Fury as Charlie Hebdo cover shows Queen kneeling on Meghans neck

[Technics 1210]

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 ...

You are right, the articles I posted are not an attack on Islam, but are an admittance from the Western press on their bias reporting on Islam in the past 2 decades.

It pays to read, champ.

PS: You cited an article that was 5 years old.

PPS: Pays to read.

PPPS: Last year has been about C19.

 

[Stewie]

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.

What an interesting concept! Who would have thought that courts decide such stuff!

well do you know what courts in Muslims countries say about those who insult our Holy Prophet?

once again, I do not think anybody here is fully understanding the point I am trying to make. There is a very convenient and morphing idea of what is offensive and whats not thats en vogue. What is IHRA and why do I have to worry about their definition but the western world and CH do not have to worry about Islamic laws and ourt decrees regarding insulting our Prophet? See where I am going with this?

I do not condone violence, i do not condone anti semitism, I do not condone people getting their heads chopped off because they burned a book, insulted a diety or religious figure, AT ALL!

Most of my statements were to prove a point and playing the devil's advocate. Human sentiment and emotion is a complex and complicated subject. How can you judge something to be offensive using one yardstick when its too complicated to be measured in such a simple way.

What I am trying to lead us to say is this: There should be COMMON DECENCY amongst humans. Respect other people's rights to live, believe and have respect in their beliefs. Why is there the need to poke fun at people in the name of freedom of speech? why cant this freedom be used to bring people together and unite them rather than further divide them? such mass media and communications establishments have a greater responsibility to the human race and I am afraid we dont always hold them accountable. its basically all for profit in the end. whatever shock value gets the attention and hence money, is what these people are after. this is not about freedom of speech at all.

 

[Tubs]

Daily reminder that mocking holy figures isn't extremism or hate speech. If anything, the Bible (old and new testament), Quran, hadith and tasfir are much closer to hate speech.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Shameful that we are needing daily reminders about Bible, Quran or hadith instead of addressing the offence which has been caused here, which is to the Queen, depicting her to be evil and with hairy legs, not to mention excessively white, while Meghan is portrayed much darker than her actual tone which is surely racist in it's own way.

 

[Technics 1210]

What an interesting concept! Who would have thought that courts decide such stuff!

The same courts claimed Mandela was a terrorist, up until the free Mandela T shirts.

Media plays a big role, not skin colour, and anyone supporting Mandela is by virtue supporting a terrorist.

 

[Third_Umpire]

Just like the religious cartoons, this is probably funny to some and offensive to others. That is life.

What is almost guaranteed is that there won’t be any killings, lynchings, setting things on fire this time around...we all know why.

 

[Robert]

What an interesting concept! Who would have thought that courts decide such stuff!

well do you know what courts in Muslims countries say about those who insult our Holy Prophet?

once again, I do not think anybody here is fully understanding the point I am trying to make. There is a very convenient and morphing idea of what is offensive and whats not thats en vogue. What is IHRA and why do I have to worry about their definition but the western world and CH do not have to worry about Islamic laws and ourt decrees regarding insulting our Prophet? See where I am going with this?

I do not condone violence, i do not condone anti semitism, I do not condone people getting their heads chopped off because they burned a book, insulted a diety or religious figure, AT ALL!

Most of my statements were to prove a point and playing the devil's advocate. Human sentiment and emotion is a complex and complicated subject. How can you judge something to be offensive using one yardstick when its too complicated to be measured in such a simple way.

What I am trying to lead us to say is this: There should be COMMON DECENCY amongst humans. Respect other people's rights to live, believe and have respect in their beliefs. Why is there the need to poke fun at people in the name of freedom of speech? why cant this freedom be used to bring people together and unite them rather than further divide them? such mass media and communications establishments have a greater responsibility to the human race and I am afraid we dont always hold them accountable. its basically all for profit in the end. whatever shock value gets the attention and hence money, is what these people are after. this is not about freedom of speech at all.

Well, actualy the lawmakers -governments and civil courts.

Yes, laws are a product of culture - which is a set of locally agreed rules.

IHRA = International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Their working definition of antisemitism:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

If you are in a country which has signed up to the IHRA definition - for example the UK - you should be aware of it because it will inform court judgement on what is hate speech and what is not.

I would not insult your Prophet in a Muslim land, and not in UK either - because it's rude, and it would hurt my Muslim friends.

 

[Robert]

The same courts claimed Mandela was a terrorist, up until the free Mandela T shirts.

Media plays a big role, not skin colour, and anyone supporting Mandela is by virtue supporting a terrorist.

Well he served 28 years in jasil for terror offences, so one can say that his debt to society was paid. And when he was released as a changed man, he prevented a race war. So I'd say he has a lot more good in his ledger than bad.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Just like the religious cartoons, this is probably funny to some and offensive to others. That is life.

What is almost guaranteed is that there won’t be any killings, lynchings, setting things on fire this time around...we all know why.

Not everything is about Islam or Muslims, we get it, you want to cross reference every time...we all know why. Hebdo is not just an anti-Islam vehicle despite some people's one track minds....we all know why.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Just like the religious cartoons, this is probably funny to some and offensive to others. That is life.

What is almost guaranteed is that there won’t be any killings, lynchings, setting things on fire this time around...we all know why.

This is a lame argument. There are nearly 2 billion Muslims, only a few nutters attacked them. In fact 90% of Muslims brushed those cartoons off and never thought about them again.

The issue here is there are millions of Royal fans who would be outraged but many of these fools were quick to support Hebdo reg cartoons.

Everyone supports freedom of speech unless its aimed at something dear to you.