Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    Two Femen protesters were arrested after baring their breasts at a controversial conference near Paris on the role of Muslim women.

    According to Inna Shevchenko, a spokeswoman for the feminist protest group, two fundamentalist preachers were discussing the question of “whether wives should be beaten or not” when the activists, aged 25 and 31, ripped off their Arab-style cloaks and jumped on to the stage on Saturday evening. One had the slogan “No one subjugates me” inked across her torso. The other bore the words “I am my own prophet.”

    The protesters, aged 25 and 31, grabbed microphones and shouted feminist slogans in French and Arabic before being roughly bundled off the stage by about 15 men and handed over to police. Video footage of the incident shows a man apparently kicking one of the women.

    According to Ms Shevchenko, some of the men shouted “dirty whores” and “kill them”. She thanked the police for protecting the two women, who were taken into custody. They were released after being questioned by prosecutors, who said they would continue investigating what happened. Conference organisers said they would press charges against the activists.

    They were not alone in taking exception to the presence of fundamentalist preachers at the event, where shopping and cooking were showcased as appropriate “feminine activities”. One speaker at the conference has reportedly posted calls on social networks for women to veil their faces or risk hellfire and sexual assault in the afterlife.

    Nearly 6,000 people signed an online petition against the event.

    Twitter posts called for the protesters to be stoned or collectively raped.

    On Facebook, the conference organisers urged Muslims to “stand together” and attend the final day of the event on Sunday. They said it was “the victim of an anti-Muslim media frenzy.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-on-women.html

    for certain reasons pics are not embeded in this thread.
    look. i think this all just one big misunderstanding. as well all know islam is a religion of PEACE. and these men are quite OBVIOUSLY not real muslims.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm336)
    Incitement against themselves is not incitement?



    That's the hyperbole and hysterics I was talking about.
    I said 'explicitly'. They never once told anyone to go out and kill or harm others. They satirized and criticized Islam. Just because some nutters decide to act on those words does not mean they were explicitly inciting hatred.

    Stop being apologetic and trying to victim blame.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by getfunky!)

    tl;dr - I don't sympathise with the "protesters" at all, they are thugs and do nothing positive at all for women's rights.
    Mhmmm

    Maybe you shouldn't be a political ambassador..
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by getfunky!)
    Quite, they were discussing it, but it was an opportunity for any opposing views to be put forward in a good manner, not for this brutish behaviour - they decided to wade in and interrupt an event for discussion organised/paid for by the hosts, and expect their voices to be taken seriously..

    Y'know I don't find this very different than the thugs who burn poppies at processions - you won't achieve any sympathy for your concerns by behaving in such a manner.
    I am questioning your choice of word, namely, calling it a peaceful discussion. These are leaders in their field and obviously their opinion is valued and followed by many. The issue here is that by showing any support towards wife beating, they are in effect inciting violence.

    I am not too sure one can talk about "peaceful incitement of violence".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm336)
    They were inciting hatred, albeit against themselves.

    Doesn't change the fact that they were inciting.
    Wrong. Simply because someone reacts violently to you does not mean you were inciting violence. If Charlie had gone ahead and thrown at death threats and then gone ahead and stated "try to kill us in our office, bet you can't", then you would have a point.

    People can take offence and react with violence to anything. It doesn't matter what topic or viewpoint it is. I've seen people getting punched for just saying "Star Wars is a great franchise".

    You can claim hyperbole all you want, but it isn't. You're attempting to shift some of the blame onto Charlie.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ****ing disgusting. What about the religious freedom of women???? You know, women, the most religious demographic.

    Muslims are people. Get over yourselves, "enlightened" *****.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm336)
    Did Charlie Hebdo foresee such a reaction to their cartoon publications?

    If the answer is no, then they were not inciting.
    If the answer is yes, well, then they were inciting.



    With all due respect, that example is incomparable.

    No. There is no possible way that Charlie or any sane person would expect such a reaction to their work. People have criticized Christianity far worse than that without violent responses, and there is no reason Islam should be given special status.

    See, in the west we have this thing called freedom of speech, where we allow people to voice their opinions (within reason) without fear of violence or persecution. We're not in a backwards nation in the middle east.

    That was not a direct comparison. I was highlighting how people can get hit for anything and everything. By your logic, since they got a violent reaction, they would also be responsible for inciting violence.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm336)
    Did Charlie Hebdo foresee such a reaction to their cartoon publications?

    If the answer is no, then they were not inciting.
    If the answer is yes, well, then they were inciting.



    With all due respect, that example is incomparable.



    Falling back on hyperbole, hysterics and rhetoric is not a good way to put forward an argument.
    I kiss a man in a violent homophobic area. I'm "inciting violence". Um, no.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Hmm topless women or Islamic fundamentalists, let me see.

    Who would I prefer to be surrounded by on a crowded tube train?
    Topless women who hate for being man or Crazy Islamic Fundies who probably hate me for not being a Muslim.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I am questioning your choice of word, namely, calling it a peaceful discussion. These are leaders in their field and obviously their opinion is valued and followed by many. The issue here is that by showing any support towards wife beating, they are in effect inciting violence.

    I am not too sure one can talk about "peaceful incitement of violence".
    It was a discussion, no violence had taken place during the event prior to the incident, they were discussing whether violence towards women would be justified (spoiler: it's not) - they were discussing it in a peaceful manner.

    tl;dr - sensational titles are used for events, it's a norm, that doesn't necessarily mean it represents the concluding points of the discussion, Who knows what the discussion really would've led to, i doubt it would've have contradicted French laws concerning spousal violence:iiam: but all I've come across in this thread is speculation, and generalisations.

    (Original post by Schrödingers Cat)
    Mhmmm

    Maybe you shouldn't be a political ambassador..
    ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    No. There is no possible way that Charlie or any sane person would expect such a reaction to their work. People have criticized Christianity far worse than that without violent responses, and there is no reason Islam should be given special status.
    So why did they have armed guards if they did not foresee a level of hostility towards their actions, in publishing what many consider to be quite offensive cartoons?

    See, in the west we have this thing called freedom of speech, where we allow people to voice their opinions (within reason) without fear of violence or persecution. We're not in a backwards nation in the middle east.
    See, in this world, we have something called consequences. We are not in your fantasy land where there are just independent actions and no follow up reactions.

    That was not a direct comparison. I was highlighting how people can get hit for anything and everything. By your logic, since they got a violent reaction, they would also be responsible for inciting violence.
    Perhaps if the person had form, and if it was said deliberately in order to provoke them and if he had armed bodyguards, then yeah, it may have been slightly relevant and comparable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    I kiss a man in a violent homophobic area. I'm "inciting violence". Um, no.
    But you realise that your action will result in a reaction (i.e: a consequence) from another party?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm336)
    But you realise that your action will result in a reaction (i.e: a consequence) from another party?
    Yes, you are aware that someone might be violent but you don't take that into account. I imagine it would be hard to call it incitement of violence in Court.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm336)
    So why did they have armed guards if they did not foresee a level of hostility towards their actions, in publishing what many consider to be quite offensive cartoons?

    See, in this world, we have something called consequences. We are not in your fantasy land where there are just independent actions and no follow up reactions.

    Perhaps if the person had form, and if it was said deliberately in order to provoke them and if he had armed bodyguards, then yeah, it may have been slightly relevant and comparable.
    That is a fallacious statement. Precaution does not equivocate to expectation. This is like saying I expect my house to burn down because I have a smoke detector and sprinklers in my house.

    Yes we have consequences for actions, but no one should have violence against them for criticism or satire, particularly against religion.

    That is one of the things that separates us from the backwards Muslim nations. This is not some fantasy land where people are allowed free speech. This is one of the core tenets of civilized nations, and attacks like this highlight why religious fundamentalism is such a threat.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Yes, you are aware that someone might be violent but you don't take that into account. I imagine it would be hard to call it incitement of violence in Court.
    I believe the courts term it "provocation". Two sides of the same coin...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    "A family event"... On whether wives should be beaten or not.

    :facepalm:
    the point is a discussion was being had, you cant defeat ****ty ideas without discussion
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    That is a fallacious statement. Precaution does not equivocate to expectation. This is like saying I expect my house to burn down because I have a smoke detector and sprinklers in my house.
    They had armed guards because they, as a publication, had previous form. They all knew what happened in Denmark and there were active threats against them yet they stupidly went ahead and printed those cartoons.

    Yes we have consequences for actions, but no one should have violence against them for criticism or satire, particularly against religion.
    Charlie Hebdo don't criticize, nor do they do satire. They offer no solutions and indeed, one can be a cynic and say that they only decided to publish the offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad because they were in financial difficulties, and knowing the expected reaction of Muslims globally, they would be able to sell millions of copies which would put them firmly in the black.

    Indeed, some of the cartoonists are now quibbling over the donations that poured in. I guess the death of a certain number of people is worth it if it makes you a few bucks.

    That is one of the things that separates us from the backwards Muslim nations. This is not some fantasy land where people are allowed free speech. This is one of the core tenets of civilized nations, and attacks like this highlight why religious fundamentalism is such a threat.
    Freedom of speech does not absolve you from responsibility for the chain reaction that you may cause.

    Freedom of speech does not alleviate your accountability.

    Freedom of speech does not negate your wish to stigmatize and marginalize a particular group of people, whom you dearly wish were not part of your societal makeup.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm336)
    But you realise that your action will result in a reaction (i.e: a consequence) from another party?
    And this is the problem right here. Gay people should not have to hide in the shadows and in secrecy. They should not have to fear persecution and prejudice in the first place.

    "Well the gay people shouldn't have been out kissing in public" is a typical argument used by people who try to justify attacks on homosexuals or attempt to shift blame to the victims.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    And this is the problem right here. Gay people should not have to hide in the shadows and in secrecy. They should not have to fear persecution and prejudice in the first place.
    I didn't say they should.

    "Well the gay people shouldn't have been out kissing in public" is a typical argument used by people who try to justify attacks on homosexuals or attempt to shift blame to the victims.
    I'd take the same line with any heterosexual couple and that is, keep it within your own home.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm336)
    They had armed guards because they, as a publication, had previous form. They all knew what happened in Denmark and there were active threats against them yet they stupidly went ahead and printed those cartoons.


    Charlie Hebdo don't criticize, nor do they do satire. They offer no solutions and indeed, one can be a cynic and say that they only decided to publish the offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad because they were in financial difficulties, and knowing the expected reaction of Muslims globally, they would be able to sell millions of copies which would put them firmly in the black.

    Indeed, some of the cartoonists are now quibbling over the donations that poured in. I guess the death of a certain number of people is worth it if it makes you a few bucks.



    Freedom of speech does not absolve you from responsibility for the chain reaction that you may cause.
    Freedom of speech does not alleviate your accountability.

    Freedom of speech does not negate your wish to stigmatize and marginalize a particular group of people, whom you dearly wish were not part of your societal makeup.
    Again, you are still spouting the same fallacy. Precaution is not the same this as expectation. Do you really think that if they were seriously expecting attacks of terror, they would have had just one single guard in a booth somewhere while being minimally armed. Get real.

    Satire: "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices"

    ^
    This is an example of satire from Charlie. ("100 lashes if you don't die from laughter" It's an excellent cover that pokes fun of the barbaric practice of lashings in the ME while jokingly emphasizing their content.

    Financial gains or motivations are irrelevant. They do not need to offer an explanation for their humour, nor should they have to offer a justification for their content. They should not have to fear violence and persecution for making a statement protected by free speech.

    Ah, but this is the issue. There should not have been any violent chain reaction to begin with. There should not have been any kind of physical attack as a result of their statements, at least not here in Europe. We have free speech for a reason, and that is to be able to express ourselves. Free speech laws protect you from censorship. There is no excuse for murder and it is unacceptable to blame victims for being within the bounds of the law.

    You are using typical victim blaming tactics to try and shift the blame. It is no different than the people who try and justify the murders of say journalists for trying to expose corrupt politicians. "Oh well they should have thought about it before they published it". Rubbish. This is Europe and we do not pander to any religion out of fear of persecution. If you do not appreciate these freedoms, this is the wrong continent for you.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 17, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.