11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[mongers]

I like this:

[dps]

I'd prefer that such people are dealt with by being ignore, much as you might do if you didn't like a particular CH editorial or cartoon, rather than the heavy hand application of vague media/hate speech laws.

Absolutely agree here. 

It's easy to defend free speech when you agree with what's being said, or even when you don't have an opinion one way or the other about it.  It gets harder when it comes to speech you don't agree with, but if you're not willing to allow speech that you disagree with or that offends you, you're not really in favor of free speech.

[Martinus]

I might be a dumb blonde, but I thought he wasjust  saying, "Not just cartoonists died. Let's not forget that one victim was a police officer who happened to be Muslim upholding French law."

Then why did he have to say that the cartoonists "ridiculed his religion and culture"?

Contrary to everyone else, I think there was an implicit judgment of the cartoonists's work and think that's fine. The hero worship of the cartoonists reveals many who have forgotten about applying fearless disrespect.

I respect that the cartoonists thought their cartoons were relevant enough and important enough that they were willing to risk their safety in publishing them. I think it is wrong that anyone kill anyone over speech (particularly over speech so trifling as those cartoons). I also think, of the cartoons I've seen, most were pretty shoddy and tasteless*, but I don't think that it anyway diminishes that they had the right to publish them and that right should be protected. At the same time, I don't seek to glorify them as I don't really see them on the battle lines of protecting free speech. As Sheilbh's image blurb said, "There is no high noon and none is coming."

*and I can see if one didn't have the steel constitution that a Languish poster does, that one could easily be offended.

See, I disagree with you there and it has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with the cartoons.

If we were dealing with some "civilian" Muslim risking his life to come to defend the cartoonists despite disagreeing with them - then I would see it differently. But as I have already said, it is a duty of a cop to defend citizens exercising their rights - whether he likes it or not. So pointing out that he disagreed with them has no relevance - except if one is to make an argument that somehow this makes his actions special or out of ordinary.

I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.

[Syt]

Up to 1.5 million marching in Paris. Merkel was there, too.

[Syt]

12,000 gathered in Vienna, as well.

[Martinus]

Yeah, I saw that before. They hate the likes of Front Nationale as much as they hate Islamists.

Which is fine - I feel exactly the same way.

I think they might mean Islamaphobes.   

Uhm, Front Nationale = Islamophobes.

[dps]

I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.

I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker.  I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.

[CountDeMoney]

I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.

We all know you're a cop-hater, so there's no reason to belabor the point.  You're missing the Big Picture here anyway, and extrapolating where there isn't a need.  But that's OK because you're Eastern European, and don't understand the base concepts of a pluralistic secular society.

But for such somebody that bleats so often over his demands for tolerance, your are one nasty, intolerant fucking queen sometimes.

[Martinus]

I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.

I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker.  I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.

Ok, but you can also see where I am coming from, I hope? I feel uncomfortable if there is a merest suggestion that a cop's protection is somehow conditional - especially as, minorities are and have been frequently treated differently by cops, which I find unacceptable.

[Martinus]

I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.

We all know you're a cop-hater, so there's no reason to belabor the point.  You're missing the Big Picture here anyway, and extrapolating where there isn't a need.  But that's OK because you're Eastern European, and don't understand the base concepts of a pluralistic secular society.

But for such somebody that bleats so often over his demands for tolerance, your are one nasty, intolerant fucking queen sometimes.

If I say that cops should protect all law-abiding citizens equally, I'm a "cop-hater who doesn't understand the base concepts of a pluralistic secular society"?

By the way, your post is very true to your avatar.

[CountDeMoney]

If I say that cops should protect all law-abiding citizens equally, I'm a "cop-hater who doesn't understand the base concepts of a pluralistic secular society"?

Then I'd say it was about as accurate an observation as your premise "doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination", which seems to be nothing more than an extension of your persecution complex.   

By the way, your post is very true to your avatar.

Takes one to know one, smegma muncher.  So nyah.

[Martinus]

What, are you now saying that the majority of French muslims are ok with gay marriage? 

[dps]

I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.

I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker.  I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.

Ok, but you can also see where I am coming from, I hope? I feel uncomfortable if there is a merest suggestion that a cop's protection is somehow conditional - especially as, minorities are and have been frequently treated differently by cops, which I find unacceptable.

But that's the point--the slain officer didn't make doing his job conditional.  He did his job regardless of his feelings about the content of Charlie's cartoons.

Unfortunately, as you point out, you can't say that about all cops. 

[CountDeMoney]

What, are you now saying that the majority of French muslims are ok with gay marriage? 

Why are you saying that a Muslim cop would consider them an "abomination"?  I mean, other than the fact that you're a overly-shrill, hyperbolic cock socket, that is.

[Martinus]

I would feel the same if a Muslim cop was sent to protect participants in a gay pride march - I would not see the fact that he is doing his job by protecting people he considers an abomination to somehow make him more praiseworthy.

I think it's related to the point I made above about free speech--it's easy to defend the right when you agree with the speaker.  I'm not sure that I'd say it's more praiseworthy, but it does show some degree of devotion to doing your duty, rather than just going through the motions to collect a paycheck.

Ok, but you can also see where I am coming from, I hope? I feel uncomfortable if there is a merest suggestion that a cop's protection is somehow conditional - especially as, minorities are and have been frequently treated differently by cops, which I find unacceptable.

But that's the point--the slain officer didn't make doing his job conditional.  He did his job regardless of his feelings about the content of Charlie's cartoons.

Unfortunately, as you point out, you can't say that about all cops.

I am not hating on the cop - I am hating on the tweet (which clearly wasn't made by the cop). And only because Jacob, garbon & co. thought it appropriate to tout it around as a cause celebre for their side. So I am just saying the implication hidden in the tweet is troubling.