France General

[oxmox 73]

Those figures are extremely small, a few hundred people each time, probably manipulated by extremists.

Lets see if in other countries the figures raise aswell......

Hundreds of thousands protest in Chechnya against Mohammad cartoons

Hundreds of thousands of people protested in Russia's Chechnya region on Monday against what its Kremlin-backed leader called the "vulgar and immoral" cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad published by French newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

Mixing pro-Islamic chants and anti-Western rhetoric, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov criticized Europe to chants of "Allahu Akbar" (God is greatest) as the protesters stood along the main thoroughfare of Chechnya's capital, Grozny.

The Kremlin may see the protest as a way to vent pressure from Russia's Muslims after a similar rally was banned in Moscow. ( ? I thought someone did show already demonstrations from russia )

Wow......---> Russia's Interior Ministry said 800,000 people had attended the rally -- about 60 percent of Chechnya's population. Reuters witnesses put the number at several hundred thousand.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/19/us-france-shooting-chechnya-idUSKBN0KS1C920150119

Around 15,000 people joined a similar rally in the neighboring Russian republic of Ingushetia on Saturday, according to Russian news agencies.

http://www.dw.de/hundreds-of-thousands-join-anti-charlie-rally-in-chechnya/a-18200533

Up to 800,000 Chechens protest over cartoons of prophet Muhammad

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/19/chechens-protest-cartoons-prophet-muhammad-charlie-hebdo

Holy shit, these are extreme high figures for this country...more than half of the population.

Edited January 19, 2015 by oxmox

[ProfTournesol 956]

Moreover there are such things as respect towards others. I dont understand why we shouldnt show respect towards muslims but dare not to touch jews, as Charlie Hebdo have shown themselves.

Charlie Hebdo has made a lot of caricatures, on Jews, Christians (very often), Muslims, but most of the time about French inner politics (you know, François Hollande and his girlfriends etc.). Their journalists are politically from the left side (several are/were members of the communist party, or what is left of it), and nobody can call them "islamophobic", that's absolutely ridiculous.

I could turn it the other way 'round. Before the slaughter, nobody was reading this newspaper in France (40 000 sales each week), now 7 000 000 people have bought it (including me, who haven't ever bought it before....now i have bought a one year subscription).

Finally, i'm no stupid enough not to understand what common sense should dictate ATM, particularly to protect our strategical interests in Niger. Infuriating muslims isn't the wiser thing to do.

But nonetheless, being in a secular country, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE RELIGION BELIEFS AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT OF BLASPHEMY. If people want to believe in fairy tales, they are free to do it, but i have the right not to, and to criticize them, as long as it doesn't go against my own national law.

Wise ? Nope. Necessary ? More than ever.

Quoting the BBC about the freedom of speach and its limits :

Directly provoking or publicly condoning terrorism in France now commands a five-year jail term and a fine of €75,000. And if it is done online, the penalty can be extended to seven years and €100,000 (£76,000; $116,000).

So for the many French who did not feel "je suis Charlie", where does France now see the boundary between freedom of speech and condoning terrorism?

The right to say, write or print what you want is rooted in the declaration of rights that came with the 1789 French Revolution, but even then abuse of that freedom was limited by law.

Those exceptions were defined in 1881 (in French) as defamation, slander and incitement to hate. There is also explicit reference to condoning crimes of war, crimes against humanity or collaboration with the enemy.

However, not since the revolution has blasphemy been against the law in France, and according to Mr Valls it never will.

Edited January 19, 2015 by ProfTournesol

[Rydygier 1302]

WE HAVE THE RIGHT OF BLASPHEMY.

Right isn't a duty. So if unwise... In my country I have right to smoke. I'm not doing that though, since it's IMO unwise. For same reason I'm in general avoiding offending other people, despite freedom of speech. Is France such a strange country, where freedom would die without people using it to do wrong/stupid things?

Edited January 19, 2015 by Rydygier

[oxmox 73]

Right isn't a duty. So if unwise... In my country I have right to smoke the cigarettes. I'm not doing that though, since it's IMO unwise. For same reason we're in general avoiding offending other people, despite freedom of speech. Is France a country, where freedom would die without people using it to do wrong/stupid things?

People should respect religious believer and I think blashphemie is not always needed to express critics.

Freedom means also that you have the freedom of decision, not only the freedom of expression by all means because you just can.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Right isn't a duty. So if uwise... In my country I have right to smoke the cigarettes. I'm not doing that though, since it's IMO unwise.

A right is a right. Nobody can go against it, particularly from abroad, from countries where the Human rights are most of the time not respected.

Muslims are protected by the given secular system in Europe, and particularly in France where they are extremely numerous. Those who I know have perfectly understood that, even if they dislike those cartoons, they do accept them, and wouldn't want to go into those islamic countries where those cartoons are forbidden.

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:24 ----------

People should respect religious believer and I think blashphemie is not always needed to express critics.

Freedom means also that you have the freedom of decision, not only the freedom of expression by all means because you just can.

But Charlie's journalists decided to to it, that's deliberate, nobody is forced to read this newspaper, and nobody can tell me what i can read. The only limit is the law, which came from the French revolution.

In your country your religion is on your ID card, not in mine.

[Sooke 13]

Right isn't a duty. So if unwise... In my country I have right to smoke. I'm not doing that though, since it's IMO unwise. For same reason I'm in general avoiding offending other people, despite freedom of speech. Is France such a strange country, where freedom would die without people using it to do wrong/stupid things?

So if tomorrow some people living far away from Poland would order you to ban smoking, because it hurts their feelings, because it's banned in their country, because they have a book where it says it's forbidden, you would just comply ?

...

[badluckburt 78]

People should respect religious believer

Can I ask why?

People earn my respect based on what they do and who they are, not what they believe in.

[oxmox 73]

Can I ask why?

People earn my respect based on what they do and who they are, not what they believe in.

Actually, religion is for quiete a lot of people in the world the base for what they do and who they are.

Iam not that religious myself, but can I ask why should someone not respect religious feelings of people who are going to church and believe on God and Jesus Christ ?

There are for examle native people around the world, based on their religious believes they do not want to be photographed which has something to do with their soul. Should someone respect this and or just dont care and take images without asking, without being respectful ?

There are so many examples where respect plays a role and where religion is an essential base for their lifestyle, culture, socializing and personality....

Dont make the mistake to look at it from only your own point of view.

Edited January 19, 2015 by oxmox

[Sooke 13]

But who defines which beliefs can or cannot be mocked ? The non-believer or the person who holds the beliefs ?

Edited January 19, 2015 by Sooke

[mistyronin 1181]

For one side, people's religious believes must be respected as a part of their being. Even if they believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But not religion itself as concept, nor Gods. Mocking our own Gods and traditions is an intrinsic part of the European culture ( you can already find some text in the ancient Roman times ).

Meaning everyone is free to believe in whatever they want, and to attend to whatever church they want as long as they don't force others to act in the same way.

For instance, the fact that Muhammad can't be drawn by certain parts of the Islam, doesn't mean that it applies to non-Muslims. The same goes for the Ramadan, alcohol and pork abstinence, etc.

Some say that Charlie Hebdo cartoonist were anti-Islam, it's not true, they were against all the religions, they depicted the Christian God, the Jewish, etc.

PD: I was educated in a deeply devoted Christian family.

[oxmox 73]

But who defines which beliefs can or cannot be mocked ?

Your education, your character and moral, your social behaviour, the society, sometimes laws and also leaders of certain religions.

Who defines how we act in society, thats a similar question isnt it ?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Quoting the BBC

What does the Koran, the holy book of Islam, say?

There is no specific, or explicit ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn.

However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."

This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.

The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.

Chapter 21, verses 52-54 of the Koran read: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"

From this arises the Muslim belief that images can give rise to idolatry - that is to say an image, rather than the divine being it symbolises, can become the object of worship and veneration.

What does Islamic tradition say on the matter?

Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions.

More widely, Islamic tradition has discouraged the figurative depiction of living creatures, especially human beings. Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative.

Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found.

What's banned from the book itself is the idolatry, not the irony.

[Rydygier 1302]

So if tomorrow some people living far away from Poland would order you to ban smoking, because it hurts their feelings, because it's banned in their country, because they have a book where it says it's forbidden, you would just comply ?

Nope. But also wouldn't start smoking or smoking more just to show them, they can't forbid me. Because I've no need to prove them, I'm free. I've said - defend freedom wisely. Submission to terror is here as unwise, as intentional, irresponsible provoking more violence by some non-sense demonstrative impudence.

Can I ask why?

People earn my respect based on what they do and who they are, not what they believe in.

Respect for a person and respect for his opinions/deeds are two different things IMO. Of course, if someone believes seriously, then his faith shapes, what he is and what he do - how he chooses in life.

I've "default" respect to every human being just by the fact, he is a person, no matter, what he did. But I have no respect for anything, I recognize wrong. Still, I wouldn't offend without right reason anyone's beliefs even, if seems false to me (like Islam). Not because of respect towards that beliefs, which I haven't, but because respect to a believer, who I would hurt or make him do something wrong in anger with my criticism, if taken as offense. Conscience stuff.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Rydygier

[badluckburt 78]

Actually, religion is for quiete a lot of people in the world the base for what they do and who they are.

Iam not that religious myself, but can I ask why should someone not respect religious feelings of people who are going to church and believe on God and Jesus Christ ?

There are for examle native people around the world, based on their religious believes they do not want to be photographed which has something to do with their soul. Should someone respect this and or just dont care and take images without asking, without being respectful ?

There are so many examples where respect plays a role and where religion is an essential base for their lifestyle, culture, socializing and personality....

Dont make the mistake to look at it from only your own point of view.

I just believe through my own experiences that there's good and bad people. Wether they're religious or not usually doesn't change much about that fact. Some people are under the impression that they 'need' religion to be good people or even function as a human being, I had a long discussion with a Hindu about that once.

As far as photographing natives goes, I believe that's a very different matter as it affects those people directly. They're actual human beings and ignoring a request which they have every right to make is just wrong, simple as that.

A drawn picture of Muhammed shouldn't be a problem in my opinion. He's not alive, he's not gonna get angry, he's not even gonna flinch. Doesn't one of the verses say someone dropped the contents of their toilet bowl on his head and he didn't get mad? Why do people have to die just for drawing a picture of him then?

- edit

@Rydygier

I understand what you're saying but if someone is never told that they're wrong, that person will never learn. If they don't want to hear it, they're free to ignore me. I never take it to them, it's only when they come to me that they will get my views but I will not shy away from expressing them when a lot of them spew their garbage about basically anything 'different' from their frame of reference.

But for me, anyone who chooses to end an argument with threats of any sort or violence loses by default. If you can't at least defend your beliefs with words, there's something seriously wrong with it.

In the end, it's like politics I guess. As long as people don't discuss it, everything's fine but when they do, all hell breaks loose.

Edited January 19, 2015 by BadLuckBurt

[Rydygier 1302]

I understand what you're saying but if someone is never told that they're wrong, that person will never learn.

Yes, agreed. So I said about right reason. And was saying specifically about religious beliefs. I don't believe :P believer will learn, his religion is false because I would say so (because choice of faith/beliefs is made on a priori dogma level, not due certain chain of argumentation, that could be affected by any counter arguments), or the more when I'll make some bad mockery on his faith. If I do not forsee any good from that, but on the contrary - just, as plainly can be forseen, when you blaspheme in media against Islam, I'm rather silent, as I find it wiser in such situation. If I forsee more good, than bad - then I may speak. But with respect, not sneeringly anyway, because in any case my intention should be to help someone find the truth (what I consider as such) not infuriate or humiliate - this way is disrespectful towards person itself and in fact implies ill will, thus is wrong IMO, even apart from forseen bad consequences.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Rydygier

[oxmox 73]

I just believe through my own experiences that there's good and bad people. Wether they're religious or not usually doesn't change much about that fact. Some people are under the impression that they 'need' religion to be good people or even function as a human being, I had a long discussion with a Hindu about that once.

As far as photographing natives goes, I believe that's a very different matter as it affects those people directly. They're actual human beings and ignoring a request which they have every right to make is just wrong, simple as that.

A drawn picture of Muhammed shouldn't be a problem in my opinion. He's not alive, he's not gonna get angry, he's not even gonna flinch. Doesn't one of the verses say someone dropped the contents of their toilet bowl on his head and he didn't get mad? Why do people have to die just for drawing a picture of him then?

The example about the natives is extraordinary, but an example about respect. It affects those people directly, because it is their believes.

A simple dranw picture of Muhammed shouldnt be a problem, but it seems it is if the drawn picture not only shows Muhammed but changes into something else which could hurt religious feelings.

Muhammed is a holy person for muslime in general, its the prophet sent from god.

I think we do not have to forget to distinguish between normal believers and religious extremists, the last ones did react with severe violence in the western world but also between muslime worldwide and they are the main problem.

Such cartoons could not only annoy the general/moderate muslims worldwide but also antagonize them more against us westerners.

[badluckburt 78]

@Rydygier:

I agree that the calm approach is usually best in any case involving different perspectives or beliefs but then again most

conflict between people seems silly to me.

The example about the natives is extraordinary, but an example about respect. It affects those people directly, because it is their believes.

A simple dranw picture of Muhammed shouldnt be a problem, but it seems it is if the drawn picture not only shows Muhammed but changes into something else which could hurt religious feelings.

Muhammed is a holy person for muslime in general, its the prophet sent from god.

I think we do not have to forget to distinguish between normal believers and religious extremists, the last ones did react with severe violence in the western world but also between muslime worldwide and they are the main problem.

Such cartoons could not only annoy the general/moderate muslims worldwide but also antagonize them more against us westerners.

I view the natives in a different light. To me it's just a matter of a request from one human being to another. Unless there's a good reason for me to continue what I'm doing, I will stop if someone asks me to. Having a photograph of them is not a good enough reason for me.

And when in Rome, do as the Romans or however that goes. When I am in your house, I will respect your rules. If I know I don't want to follow them, don't expect me to come over :)

Edited January 19, 2015 by BadLuckBurt
had to reply to oxmox too

[Rydygier 1302]

To what I said about my thoughs on fighting terrorism - to define and focus on very root with leading help of muslims (they should be an avangard in fact only with support of West), I would like to add this under consideration - first voices from muslims' world was very promising. They condemned act of terror with pretty harsh (for the each muslim, I think) words. All changed when France and others went crazy with all this provoking madness. IMO they wasted promising opportunity to defend, what precious to them wisely. Worse. They turned it into something stupid and harmful. And escalating very ugly.

[ProfTournesol 956]

All changed when France and others went crazy with all this provoking madness. IMO they wasted promising opportunity to defend, what precious to them wisely. Worse. They turned it into something stupid and harmful. And escalating very ugly.

(1) France didn't do anything, it's one newspaper that did it ;

(2) Those demonstrations are obviously manipulated by extremists or on political purpose (such as Chechnya), which is a shame, and an insult to those who died.

(3) Who is killing who ? It's worse to draw a cartoon than kill a journalist, obviously.

(4) Muslim extremists have the right to burn churches (45 in Niger), but we haven't the right to publish cartoons ?

Edited January 20, 2015 by ProfTournesol

[Rydygier 1302]

(1) France didn't do anything, it's one newspaper that did it ;

7 millions is pretty big part of population, thus named it "France" as voice of the French people, not political being. Swap it to other word, if you need more precision.

2,3,4 - seems, you still don't get my point. All right. I leave you with what I said already - it should be more than enough to grasp my thought. Consider it once more or not, as you wish. I'll repeat myself no more, no point.

[Sooke 13]

I think you're making a mistake if you think the muslims who rallyied after the attack to say "I'm Charlie" are the same than the ones who burn churches and threaten France with more attacks because of the last CH cover.

When extremists commit attacks they do not represent the entire muslim population but when they organise a protest they do ?

Edited January 20, 2015 by Sooke

[ProfTournesol 956]

7 millions is pretty big part of population, thus named it "France" as voice of the French people, not political being. Swap it to other word, if you need more precision.

Oh come on, so not only drawing cartoons but buying that newspaper is infuriating the Muslim world now ? Is that what you call "provoking madness" ? Killing journalists is a provoking madness, people bought it to condemn that, period. The provoking madness is what we see now, no need to elude that.

[Rydygier 1302]

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/2,1172821--Charlie-Hebdo--trafi-do-sprzedazy-w-Polsce.html

The latest issue of the satirical weekly "Charlie Hebdo" will be available in Poland

Circulation weekly in Poland will be about 3,000 copies. The company Europress Poland, responsible for distribution in our country, expects a rapid sell-out of the whole circulation.

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1342,title,Do-Polski-przyjedzie-Gerard-Briard-redaktor-naczelny-Charlie-Hebdo,wid,17190392,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=11431c

Gerard Briard, editor-in-chief of the French satirical weekly "Charlie Hebdo" come to Poland. French journalist accepted the invitation of the organizers of Days of Atheism in Warsaw - the organizers announced on its website.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Rydygier

[Sooke 13]

So what ? It's a polish initiave, it's not like France was threathening Poland with an economical blocus if they refused to distribute CH

[Rydygier 1302]

So nothing, just another news in the topic, not argument in discussion, I oficially closed my end. :) BTW - the price will be nearly 40 PLN ( ~9.25 euro). It's like 8-10x higher, than usual price of weekly press in Poland.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Rydygier