11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Razgovory]

I just had a realisation that I would love to start learning French again. I couldn't start with a new language (I started German few years ago and just couldn't do it) but going back to French would be cool. Especially as it is such a beautiful language.

German's weird with me.  I hear people speak it, and these days I'm starting to get the gist of what they are trying to say.  It's like putting together a heavily accented English.

[DGuller]

Though it wasn't what they intended / not what they took from it - I think this actually is a good piece of evidence against us all walking around with guns. Doesn't make a difference.

Well, duh.  To think that untrained civilians would stand much of a chance against a gunman is a fantastical daydream, not reality.  The gunman knows he'll be shooting people that day, the civilian doesn't.  When you balance it against the increased risk of death from various causes that always follows the presence of guns, the policy of Afghanistaning civilians doesn't make any sense.  Then again, few pro-gun arguments do, and none of them are utilitarian or pragmatic.

[garbon]

Though it wasn't what they intended / not what they took from it - I think this actually is a good piece of evidence against us all walking around with guns. Doesn't make a difference.

Well, duh.  To think that untrained civilians would stand much of a chance against a gunman is a fantastical daydream, not reality.  The gunman knows he'll be shooting people that day, the civilian doesn't.  When you balance it against the increased risk of death from various causes that always follows the presence of guns, the policy of Afghanistaning civilians doesn't make any sense.  Then again, few pro-gun arguments do, and none of them are utilitarian or pragmatic.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was a surprise - just that they inadvertently created evidence to harm their cause.

[jimmy olsen]

Somebody's gonna get popped in the head by a Kazakh 15 year old.

That kid looked ten. He was barely taller than the waist of the guy he was standing next to.

[mongers]

Shame on Channel 4 news for leading with the CH story, but not even showing a 1-2 second still of today's front cover.


Later on in the news programme viewers are 'warned' -

"My report begins with pictures of them buying the magazine."

[dps]

Is there anything that *doesn't* make Muslims horny?

I don't know, is there anything that can be done to stop you generalizing about millions of people, many of whom are better educated, more successful and open minded than you?

In fairness to Yi, the WP article Seedy posted does have a quote from a Muslim saying that building snowmen "promotes lustiness and eroticism". 

If you're saying that you think building snowmen is erotic, I think it's fair to ask if there is anything you don't find erotic.

I'd also suggest that you're a pervert, and the problem is you, not the snowmen.

[crazy canuck]

Is there anything that *doesn't* make Muslims horny?

I don't know, is there anything that can be done to stop you generalizing about millions of people, many of whom are better educated, more successful and open minded than you?

In fairness to Yi, the WP article Seedy posted does have a quote from a Muslim saying that building snowmen "promotes lustiness and eroticism". 

If you're saying that you think building snowmen is erotic, I think it's fair to ask if there is anything you don't find erotic.

I'd also suggest that you're a pervert, and the problem is you, not the snowmen.

Sure but he should be calling out the idiocy of the statement.  Not a whole religious group simply because the person who made the silly statement is also part of that group.  When a Christian says something stupid you won't catch Yi generalizing to all Christians.  Probably because he knows a lot of Christians that wouldn't appropriately be described in that way. 

[dps]

Is there anything that *doesn't* make Muslims horny?

I don't know, is there anything that can be done to stop you generalizing about millions of people, many of whom are better educated, more successful and open minded than you?

In fairness to Yi, the WP article Seedy posted does have a quote from a Muslim saying that building snowmen "promotes lustiness and eroticism". 

If you're saying that you think building snowmen is erotic, I think it's fair to ask if there is anything you don't find erotic.

I'd also suggest that you're a pervert, and the problem is you, not the snowmen.

Sure but he should be calling out the idiocy of the statement.  Not a whole religious group simply because the person who made the silly statement is also part of that group.  When a Christian says something stupid you won't catch Yi generalizing to all Christians.  Probably because he knows a lot of Christians that wouldn't appropriately be described in that way. 

Fair enough.  Yi might have also missed the fact that that particular quote wasn't from the cleric who issued the ruling, but from a random reply on his website.  As I read it, the cleric was more concerned about idolatry than eroticism.  Not that I don't find the idea that someone building a snowman is then going to worship it a bit strange.

[Capetan Mihali]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

[mongers]

Interesting BBC panarama programme about the coming fight within the British Muslim community over it's direction and moderate Muslims talk about the spread of extremism with the community.  Well worth seeing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam

[mongers]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

Yes it does.

I think with his previous outburst, some of those were contrary to Frances anti-Semitism laws and so it's understandable that conviction was sought, but as you say this new instance looks hypocritical.

[dps]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

Yes it does.

I think with his previous outburst, some of those were contrary to Frances anti-Semitism laws and so it's understandable that conviction was sought, but as you say this new instance looks hypocritical.

Just having anti-Semitism laws or hate speech laws is hypocritical if you want to promote free speech.

I remember threads in which Euros were shocked that under American law, the truth of a slander or libel is an absolute defense, while I was shocked to learn that in (most?  all?) European countries that's not the case.  Geez, that was one of the bedrocks of our conception of free speech while we were still British colonies. 

[Sheilbh]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

Yep. Alas, je suis Dieudonne

Incidentally on US papers/news sources publishing the pictures I totally agree with this by the NYT public editor:

With New Charlie Hebdo Cover, News Value Should Have Prevailed
By MARGARET SULLIVAN  JANUARY 14, 2015 8:00 AM January 14, 2015 8:00 am 713 Comments

Readers responded passionately, and in large numbers, to my post last week about The Times's decision not to publish the now-famous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. (In fact, I've never had more comments on a post or column.)

A vast majority of readers were critical of The Times's decision, feeling strongly that both because of news value and in order to reinforce free speech and show solidarity with a publication under attack, The Times should have published them.

Just Monday, a new decision came along and The Times stayed with its earlier determination, showing no image of the new cover of Charlie Hebdo, which features a tearful Muhammad, holding a "Je Suis Charlie" sign, with a tagline that says "All is forgiven." Instead, a Times article described the cover image and linked to an article that showed the cover illustration.

But that's of little help to the print readers, who — if their only news source was The Times — could have gone through this whole tumultuous week without much sense of what the offending cartoons look like. That does them a disservice.

I can understand why The Times would not have published "the most incendiary images," as the executive editor, Dean Baquet, described them last week. He felt those extreme cartoons would not have been necessary to illustrate the story about the terrorist attack that killed eight members of the satirical newspaper's staff. (The Times did publish a number of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but none that pictured Muhammad; in addition, a short documentary video, published by the opinion side in The Times last week, showed the cartoons.)

Mr. Baquet made a tough call, which included safety concerns for Times staff, especially those in international posts. (Those concerns are far from frivolous; just days ago, a German newspaper's office was firebombed after it published the cartoons following the attack, and now new concerns have arisen about reprisals.)

I certainly don't think that decision was "cowardly," as many have charged. Mr. Baquet told me repeatedly in recent days that he was paying attention to reader comments on last week's blog post, and that he found them thoughtful and, in many cases, eloquent. He also passed along to me examples of correspondence from readers who thanked him for The Times's restraint and sensitivity last week.

In my post last week, I called for a review of The Times's standards, which Mr. Baquet told me were the basis for not publishing any examples of the Muhammad cartoons. One question, surely, is whether guidelines on offensive images are applied rigorously across the board; many readers have doubted this. Another is at what point news judgment ought to trump the likelihood of offending some readers.

I asked Mr. Baquet on Tuesday if he had considered changing course — as some media organizations did, including The Wall Street Journal and the news pages of the The Washington Post — in order to publish the image of the new edition's cover. He told me that he had thought about it but decided against it, in keeping with his original thinking.

Here's my take: The new cover image of Charlie Hebdo is an important part of a story that has gripped the world's attention over the past week.

The cartoon itself, while it may disturb the sensibilities of a small percentage of Times readers, is neither shocking nor gratuitously offensive. And it has, undoubtedly, significant news value.

With Charlie Hebdo's expanded press run of millions of copies for this post-attack edition, and a great deal of global coverage, the image is being seen, judged and commented on all over the world. Times readers should not have had to go elsewhere to find it.

[Grallon]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

Can we say a civilization has spent itself into irrelevancy when it proclaims with one hand principles that it violates without conscious volition with the other?



G.

[garbon]

I've got to say, the arrest of Dieudonne (whatever his merits a comedian/provacateur...as he seems to have been sinking into paranoid anti-semitism over the last few years) just for a relatively tame Facebook post, scarcely more offensive than plenty of CH stuff, it seems to badly give the lie to this whole "freedom of speech in the West(tm) is about the right to offend without fear of repercussion" and is hard to see as anything but really tone-deaf hypocrisy, especially given it was the State itself that has gone after him rather than any independent extremists.

Can we say a civilization has spent itself into irrelevancy when it proclaims with one hand principles that it violates without conscious volition with the other?



G.

Now who is hating on French speakers?