

 

[Gilly]

If such cartoons are normal then the reaction to the religious harassment is also normal. If state decides what is right, the individual can also decide what is right.

No, in most countries beheading someone over a cartoon is not normal.

It is not religious harassment either, there are laws against harassment and this does not fall under that.

It might be illegal in some countries but its not in others, just like its law in Pakistan that you can be jailed for homosexuality in France it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their sexual preference.

Do you think that Pakistan should afford homosexuals their basic human rights in Pakistan. Becareful what you ask for.

 

[Majid Khan]

If the drawing of cartoons turns moderates into extremists then something is wrong with islam. No other religion have these problems.

Looking at this from a non judgemental perspective and putting my beliefs aside for a minute - here’s what seems to be happening :

Freedom of speech or call it stubbornness/ that we have a right to do what we want to as permitted by our laws and NO ONE else can tell us not to.

That’s all good and well , but the problem happens when these actions intentionally or unintentionally end up insulting / offending the values of a significant percentage of the world’a population.

What happens then? A cycle of “provocative action -> angry reaction” and where there is anger as we all know there is potential for things to spiral out of control , which in a tiny minority it will sadly result in extreme/violent reaction.

So how do we move forward ? There’s two ways out of it really :

A) Actions that have the potential to offend / insult the values of 2 billion people in the world and result in such anger with potential for extreme/violent reactions , be outlawed by governments.

Or

B) Ask the 2 billion people to change their values and belief system , accept the rights of others to practice ‘freedom of speech’ by insulting their religion and beliefs if needs be - and learn to ignore and live with it without feeling any anger or frustration about it.

Which one of these options is more feasible ?

 

[Gilly]

Looking at this from a non judgemental perspective and putting my beliefs aside for a minute - here’s what seems to be happening :

Freedom of speech or call it stubbornness/ that we have a right to do what we want to as permitted by our laws and NO ONE else can tell us not to.

That’s all good and well , but the problem happens when these actions intentionally or unintentionally end up insulting / offending the values of a significant percentage of the world’a population.

What happens then? A cycle of “provocative action -> angry reaction” and where there is anger as we all know there is potential for things to spiral out of control , which in a tiny minority it will sadly result in extreme/violent reaction.

So how do we move forward ? There’s two ways out of it really :

A) Actions that have the potential to offend / insult the values of 2 billion people in the world and result in such anger with potential for extreme/violent reactions , be outlawed by governments.

Or

B) Ask the 2 billion people to change their values and belief system , accept the rights of others to practice ‘freedom of speech’ by insulting their religion and beliefs if needs be - and learn to ignore and live with it without feeling any anger or frustration about it.

Which one of these options is more feasible ?

This is a loaded question, is Islam ready to adopt laws that offend people that are not muslims. It has to be a two way street, if Islam wants their religious laws to adhered to by non muslims then they must accept laws in muslim countries must not offend any minority in any other country.

 

[Itachi]

Looking at this from a non judgemental perspective and putting my beliefs aside for a minute - here’s what seems to be happening :

Freedom of speech or call it stubbornness/ that we have a right to do what we want to as permitted by our laws and NO ONE else can tell us not to.

That’s all good and well , but the problem happens when these actions intentionally or unintentionally end up insulting / offending the values of a significant percentage of the world’a population.

What happens then? A cycle of “provocative action -> angry reaction” and where there is anger as we all know there is potential for things to spiral out of control , which in a tiny minority it will sadly result in extreme/violent reaction.

So how do we move forward ? There’s two ways out of it really :

A) Actions that have the potential to offend / insult the values of 2 billion people in the world and result in such anger with potential for extreme/violent reactions , be outlawed by governments.

Or

B) Ask the 2 billion people to change their values and belief system , accept the rights of others to practice ‘freedom of speech’ by insulting their religion and beliefs if needs be - and learn to ignore and live with it without feeling any anger or frustration about it.

Which one of these options is more feasible ?

In short, since it is difficult to change the pov of majority of people, so more feasible option will be to grant what majority wants.

But here's the issue. 2 billion Muslims doesn't live in France. And using YOUR LOGIC, it will be more feasible to make Muslims (minority) adapt to the rules and regulations that common non Muslim France public wants (since they are in majority) then change the definition of freedom of speech to accommodate Islamic guidelines.

P. S. This isn't my statement. It's a conclusion that is drawn upon your logic.

 

[Majid Khan]

In short, since it is difficult to change the pov of majority of people, so more feasible option will be to grant what majority wants.

But here's the issue. 2 billion Muslims doesn't live in France. And using YOUR LOGIC, it will be more feasible to make Muslims (minority) adapt to the rules and regulations that common non Muslim France public wants (since they are in majority) then change the definition of freedom of speech to accommodate Islamic guidelines.

P. S. This isn't my statement. It's a conclusion that is drawn upon your logic.

By provocative action I am referring specifically to actions in the context of ‘freedom of speech’ that shows no respect to cultural and religious sensitivities of others. And there are already precedents set to draw a line on freedom of speech to show sensitivity on certain matters as we all know, for the exactly the same reason - to avoid offending certain communities.

As long as the word “ Provocative” is there before the word “Action” , sadly there will also be the word “Angry” before the word “Reaction” , which can lead to a cycle that escalates further.

Is there any other way forward that you think works better ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Muslims should stop complaining and accept the fact that your Religion is open to ridicule in the West. The West has been mocking Christistianity for many decades now, no reason why Islam should get a free pass.

More you whine more cartoons will be published and projected everywhere. More beheadings and killings would lead to a backlash .

We accept Muslim religion is open to ridicule in the west, but the alternative to complaining is to let the radicals take matters into their own hands. When this happens then people like you end up whining.

By all means go ahead and continue to provoke Muslims by abusing the Prophet PBUH, 99.9% of Muslims will bear it stoically and put it down to the need for base level people to indulge in filth, that is just human nature. But there will be the tiny percentage who will decide it won't go unanswered.

 

[James]

I totally oppose people who mock the Prophet pbuh, however in this instance I don’t see how Erdogan can take “diplomatic action” against France for cartoons of the Erdogan likeness that have been drawn by Charlie Hebdo. Macron and the French government don’t have any direct sign-off in what Charlie Hebdo publishes.

 

[Nadeemp]

Ankara ka joker can whine as much as he wants

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Cry baby atheists who don't like Erdogan can snivel and whine as well, that is something message boards are great for.

Love this method of addressing topics, so much fun!

 

[Nadeemp]

Cry baby atheists who don't like Erdogan can snivel and whine as well, that is something message boards are great for.

Love this method of addressing topics, so much fun!

 

[Varun]

Cry baby atheists who don't like Erdogan can snivel and whine as well, that is something message boards are great for.

Love this method of addressing topics, so much fun!

Why is Erdogan projected as some sort of leader of Islam by both sides of the divide?

 

[Nadeemp]

Why is Erdogan projected as some sort of leader of Islam by both sides of the divide?

He has portrayed himself to be one since the start. The calipha

 

[Nadeemp]

Why is Erdogan projected as some sort of leader of Islam by both sides of the divide?

To be honest he is portrayed as a leader of the umma , mostly in Pakistan. I dont think rest of the Muslim world give him that much importance. He barely won the election in his home country

 

[Itachi]

By provocative action I am referring specifically to actions in the context of ‘freedom of speech’ that shows no respect to cultural and religious sensitivities of others. And there are already precedents set to draw a line on freedom of speech to show sensitivity on certain matters as we all know, for the exactly the same reason - to avoid offending certain communities.

As long as the word “ Provocative” is there before the word “Action” , sadly there will also be the word “Angry” before the word “Reaction” , which can lead to a cycle that escalates further.

Is there any other way forward that you think works better ?

Provocative is itself is subjective. Society, culture, tradition, place plays a key role.

What is provocative to you, may not be provocative to me and vice versa because we all have different upbringings. Even for a Muslim who is living in France for years, the provocation level will be different from a Muslim who just went there. There's no scale to measure what is provocative and what is acceptable.

You could be doing something in your own but it could be offensive to me. Does that mean you should/will stop doing it? Certainly no. Because as long as everything that you are doing is legal, there's no use of me getting offended.

Hence, since you can't measure provocation, you need to follow another standard method to follow in order to minimize the conflicts. That method is legal system of the country.

As long as the legal system allows it, one should accept it. If it doesn't allow it, then you have every option to bring the offensive action under legal system and shut it down.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

To be honest he is portrayed as a leader of the umma , mostly in Pakistan. I dont think rest of the Muslim world give him that much importance. He barely won the election in his home country

Is he portrayed as the leader of he Ummah? Is it not just the case he speaks out on Muslim issues and by default becomes the leader since others usually stay quiet.

 

[Varun]

Is he portrayed as the leader of he Ummah? Is it not just the case he speaks out on Muslim issues and by default becomes the leader since others usually stay quiet.

Why is that even necessary though? Other pan-nation religions don't have such spokespersons, like Christianity or Buddhism.

 

[Nadeemp]

Is he portrayed as the leader of he Ummah? Is it not just the case he speaks out on Muslim issues and by default becomes the leader since others usually stay quiet.

Why is there a need for it . Is there a Christian leader. All talk is just a political ploy. He is bombing the hell out of his muslim neighbors

 

[Vegitto1]

Why is there a need for it . Is there a Christian leader. All talk is just a political ploy. He is bombing the hell out of his muslim neighbors

The Pope.

 

[Vegitto1]

*double post

 

[Vegitto1]

Why is that even necessary though? Other pan-nation religions don't have such spokespersons, like Christianity or Buddhism.

The Pope.

 

[Nadeemp]

The Pope.

I think he meant political figures.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why is that even necessary though? Other pan-nation religions don't have such spokespersons, like Christianity or Buddhism.

He is not a pan-nation religion spokesman, he is just the leader of Turkey.

 

[Nadeemp]

He wants to be one

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That is your opinion.

 

[Vegitto1]

I think he meant political figures.

Do they really need one? Is Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism under attack the world over? Are they being killed in Kashmir, Palestine, Myanmar?

Are they been attacked due to their religion in Western Countries?

Are any Muslim countries supporting a Christian/Western dictatorship which is involved in killing its own people as well as attacking other Muslim states?

 

[Nadeemp]

That is your opinion.

That’s an opinion of many

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That’s an opinion of many

There's always lots of opinions about every single topic.

Are we going anywhere with this?

 

[Nadeemp]

Do they really need one? Is Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism under attack the world over? Are they being killed in Kashmir, Palestine, Myanmar?

Are they been attacked due to their religion in Western Countries?

Are any Muslim countries supporting a Christian/Western dictatorship which is involved in killing its own people as well as attacking other Muslim states?

Muslims are killing Muslims ( Saudi are killing Yemenis). Pakistanis oppressing balochi, erdogan bombing Syrians and Kurds, and now maybe Armenia. Non Muslims live like 2nd class citizens in most muslim countries.

 

[Nadeemp]

Do they really need one? Is Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism under attack the world over? Are they being killed in Kashmir, Palestine, Myanmar?

Are they been attacked due to their religion in Western Countries?

Are any Muslim countries supporting a Christian/Western dictatorship which is involved in killing its own people as well as attacking other Muslim states?

Funny thing is erdogan himself is bombing and killing Muslims from Syria and Kurds. Using Syrians as pawns against EU. I go to Istanbul all the time and have seen how Syrian refugees live in Istanbul.

 

[Vegitto1]

Also let us forget everything that has happened post 9/11 - Muslims got bad press due to some terrorists who justified their attacks using Islam etc.

Go back a decade and tell me what the World did or how the "civilised world" reacted when more than a 100,000 Muslims were killed (genocide) in Bosnia?

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/decision-to-intervene-how-the-war-in-bosnia-ended/

It has always been Us against Them since the beginning and it will remain so. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more you try to avoid a certain outcome the more you get closer to having it occur.

 

[Down2Earth]

How many cartoons have Charlie hebdo made on Judaism I wonder...

 

[Nadeemp]

How many cartoons have Charlie hebdo made on Judaism I wonder...

Plenty if u just google it

 

[Sir-fraz]

Did macron realize that he is only giving more publicity to extremists and driving normal people towards hardline by supporting that hungry magazine?

Typical smokes and mirrors by indians to put the blame elsewhere.

They are not normal people if they sympathize terrorism...

Anyone in their right mind would ignore it and move on with their lives.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They are not normal people if they sympathize terrorism...

Anyone in their right mind would ignore it and move on with their lives.

That is what most people are doing, unfortunately it is the ones who aren't normal who are getting the headlines.

 

[Madplayer]

Plenty if u just google it

Why did they fire a guy for anti-semitism?

 

[Nadeemp]

I rather get fired than decapitated.

 

[Varun]

Why did they fire a guy for anti-semitism?

I dunno, it was just one guy quite some time ago. Maybe there were other issues in play as well considering he spoke against the then PM Sarcozy.

Because they mock all religions including Jews consistently.