Fury as Charlie Hebdo cover shows Queen kneeling on Meghans neck

[Major]

Fury as Charlie Hebdo magazine cover shows Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle's neck in recreation of George Floyd's death

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...shows-Queen-kneeling-Meghan-Markles-neck.html

 

[Major]

Im surprised. When the cartoons of the Prophet were made, people talked about freedom of speech.

Yet, after this cartoon of the Queen was made, people on social media are going crazy.

Quite hypocritic by the europeans. Seems as if freedom of speech is ok if you agree with it

 

[Technics 1210]

Oh this is going to be fun. Let's see the liberal crowd swallow this news in the name of freedom of expression.

 

[Varun]

Im surprised. When the cartoons of the Prophet were made, people talked about freedom of speech.

Yet, after this cartoon of the Queen was made, people on social media are going crazy.

Quite hypocritic by the europeans. Seems as if freedom of speech is ok if you agree with it

'Fury' only on this newspaper headline I suspect.

I'm sure the death count/stabbings because of this non-event will be 0.

 

[Technics 1210]

A lot of people will support this image because Meg is proven to be a liar. I wonder if Meg will write a letter of complaint!

 

[Major]

'Fury' only on this newspaper headline I suspect.

I'm sure the death count/stabbings because of this non-event will be 0.

No one here is justifying death and stabbings here.

People on social media are going crazy over this.

Question is, if the freedom of speech theory could be used back during the time of the Prophet's cartoon, than where does the freedom of speech theory go now?

 

[Major]

Oh this is going to be fun. Let's see the liberal crowd swallow this news in the name of freedom of expression.

knowing that you are a conservative, are you against this image or do you believe in the freedom of speech used here?

 

[Last Monetarist]

'Fury' only on this newspaper headline I suspect.

I'm sure the death count/stabbings because of this non-event will be 0.

Nope, the headline is pretty tame:

Q: 'Why did Meghan quit Buckingham Palace?'

M: 'Because I couldn't breathe anymore'

It's the image that's causing the hysteria.

 

[Technics 1210]

knowing that you are a conservative, are you against this image or do you believe in the freedom of speech used here?

I support consistency in freedom of expression (note NOT freedom of speech) though I believe Meg deserves to be ridiculed to the point she divorces Harry for her lies.

 

[pillionrider]

No one here is justifying death and stabbings here.

People on social media are going crazy over this.

Question is, if the freedom of speech theory could be used back during the time of the Prophet's cartoon, than where does the freedom of speech theory go now?

They can outrage all they want. How does that have anything to do with freedom of speech.

Has Hebdo been banned. Will they be banned in the future?

Will the cartoonist receive death threats or be killed?

No. So the freedom of speech or art in this case, exists.

 

[Major]

They can outrage all they want. How does that have anything to do with freedom of speech.

Has Hebdo been banned. Will they be banned in the future?

Will the cartoonist receive death threats or be killed?

No. So the freedom of speech or art in this case, exists.

Its the outrage that matters here.

Its not about banning or anything.

Its about a xyz person who did not show outrage when the prophets cartoon was made and went on to say this is freedom of expression, than that same xyz person is angry and showing displeasure with this cartoon being made and asking for it to be banned or codemned

 

[cricketjoshila]

If religious cartoons by Hebdo is FOE, so is this.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

hedbo is a trash magazine that exists solely due to the outrage it creates. It has no journalistic or artistic merit.

 

[CricketCartoons]

hedbo is a trash magazine that exists solely due to the outrage it creates. It has no journalistic or artistic merit.

Art is something that finds an audience. The audience may not be you or me.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Art is something that finds an audience. The audience may not be you or me.

Not necessarily. It is of course a difficult thing to define but it seems Hedbo exists only to "shock" and that is the sole purpose of its production.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Not necessarily. It is of course a difficult thing to define but it seems Hedbo exists only to "shock" and that is the sole purpose of its production.

And there are admirers of that shock factor. CH is definitely liked by people who buy it. If it finds an audience, it is art.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

And there are admirers of that shock factor. CH is definitely liked by people who buy it. If it finds an audience, it is art.

If I draw a beautiful picture but show nobody, then is also art?

 

[CricketCartoons]

If I draw a beautiful picture but show nobody, then is also art?

Yes, because you saw it and found it beautiful.

 

[Robert]

While I don’t find the satire particularly funny or appropriate, and in rather bad taste, I defend their right to publish it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

While I don’t find the satire particularly funny or appropriate, and in rather bad taste, I defend their right to publish it.

I was in school when Diana died, and found a cartoon in a newspaper where a man was wishing prince charlers (good) morning. And charles replies, not at all, just taking my dog for a walk. That was the first time I got exposed to dark humour.

 

[dildilpak]

While I don’t find the satire particularly funny or appropriate, and in rather bad taste, I defend their right to publish it.

Actually found this satire to be very cleverly done- its a take on the racism lurking in the Royal house & how Meghan was never accepted by the British society & was driven to suicidal thoughts - obviously not everybody has the same reverence for the Queen as the Brits do. If anything, you can say it is trivializing whatever happened to George Floyd.

 

[Nadeemp]

Im surprised. When the cartoons of the Prophet were made, people talked about freedom of speech.

Yet, after this cartoon of the Queen was made, people on social media are going crazy.

Quite hypocritic by the europeans. Seems as if freedom of speech is ok if you agree with it

People can go crazy on the internet as much as they want. Thats their right. Now if they start killing people or have violent protests than its comparable to what you are implying. I am shocked you don’t see thee difference.

 

[Nadeemp]

It’s shocking that some are comparing the two. When these angry protestors who are offended start killing people. Then talk.

 

[sweep_shot]

Charlie Hebdo should be banned. They cross the line with everything.

There is a difference between freedom of speech and disrupting public harmony.

 

[Tubs]

Very naughty, very naughty indeed. You don't need to like it (I'm not particularly fond of this), you just have to respect their right to publish it. But I see many people who are still salty about the Muhammad cartoons (and found that far worse than the terrorism that occurred as a result of them...interesting) are already going for the weak 'gotchas'.

 

[Giannis]

'Fury' only on this newspaper headline I suspect.

I'm sure the death count/stabbings because of this non-event will be 0.

The Queen isn't a holy figure, if they made fun of MBS or the Ayatollahs or any Muslim political leader or royal no Muslim would even care and they've done that in the past and there was no reaction in the Muslim world, the best comparison would be people get lynched for allegedly eating beef in India as it's blasphemous to Hinduism.

 

[Buffet]

Im surprised. When the cartoons of the Prophet were made, people talked about freedom of speech.

Yet, after this cartoon of the Queen was made, people on social media are going crazy.

Quite hypocritic by the europeans. Seems as if freedom of speech is ok if you agree with it

Do you realize that different sets can exist in a large population?

Neither the entire European population was supporting mocking the Prophet nor the entire population is opposing this cartoon.

People, who support freedom of speech, will support this as well.

 

[Tubs]

The Queen isn't a holy figure, if they made fun of MBS or the Ayatollahs or any Muslim political leader or royal no Muslim would even care and they've done that in the past and there was no reaction in the Muslim world, the best comparison would be people get lynched for allegedly eating beef in India as it's blasphemous to Hinduism.

Being a holy figure doesn't change anything. If you don't like it, don't look at it. And it seems to me that you're thinly justifying the terrorist response.

 

[Technics 1210]

Eric Garner.

I bet none of you have heard of him. He was the fist guy to use the phrase 'I can't breathe' when killed by white cops in USA.

Proves how society/public are easily brainwashed by the media.

Do your homework. Look him up.

Floyd is just a statistic.

 

[Rana]

Is #jesuitCharlie trending now?

 

[shaykh]

Different camps will exist for this ...

Those who find the image funny or acceptable and support Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish it ...

Those who find it offensive but support Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish it ...

Those who find it offensive and are against it being published...

Those who find it offensive and want the cartoonists killed...

 

[Tubs]

Is #jesuitCharlie trending now?

Well, did anyone attack Charlie Hebdo for this cartoon?

 

[Buffet]

Different camps will exist for this ...

Those who find the image funny or acceptable and support Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish it ...

Those who find it offensive but support Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish it ...

Those who find it offensive and are against it being published...

Those who find it offensive and want the cartoonists killed...

+1

It is not just two camps.

 

[Stewie]

Freedom of speech or freedom to offend?

By the way is there like a central “offense evaluation” institution or department that makes the decision on what gestures/content are offensive and which ones are not?

Like who certifies stuff as offensive or not offensive? Is it the western media? The eastern media? The Chinese? The Pope? The Russians?


Or God forbid, would it make sense for me to suggest that the best yardstick is to look at whether the content ends up offending any demographic...large or small.

It’s offensive for me to call a gay dude the F word. It’s offensive for me to call a Jew a Holocaust drama artist, it’s offensive for me to call a black person the N word.. in each instance it’s the demographic who got offended decided whether the term is offensive or not.


So where do we draw the line? The British people can stand up and claim this cartoon is offensive do they have a case? Same with Muslims and their case for the Prophet insulting cartoons.

Surely there must be some criteria out there that is used in such cases...

 

[CricketCartoons]

Well, did anyone attack Charlie Hebdo for this cartoon?

They don't have to attack. The woke loonies cancel culture is evidence they are intolerant and don't stand for liberalism. And that is the point.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Well Hebdo is brave. They have not given up. I don't think they will stop and keep on publishing such cartoons.

 

[Varun]

Well Hebdo is brave. They have not given up. I don't think they will stop and keep on publishing such cartoons.

The very fact that we are talking about it means they get the eyeballs/publicity they are looking for.

 

[Robert]

Freedom of speech or freedom to offend?

By the way is there like a central “offense evaluation” institution or department that makes the decision on what gestures/content are offensive and which ones are not?

Like who certifies stuff as offensive or not offensive? Is it the western media? The eastern media? The Chinese? The Pope? The Russians?


Or God forbid, would it make sense for me to suggest that the best yardstick is to look at whether the content ends up offending any demographic...large or small.

It’s offensive for me to call a gay dude the F word. It’s offensive for me to call a Jew a Holocaust drama artist, it’s offensive for me to call a black person the N word.. in each instance it’s the demographic who got offended decided whether the term is offensive or not.


So where do we draw the line? The British people can stand up and claim this cartoon is offensive do they have a case? Same with Muslims and their case for the Prophet insulting cartoons.

Surely there must be some criteria out there that is used in such cases...

Well, in each of those cases you are punching down on an oppressed people.

Nobody oppresses the Queen so Hebdo are punching up.

That’s the difference between hate speech and free speech. The power differential.

 

[James]

Ugh, Charlie Hebdo are a truly horrible little bunch. I would lean towards defending their right to publish, but at the same time I detest much of their material. There is a right to publish, but sometimes it is also more responsible not to publish.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Ugh, Charlie Hebdo are a truly horrible little bunch. I would lean towards defending their right to publish, but at the same time I detest much of their material. There is a right to publish, but sometimes it is also more responsible not to publish.

Well the fact that you detest what they publish, but still lean to defend their right to publish it as it is within the laws of their country, is the right thing to do imo.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

The very fact that we are talking about it means they get the eyeballs/publicity they are looking for.

Yeah its like Gore movie genre.. not everybody likes them but it has a specific audience.

 

[Stewie]

Well, in each of those cases you are punching down on an oppressed people.

Nobody oppresses the Queen so Hebdo are punching up.

That’s the difference between hate speech and free speech. The power differential.

Who decides who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor?
The Jews were victimized for a few years and subjected to a genocide by the Nazis but now they are doing the same to Palestinians and have essentially created an apartheid state. So I am wondering how would you qualify such a situation?

Similarly more innocent Muslims have been killed than any other people since 9/11 and the war on terror began,
But obviously they are not considered oppressed either.

Obviously what I am pointing to is how the whole thing about what’s kosher, what’s not, what can be defended as freedom of speech and what’s considered offensive, it’s all controlled and manipulated by whoever controls the narrative. Whether it’s the international media or some
Think tank or whatever. I don’t think most people would admit to it but it’s true that a lot of our decisions are made for us and opinions and decisions already shoved down our throats and we are told to believe they are right. This is something Qanon folks have taught us. That the other side is not much different.


Charlie Hebdo is vile! This is not freedom of speech. This is profiteering from shock value. And all the people who defend them are vile and cruel people also. They were wrong to insult our Prophet and they are wrong to publish this cartoon as well.
Freedom of speech should be about making your opinion freely known to public... not telling the public to believe what’s right or wrong based on the ideas of a select few.

 

[Tubs]

They don't have to attack. The woke loonies cancel culture is evidence they are intolerant and don't stand for liberalism. And that is the point.

My point was, the whole #JesuitCharlie thing was in solidarity that those who were killed for cartoons.

You can use your boomer-tier 'woke cancel culture' argument all you want, those of us who support freedom of speech and expression will not be hypocritical.

 

[dildilpak]

Charlie Hebdo should be banned. They cross the line with everything.

There is a difference between freedom of speech and disrupting public harmony.

How is public harmony disrupted by showing the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle? I thought that was a brilliant stand against racism in the royal family. The Brits are quick to point out racism/trumpism in America, but looses their ____ when somebody accuses their royal family of racism?

 

[thelandofthebravepeople]

Im surprised. When the cartoons of the Prophet were made, people talked about freedom of speech.

Yet, after this cartoon of the Queen was made, people on social media are going crazy.

Quite hypocritic by the europeans. Seems as if freedom of speech is ok if you agree with it

But are they giving death threats and bombing CH? No? Of course you are allowed to disagree but not use violence.

 

[Technics 1210]

But are they giving death threats and bombing CH? No? Of course you are allowed to disagree but not use violence.

CH deliberately provoke a reaction. They will attack Islam but not Judasim through their satire.

Even so, when people/groups who raise concerns in a civil manner such as the British Muslim council, they are told to get lost in not so many words, because freedom of expression trumps all concerns. People believe that the likes of CH have the right to offend. Well the same people must be the dumbest on the planet thinking there wouldn't be a reaction.

 

[sweep_shot]

CH deliberately provoke a reaction. They will attack Islam but not Judasim through their satire.

This.

Charlie Hebdo has no problem with insulting Islam but it somehow always avoids making cartoons about Jews.

There is clearly a double standard.

 

[sweep_shot]

How is public harmony disrupted by showing the Queen kneeling on Meghan Markle? I thought that was a brilliant stand against racism in the royal family. The Brits are quick to point out racism/trumpism in America, but looses their ____ when somebody accuses their royal family of racism?

I think you misunderstood my post. I am against royal family.

I simply wrote Charlie Hebdo has a habit of crossing the line and it deserves to be banned.

 

[Stewie]

But are they giving death threats and bombing CH? No? Of course you are allowed to disagree but not use violence.

So just because some people got up and started issuing death threats, does it make it ok to condone those cartoons and not the one about the Queen?

 

[shaykh]

So just because some people got up and started issuing death threats, does it make it ok to condone those cartoons and not the one about the Queen?

This isn’t even trending on Twitter ...it’s a non-story which it should be ...

So that in essence is evidence of condoning...no-one is arguing for CH to be shut down etc ...so this supposed contradiction between the Islam cartoons and the Queen doesn’t exist ...

Many non-Muslims criticised the Muhammad cartoons ...so did the French in general...but criticism and finding something offensive is different to requesting limits on freedom of speech ...

The tide turned when Islamists decided to kill people...it was less a support for CH but for freedom of expression and the freedom to offend...

 

[Stewie]

This isn’t even trending on Twitter ...it’s a non-story which it should be ...

So that in essence is evidence of condoning...no-one is arguing for CH to be shut down etc ...so this supposed contradiction between the Islam cartoons and the Queen doesn’t exist ...

Many non-Muslims criticised the Muhammad cartoons ...so did the French in general...but criticism and finding something offensive is different to requesting limits on freedom of speech ...

The tide turned when Islamists decided to kill people...it was less a support for CH but for freedom of expression and the freedom to offend...

Why do people want freedom to offend? Why is that ok? Why aren’t there cartoons about Jews, blacks, gays? Why is it ok to bash some people and not others? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok?

If you ask me, that’s not freedom? How is it freedom if a large swathe of people feel offended or indirectly targeted by such stuff? Or is my freedom not as important as those who create such content?

How is this any different from the Mullas who preach hate against Infidels? Just because CH doesn’t ask people to take up guns, don’t you think the dangerous content itself was enough to militarize people against Islam and Muslims?

 

[shaykh]

Why do people want freedom to offend? Why is that ok? Why aren’t there cartoons about Jews, blacks, gays? Why is it ok to bash some people and not others? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok?

If you ask me, that’s not freedom? How is it freedom if a large swathe of people feel offended or indirectly targeted by such stuff? Or is my freedom not as important as those who create such content?

How is this any different from the Mullas who preach hate against Infidels? Just because CH doesn’t ask people to take up guns, don’t you think the dangerous content itself was enough to militarize people against Islam and Muslims?

Herein lies the point which doesn’t really interest the ‘Islamophobia’ crowd ...

CH do mock Christianity and Judaism...and those groups aren’t happy with it ...it’s mocking ideas not people ...

Islam is barely even a feature...the Catholic Church gets most of their attention religion wise...Macron, Le Pen are people who get mocked because of the positions they hold...

The limit to expression is incitement...

Yet it seems the only incitement that happened was against themselves...who militarised?...it was Islamists ...

 

[guna]

Charlie Hebdo should be banned. They cross the line with everything.

There is a difference between freedom of speech and disrupting public harmony.

You don’t like it, then don’t watch it. Everything should be fair game if violence is not involved.

 

[guna]

I didn’t find anything offensive in the cartoon. It’s a cartoon folks.

 

[Nadeemp]

CH deliberately provoke a reaction. They will attack Islam but not Judasim through their satire.

Even so, when people/groups who raise concerns in a civil manner such as the British Muslim council, they are told to get lost in not so many words, because freedom of expression trumps all concerns. People believe that the likes of CH have the right to offend. Well the same people must be the dumbest on the planet thinking there wouldn't be a reaction.

They have made cartoons on jews. Just google it

 

[Nadeemp]

This.

Charlie Hebdo has no problem with insulting Islam but it somehow always avoids making cartoons about Jews.

There is clearly a double standard.

Charlie Hebdo have made cartoons insulting jews.

 

[shaykh]

Charlie Hebdo have made cartoons insulting jews.

Not correct...plenty of cartoons mocking Judaism and what they deem extremism...they don’t mock actual groups of people ...they mock individuals within faiths ...

 

[Nadeemp]

Not correct...plenty of cartoons mocking Judaism and what they deem extremism...they don’t mock actual groups of people ...they mock individuals within faiths ...

Correct

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Charlie Hebdo have made cartoons insulting jews.

Please share.

 

[Stewie]

Herein lies the point which doesn’t really interest the ‘Islamophobia’ crowd ...

CH do mock Christianity and Judaism...and those groups aren’t happy with it ...it’s mocking ideas not people ...

Islam is barely even a feature...the Catholic Church gets most of their attention religion wise...Macron, Le Pen are people who get mocked because of the positions they hold...

The limit to expression is incitement...

Yet it seems the only incitement that happened was against themselves...who militarised?...it was Islamists ...

Oh are they now? Just mocking ideas and not people? So the Holy Prophet is not a person? The way his cartoons insinuated he was a suicide bomber and a pedophile, that’s not offensive to a person and people who hold him dear? Come on, man!

And I have yet to see any sustained attack on Zionists for it to matter as much or with the same consistency as Islam in the media ANYWHERE!

It’s true... find me examples... anything like that is quickly dismissed as anti Semitic. However islamophobia is just a dog whistle for liberals, they claim.

 

[shaykh]

Oh are they now? Just mocking ideas and not people? So the Holy Prophet is not a person? The way his cartoons insinuated he was a suicide bomber and a pedophile, that’s not offensive to a person and people who hold him dear? Come on, man!

And I have yet to see any sustained attack on Zionists for it to matter as much or with the same consistency as Islam in the media ANYWHERE!

It’s true... find me examples... anything like that is quickly dismissed as anti Semitic. However islamophobia is just a dog whistle for liberals, they claim.

People...not person...figures are mocked regularly ...there are plenty of current caricatures of Macron and Le Pen ...the Pope and Jesus have got it a lot worse than Muhammad ever did ...

You need to decide what your goalposts are ...you have claimed that this small far left publication is a cause for Muslims being attacked etc...and now the complaint is it’s offensive to Muslims...

The first claim has no basis...the second claim is ‘so what?’...much like people who love the Queen...who cares?...why is what some random publication has said even an issue?...

And Islam isn’t even one of their main topics...so nothing sustained about it...as I’ve said the Catholic Church gets it so much worse as do actual living public figures...

Muhammad as a pedophile was neither in the Danish cartoons nor from CH btw...have you actually seen the cartoons?...that’s a genuine question ...

And as stated Judaism is mocked also ...

 

[Stewie]

People...not person...figures are mocked regularly ...there are plenty of current caricatures of Macron and Le Pen ...the Pope and Jesus have got it a lot worse than Muhammad ever did ...

You need to decide what your goalposts are ...you have claimed that this small far left publication is a cause for Muslims being attacked etc...and now the complaint is it’s offensive to Muslims...

The first claim has no basis...the second claim is ‘so what?’...much like people who love the Queen...who cares?...why is what some random publication has said even an issue?...

And Islam isn’t even one of their main topics...so nothing sustained about it...as I’ve said the Catholic Church gets it so much worse as do actual living public figures...

Muhammad as a pedophile was neither in the Danish cartoons nor from CH btw...have you actually seen the cartoons?...that’s a genuine question ...

And as stated Judaism is mocked also ...

I think I cannot be any clearer on the issue, if you want to cherry pick the parts that seem of weak logic to you, that’s your prerogative, but the crux of the matter is this: free speech does not mean free to offend.. you cannot cherry pick who you can offend. There has been plenty of media warfare against Muslims post 9/11.
It is ridiculous to suggest all Muslims are susceptible to radical leanings. These cartoons and publications do nothing but wage war on Islam as a religion and tries to paint a picture of Muslims which is far from the truth. It’s basically religion baiting a very very small minority of Muslims into taking violent actions, and then pointing a finger at them and saying “Haaa, told you so!”

You can act as a self appointed defender of freedom of speech, all you Want but this whole schtick by CH, and other publications and media outlets in the name of freedom of speech stinks to high hell. I would like to see someone, for once go after zionists with equal as much consistency for their apartheid regime. But that’s yet to happen!

 

[shaykh]

I think I cannot be any clearer on the issue, if you want to cherry pick the parts that seem of weak logic to you, that’s your prerogative, but the crux of the matter is this: free speech does not mean free to offend.. you cannot cherry pick who you can offend. There has been plenty of media warfare against Muslims post 9/11.
It is ridiculous to suggest all Muslims are susceptible to radical leanings. These cartoons and publications do nothing but wage war on Islam as a religion and tries to paint a picture of Muslims which is far from the truth. It’s basically religion baiting a very very small minority of Muslims into taking violent actions, and then pointing a finger at them and saying “Haaa, told you so!”

You can act as a self appointed defender of freedom of speech, all you Want but this whole schtick by CH, and other publications and media outlets in the name of freedom of speech stinks to high hell. I would like to see someone, for once go after zionists with equal as much consistency for their apartheid regime. But that’s yet to happen!

It’s not cherry picking at all and also not self appointed anything ...

Simple point is this ...freedom of expression is only restricted when something is considered incitement ...not my personal view ...that’s what it is...you are free to offend...you might not like that but that’s how it is...

So as stated...whatever your personal thoughts are on CH and their material it’s pretty irrelevant really ...

And as for the Israel stuff ...you don’t think the press attack Israel?...really?...

As for the Islam baiting...if that is the case then they got proved right didnt they ...and again you’re doing that conflation thing of religion and people...it’s quite lazy ...

 

[Technics 1210]

It’s not cherry picking at all and also not self appointed anything ...

Simple point is this ...freedom of expression is only restricted when something is considered incitement ...not my personal view ...that’s what it is...you are free to offend...you might not like that but that’s how it is...

So as stated...whatever your personal thoughts are on CH and their material it’s pretty irrelevant really ...

And as for the Israel stuff ...you don’t think the press attack Israel?...really?...

As for the Islam baiting...if that is the case then they got proved right didnt they ...and again you’re doing that conflation thing of religion and people...it’s quite lazy ...

Please can you link us to press in the West (UK, USA, and Europe) which attack Israel/Zionism in the same way Islam is attacked.

Also Freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend since offence is taken, not given.

 

[Technics 1210]

Not correct...plenty of cartoons mocking Judaism and what they deem extremism...they don’t mock actual groups of people ...they mock individuals within faiths ...

This doesn't make sense.

On one hand you are saying CH doesn't mock Jews, but do mock Judaism, then you say CH mock individuals within faiths, which would means a Jew within Judaism.

 

[shaykh]

This doesn't make sense.

On one hand you are saying CH doesn't mock Jews, but do mock Judaism, then you say CH mock individuals within faiths, which would means a Jew within Judaism.

Of course it makes sense...mocking a group as a collective is discriminatory ...

Mocking individual figures is not...

Mocking the Pope which happens regularly for example...is not mocking Christians as a collective ...

 

[shaykh]

Please can you link us to press in the West (UK, USA, and Europe) which attack Israel/Zionism in the same way Islam is attacked.

Also Freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend since offence is taken, not given.

I’m not going to trawl websites...you can do it yourself...

Here’s one from the Guardian from a few days ago...’Israeli military courts for Palestinians are a stain on international justice.’

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/06/israel-military-courts-palestinians-law-uk

Israel’s own press laying into Netanyahu

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...nt-is-a-nightmare-for-everyone-else-1.9618088

Le Monde discussing an investigation into war crimes...

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...-cour-penale-internationale_6072998_3232.html

This notion that the press is universally pro-Israel has very little basis...yes some publications are and some publications aren’t ...

 

[Technics 1210]

Of course it makes sense...mocking a group as a collective is discriminatory ...

Mocking individual figures is not...

Mocking the Pope which happens regularly for example...is not mocking Christians as a collective ...

Mocking the Pope is not mocking Christians? The Pope represents Christianity.

Mocking Judasim/Islam/Christianity is mocking a group of people, the people who follow said faiths.

What you are claiming is akin to me for example mocking your mother, you take offence, but then I claim I'm not mocking your family.

Does your logic work in the reverse to? Say someone who is a fan of Hitler, is not a fan of Nazism, but the man only?

Seriously; these attempts at justifying CH's poor satire are weak. Try mocking the holocaust and claim you were mocking history, not the Jews.

 

[Technics 1210]

I’m not going to trawl websites...you can do it yourself...

Here’s one from the Guardian from a few days ago...’Israeli military courts for Palestinians are a stain on international justice.’

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/06/israel-military-courts-palestinians-law-uk

Israel’s own press laying into Netanyahu

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...nt-is-a-nightmare-for-everyone-else-1.9618088

Le Monde discussing an investigation into war crimes...

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...-cour-penale-internationale_6072998_3232.html

This notion that the press is universally pro-Israel has very little basis...yes some publications are and some publications aren’t ...

Isreal laying into Netanyahu is laying into a leader by his own people, not the West attacking Isreal or Zionism. The guy is getting done for fraud.

The Guardian is merely highlighting what the UN has for years.

As for Lemonde, well, it's illegal to indulge in revisionism of the Holocaust let alone deny it, in France.

We're not talking about the press being pro-isreal, where talking about the press in the West attacking Isreal/Zionism in the same way as Islam is attacked in the press. The example above are not even in the same magnitude.

 

[Stewie]

It’s not cherry picking at all and also not self appointed anything ...

Simple point is this ...freedom of expression is only restricted when something is considered incitement ...not my personal view ...that’s what it is...you are free to offend...you might not like that but that’s how it is...

So as stated...whatever your personal thoughts are on CH and their material it’s pretty irrelevant really ...

And as for the Israel stuff ...you don’t think the press attack Israel?...really?...

As for the Islam baiting...if that is the case then they got proved right didnt they ...and again you’re doing that conflation thing of religion and people...it’s quite lazy ...

except.... wait for it.. except... when a certain group of people is so entrenched into religion and use it a a sole identifier, that any criticism of the religion itself is a criicism of the people! as in Muslims and Islam? how hard is that for you to not understand?
Islam is a way of life for Muslims, we live it and breathe it. If you criticize our way of life, it means you are criticising us.

How often, this is a question for people living abroad in non Muslim countries, have you heard something like "In your culture, or in your religion, do you guys do such and such....?"

Be honest? I worked with people for over a decade and have excellent relations with them, et they would still get curious and ask questions, which basically shows even they know how closely we follow certain things due to us being Muslims. I think its very very well understood what Islam is to Muslims... AND YET SOME CORNERS STILL BELIEVE ITS OK TO CREATE OFFENSIVE STUFF ON US!

You can say all you want, come up with your own definitions of whats offensive, citing content against "people", "ideologies", "faiths" whatever, but I will circle back to the same point over and over again
"WHO DECIDES?" .. who really decides this crap? what are the acceptable and unacceptable limits? why is it ok to incite violence against certain people because of what they believe, but not ok to say something directly about them? Does it really make a big difference? or is it means to an end for the sectors who come up with these "enlightened guidelines"? simply vilify a group of people by using their faith as a stepping stool... you cant use my race, you cant use my sexuality, you cannot use my past if I was subjected to a genocide or whatever, but you dont NEED to. All you need to do to incite hatred and violence against me if throw my faith under the bus. and watch all the islamophobes do the rest. Burn the Quran, rip the veils of the faces of our women, etc.

Its means to an end, all in the name of freedom of speech.

 

[Nadeemp]

Please share.

I don’t hunk you are allowed to put those type of cartoons on here. It’s all over the google images man

 

[Robert]

Who decides who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor?
The Jews were victimized for a few years and subjected to a genocide by the Nazis but now they are doing the same to Palestinians and have essentially created an apartheid state. So I am wondering how would you qualify such a situation?

Similarly more innocent Muslims have been killed than any other people since 9/11 and the war on terror began,
But obviously they are not considered oppressed either.

Obviously what I am pointing to is how the whole thing about what’s kosher, what’s not, what can be defended as freedom of speech and what’s considered offensive, it’s all controlled and manipulated by whoever controls the narrative. Whether it’s the international media or some
Think tank or whatever. I don’t think most people would admit to it but it’s true that a lot of our decisions are made for us and opinions and decisions already shoved down our throats and we are told to believe they are right. This is something Qanon folks have taught us. That the other side is not much different.


Charlie Hebdo is vile! This is not freedom of speech. This is profiteering from shock value. And all the people who defend them are vile and cruel people also. They were wrong to insult our Prophet and they are wrong to publish this cartoon as well.
Freedom of speech should be about making your opinion freely known to public... not telling the public to believe what’s right or wrong based on the ideas of a select few.

The courts decide that.

The Jewish race was persecuted for far longer than the few years you refer to. Ever since it was dispersed by the Roman Empire at the end of the Jewish War, there have been pogroms. Discrimination on the basis of race and religion is illegal in Europe.

The State of Israel is not the same entity as the Jewish race - most Jews are not Israelis, not all Israelis are Jews - and you have uttered an antisemitic trope by making that comparison with Nazi Germany according to the IHRA definition.

Discrimination against Muslims is also considered oppression under European law.

Qanon will teach you nothing except how to muddle your thinking with complex equivalences, quarter-truths and outright falsehoods and I would avoid them entirely.

Coming back to the original point it is not ok to punch down on groups and individuals who are discriminated against on the basis of religion, race, sexuality, gender, disability etc. It is ok to punch up at powerful people so the Hebdo cartoon is not discriminatory - the satire is accurate as a white power structure can be seen to be oppressing a black person - if in rather bad taste as I am sure HM the Queen does not personally discriminate and indeed Duchess Megan speaks highly of her.

 

[Robert]

Mocking the Pope is not mocking Christians? The Pope represents Christianity.

Mocking Judasim/Islam/Christianity is mocking a group of people, the people who follow said faiths.

What you are claiming is akin to me for example mocking your mother, you take offence, but then I claim I'm not mocking your family.

Does your logic work in the reverse to? Say someone who is a fan of Hitler, is not a fan of Nazism, but the man only?

Seriously; these attempts at justifying CH's poor satire are weak. Try mocking the holocaust and claim you were mocking history, not the Jews.

Specifically, he represents Catholicism. He doesn’t represent Protestantism or Eastern Orthodox. Though a sincere adherent to those branches of Christianity would be respectful to him.

 

[ahmedzee]

Funny!
Racist french calling racist English, racist

 

[shaykh]

Isreal laying into Netanyahu is laying into a leader by his own people, not the West attacking Isreal or Zionism. The guy is getting done for fraud.

The Guardian is merely highlighting what the UN has for years.

As for Lemonde, well, it's illegal to indulge in revisionism of the Holocaust let alone deny it, in France.

We're not talking about the press being pro-isreal, where talking about the press in the West attacking Isreal/Zionism in the same way as Islam is attacked in the press. The example above are not even in the same magnitude.

How is Islam attacked in the press?...please provide examples...

 

[Technics 1210]

How is Islam attacked in the press?...please provide examples...

Lets start with a summation by the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...is-negative-and-its-not-because-of-terrorism/

I've started with a summation as the attack on Islam in the Western press includes 1000s of headlines. Unlike attacks on Isreal/Zionism, which yielded minimal results when you searched for articles. In fact so minimal, 1 of the 3 articles you cited were not even based in the West.

 

[shaykh]

Lets start with a summation by the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...is-negative-and-its-not-because-of-terrorism/

I've started with a summation as the attack on Islam in the Western press includes 1000s of headlines. Unlike attacks on Isreal/Zionism, which yielded minimal results when you searched for articles. In fact so minimal, 1 of the 3 articles you cited were not even based in the West.

Provide examples not articles which provide analysis...

Since Islamophobia from the press is so incessant ...I’m sure you can find a few examples...

 

[Technics 1210]

Provide examples not articles which provide analysis...

Since Islamophobia from the press is so incessant ...I’m sure you can find a few examples...

Who mentioned Islamophobia? Stop putting words in my mouth.

But sure dont worry, let me be home and I will share, but like you said, you can Google yourself.

Meanwhile, read and weep : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lamist-terror-jihadi-dont-help-community.html

I will provide analysis, not 1000s of links.

You keep trying on Google though.

 

[Technics 1210]

The courts decide that.

The Jewish race was persecuted for far longer than the few years you refer to. Ever since it was dispersed by the Roman Empire at the end of the Jewish War, there have been pogroms. Discrimination on the basis of race and religion is illegal in Europe.

The State of Israel is not the same entity as the Jewish race - most Jews are not Israelis, not all Israelis are Jews - and you have uttered an antisemitic trope by making that comparison with Nazi Germany according to the IHRA definition.

Discrimination against Muslims is also considered oppression under European law.

Qanon will teach you nothing except how to muddle your thinking with complex equivalences, quarter-truths and outright falsehoods and I would avoid them entirely.

Coming back to the original point it is not ok to punch down on groups and individuals who are discriminated against on the basis of religion, race, sexuality, gender, disability etc. It is ok to punch up at powerful people so the Hebdo cartoon is not discriminatory - the satire is accurate as a white power structure can be seen to be oppressing a black person - if in rather bad taste as I am sure HM the Queen does not personally discriminate and indeed Duchess Megan speaks highly of her.

The satire is accurate? Have you seen the picture in the OP? The Queen is being depicted, she was never indicted or mentioned as the accuser, meaning the Royal family is referenced, and not whites. In your own words, Megan speaks highly of her.

The fact is no one can see Megan as black, unless she recites her sob story and mentions her mother is black.

Please for the love of god, stop generalising. The majority of whites are not racists.

 

[shaykh]

Who mentioned Islamophobia? Stop putting words in my mouth.

But sure dont worry, let me be home and I will share, but like you said, you can Google yourself.

Meanwhile, read and weep : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lamist-terror-jihadi-dont-help-community.html

I will provide analysis, not 1000s of links.

You keep trying on Google though.

Lol is that the best you could come up with?...the Daily Mail has better examples than the one you used ...

The article you have actually posted is actually not an attack on Islam at all...it’s not even an opinion piece...

And lol at finding an article from a year ago to illustrate your point...

You stated the press attack Islam ...that is not remotely evidence of it ...