The cartoon you have attached is not hate speech. I have explained why not here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3072747&page=14&p=52847287#post52847287

I believe Charlie Hebdo has been taken to court several times over accusations of racism and hate and has always been found not guilty.

I suspect you aren't aware that, of the four cartoonists that were murdered at Charlie Hebdo, one was a Jew and another was a Sufist. Perhaps you could explain how a group why such members is likely to be publishing items that could be defined as hateful?

Reply 1325

El Salvador

21

Original post by arichmond64

= Charlie Hebdo was not hate speech - Fact

Great minds think alike. :tongue:

Reply 1326

GodAtum

17

it would be bad if a magazine puiblished rasict cartoons, so why is it ok for one to publish carttons which offend certain groups?

Reply 1327

Good bloke

19

Original post by GodAtum

it would be bad if a magazine puiblished rasict cartoons, so why is it ok for one to publish carttons which offend certain groups?

You will (I hope) understand why if you follow the following logic flowchart:

1. Would it be acceptable to challenge or to make comments to or about a murdering dictactor's regime and the beliefs that are behind it, even if the leaders of the regime were offended?

2. If not, then you must be happy to live in a world in which nothing can be challenged, must accept your lot meekly and should never take part in debates. Be aware, though, that your well-being and safety and the world you live in (if you are western) has been produced as a result of the process this flowchart describes, and that you benefit from it. The debate, for you, ends here. Goodbye.

Alternatively, you are the sort of person who will physically attack or otherwise repress the views of those who are prepared to challenge you. In which case, goodbye.

3. If it is acceptable to make such challenges then is it also acceptable to challenge the beliefs and practices of people who claim to be Jedi or who claim to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarians), even if such challenges offend them?

4. If it is not acceptable to challenge such people then return to point 2 of this flowchart.

5. If it is acceptable to make such challenges, do you have a certain means of determining which of the extant religions represents the truth and a god that is worthy of worship, or do you accept there is room for doubt? If the former, go step 6 below; if the latter go to step 7.

6. Congratulations! Publish your method and results, receive adulation and life-everlasting and accept the plaudits of the world, but be prepared for ructions from those that disagree with you (and that may be offended by your statements and conclusions. This flowchart ends here for you.

7. Is it acceptable to debate which religion is the right one to follow, and to criticise the beliefs and practices of religions you do not agree with, even if your statements and arguments might offend the adherents of those religions? If not, go to step 2; if so go to step 8.

8. If you have arrived at this step you have established that it is acceptable to robustly debate people's beliefs and to challenge them, even if they might be offended by such a challenge. Congratulations! You have signed up to the modern western idea of freedom of thought and understand why it is acceptable to be able to behave in this way.

Underlying all this is the fact that a person's skin colour or ethnicity cannot be changed and that it is unacceptable to challenge them because of it, whereas their beliefs and behaviour can be changed (and are therefore fair game for challenge).

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1328

Fullofsurprises

20

Am I the only one feeling disgusted by some of the hypocrisy on display from government leaders at the big rallies in Paris yesterday?

What is the point of leading a march to defend freedom of speech against terror, when at the same time your governments bolster some of the most anti-free speech governments on the planet, who routinely practise terror against those who want free speech? For example Saudi Arabia.

Even as France, Britain, Germany and other countries attending the rally championed the cause, they are busy selling massive weapons systems, oppressive military equipment and the like to the governments in the Arab world that actively spread Salafism, which is one of the main causes of the wave of extremist Islam and the Jihadi movement. Saudi Arabia and its close allies in the Gulf are, in their internal treatment of protest, women, human rights and freedom of speech, not particularly different to ISIS. It's only a matter of degree.

All of the main western powers in fact are deeply allied with some of the worst and most brutal regimes on the planet who use extremist Islam as a tool to control their citizens and prevent the natural growth of democracy. That in turn helps to feed the Jihadi cause, as extremists in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and the west can point to the western powers with some justification as opposed to the ordinary Muslim and particularly to the poor and oppressed.

Reply 1329

1732757

16

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Am I the only one feeling disgusted by some of the hypocrisy on display from government leaders at the big rallies in Paris yesterday?

What is the point of leading a march to defend freedom of speech against terror, when at the same time your governments bolster some of the most anti-free speech governments on the planet, who routinely practise terror against those who want free speech? For example Saudi Arabia.

Even as France, Britain, Germany and other countries attending the rally championed the cause, they are busy selling massive weapons systems, oppressive military equipment and the like to the governments in the Arab world that actively spread Salafism, which is one of the main causes of the wave of extremist Islam and the Jihadi movement. Saudi Arabia and its close allies in the Gulf are, in their internal treatment of protest, women, human rights and freedom of speech, not particularly different to ISIS. It's only a matter of degree.

All of the main western powers in fact are deeply allied with some of the worst and most brutal regimes on the planet who use extremist Islam as a tool to control their citizens and prevent the natural growth of democracy. That in turn helps to feed the Jihadi cause, as extremists in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and the west can point to the western powers with some justification as opposed to the ordinary Muslim and particularly to the poor and oppressed.

This

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1330

GodAtum

17

why didnt the polcie use gas to knock theem out instead of storming the stores?

Reply 1331

Good bloke

19

Original post by GodAtum

why didnt the polcie use gas to knock theem out instead of storming the stores?

Tear gas doesn't knock people out. The last time an anti-terrorist force used gas to free hostages it resulted in the deaths of over 130 hostages.

Reply 1332

ShotsFired-9941

7

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Saudi Arabia and its close allies in the Gulf are, in their internal treatment of protest, women, human rights and freedom of speech, not particularly different to ISIS.