That was not only "drawing cartoons".... unfortunately... This is what most of the people refuse to accept or understand. It was "mocking" spiritual values of the poor and, as the author mentions is that brilliant article, non-privileged.
Its understood, we simply do not agree.
Why should religion (any) be given a privileged status at all?
You also seem to be under the impression that religion is poor, its not, certainly not the three Abrahamic ones, not but any shot. I think you may be mistaking the use of religion to subjugate the poor with religion being poor.
Do not even try to point to the "western culture", because (like many others through the history) was suffocated by hatred, abuses and crimes.
So because its different one is wrong and the other is right?
9/11 jokes are not ok in any form of shape. Only the fact that those caricatures were not published by the rest of the media and were not shown on television, shows how offensive they were, but, during the years, everybody smiled, looked the other way and ignored the profound abusive cartoons. The fact that Charlie Hebdo mocked everybody created a safe cover for the abuse towards, again, the non-privileged.
Please explain why you get to tell me that I must subscribe to your worldview?
By what mandate do you get to enforce your world view on others?
No one is forced to view this material, quite literally is coverage in the vast majority of Muslim nations would have been zero had it not been for people pointing it out and asking 'are you not offended by this'!
It doesn't not directly harm anyone, nor does it impede on the rights of anyone. Those who do not like it, find it offensive or simply unfunny are well within their rights to respond in a proportionate manner. Voice it in the media, intelligently denounce it, counter it with material of a similar nature, ignore it.
All of these can and should be done in a society that understand its the only way to coexist, banning people from free expression that doesn't do harm or cause harm to be done (and I'm talking actual harm - not hurt feelings) must never happen.
I am not against humor at all, but when you produce it you will need to frame it properly as "pamphlet" or some sort of comedy form of art. You only say whatever and whenever only if you are from "Coo-coo's nest", not from the real society, because everybody understands how society, in order to function properly, needs to promote/have individual respect as the fundamental value of it's core.
That's why, the first thing you want to teach your kids is to be respectful, and understand the relation between respect and humor from a very young age.
If you step in a temple, church, mosque, synagogue and try to make any kind of joke, first you will look stupid and then you will feel stupid, only because of your lack of respect while treated with respect. It is mostly education.
None of this was done in a place of worship at all, had it been so that would have been potentially a violation of freedom of religion (not to mention most likely trespass), laws are already in place to protect this.
What you are asking for is a mandate to control what people can say, when what they are saying doesn't impact on the rights of others.
None of this was done in a
Comparing a "President" with a "God" or "Prophet" is amusing and it is not a good example.
Why?
You are correct - an AK47 is not an answer, but is a sign of desperation. Those people don't want to win because, at that point in their life, they are convinced 100% there is no real possibility for them to have a chance to be successful. We, as a developed society, need to understand, find the right approach and help them to adapt. Charlie Hebdo was not part of such a "plan". Terror by a criminal act, will inflict some damage (that is the only thing they can do) but wont resolve (they already know) the problem.
Yes because no socio-economic drivers exist behind this an need to be addressed at all. If we stop drawing pictures then ISIS will leave us alone.
By following the money, you will understand Charlie's Hebdo politics. Every action (editorial policy) has a logical (from a given perspective) reason. The owners of Charle Hebdo allowed (not did) that to happened, by encouraging the stupid humor. They had an option to draw an ETHICAL line, but they did not.
If anybody thinks this was, or is, about freedom of speech, is wrong. It is about abuse of non-privileged. That form of humor was/is a form of harsh rejection, because those people identify themselves with their values. Well, most of you will say, that still is not enough to get an AK47 and kill, and you will be partially correct as long as you will not consider the context. It looks like most of the European countries have a problem (hard to say if it's big or not) with immigration - Muslims immigration in particular. These nations (which essentially are identified by their people) feel their identity threaten by these waves of Muslims, the vast majority of them refugees running for their lives. Well, make the story short, basic human ethical unwritten rule, do not mock the victims, the non-privileged. That is stupid, mean and irresponsible. Better try to help.
Have you actually seen all of the CH material?
Much of it doesn't mock the victims at all, it mocks those that would use religion to ferment violence and hatred in the name of said religion, it mocks the same people who are targeting these victims, it mocks the people within religion who control the money and power and don't use it to help those of the same faith who are poor and suffering.
