Why I'm not Charlie and never will be

No, i don't want the representation of Charlie. By doing this we're making a righteous human rights figure like mlk or something. I am a European citizen that values free speech and religion and expression, I just don't want to be backed by the representation of someone who mocks beliefs.

It's an ingenious byword designed to equate criticism of Islam to racial prejudice. It's done wonders for terrorists and extremists worldwide.

I personally draw the line at insulting the religious dogma of about 5 million of your countrymen (correct me if I'm wrong).

I will defend the right of others to attack things that are subjective without loss of life, but no further.

btw guys this is absolutely perfect for my epq so thanks

Charlie Hebdo was a disgusting human being, to put it mildly, but still I don't support the killing of another just because they offended you. My issue with this entire situation is that the media are purporting this as something intrinsic in islamic culture; that is, that Muslims think it's acceptable to respond in such a way to mockery. Honestly, I disagree with that idea completely. I think we should categorize and understand the behaviour and motivation of the gunmen as exactly what it is, a horrible, irrational but completely understandable psychological (and human) response. When you mock something that holds sentimental value to someone, they become angry, and sadly some of them become violent. That sentimentality isn't restricted to religion nevermind exclusively to Islam or Muslims.

I dunno, just my 2p.

Nobody supports his killing, at all. But we all agree he was a foul human-being


Posted from TSR Mobile

To be honest the word doesn't even make sense to me. Most people aren't afraid of islam, they just don't like it or its teachings.

And considering everything going on in the past 20 years or so I wouldn't say it's irrational to dislike it

I don't know about the first cartoon, but second cartoon is only appears racist when taken out of context. It's satire.

"I personally draw the line at insulting the religious dogma of about 5 million of your countrymen (correct me if I'm wrong)."

Why draw such an arbitrary line?

What was its context exactly?

IMO publishing caustic cartoons about religion can be divisive and in a country which isn't well-known for it's religious tolerance, also dangerous for members of that religion. More specifically, I draw the line at religion because mocking (not criticizing, mocking) something that is intrinsic to somebody's beliefs is at the height of disrespect.

There are many good reasons to fear Islam (look at Iran, Pakistan, etc. for its practical application).

You're completely right about it not being irrational to dislike it. For the religious to win the war against civilisation they first need to monopolise and destroy education. 'Islamophobia' is a genius way of moving towards that aim. People don't question it; they're too scared to.

Very good point about the practical application. The last 50 years in those countries has not helped its case at all.

To be honest I think it's as ridiculous as all these different sexual labels made by tumblr.

I do think that eventually, a stand will be made

Je suis Charlie because I stand up for freedom of speech and expression in a Western democracy. However, we all have different views, it's absurd to expect everyone to stand up for that.

Is it? That's precisely *why* everyone should stand up for that. The thing that binds us together should be to accept that people can have and express whatever views they please (within the constraints of laws on harassment, etc.).

You are getting into very dangerous territory by measuring such a thing by the number of people who purport to be offended. Millions of indoctrinated North Koreans are probably offended by insults against Kim Jong-un, do you think those numbers make that offence more valid?

Religious beliefs are fallible ideology which should be open to satire, mockery and criticism in an open society. Satire is often the most effective attack against something which is considered perfect, beyond reproach and which dominates a group of people - see satire against absolute monarchs in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.



Ah, so if maniacs decide to respond to subjective offence with violence, you no longer defend the right to engage in such subjective offence? So if the far-right is offended by the Qur'an and decides to attack people, that's where you refrain from defending the right of the Qur'an to be published?

I'm not arguing that the size of the population means that they shouldn't be offended and that smaller groups can fend for themselves, I used the stat because I think that publishing something which insults 5 million of your countrymen for a common reason is wrong. Do you think that caricaturing the prophet Mohammad just because you can, whilst also offending millions of people is a good thing to do? Personally I wouldn't argue that I'm a nice person but for me what I think of when I hear the words "freedom of speech" is not that, which is why I would say "Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo".

I was thinking about putting "violence" instead of death but I thought that I'd make it more specific to Charlie Hebdo. For the record, I don't think that anybody should be threatened with physical violence for what they say. Thanks for pointing it out though because it was worded insensitive of those who have their freedom of speech infringed.

Think about that statement for a moment, then swiftly retract. Absolutely daft.