eagertopleaze 2366 Report post Posted January 9, 2015 deleted... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cato 160314 Report post Posted January 9, 2015 No to sacred cows on the right, and to political correctness on the left. Je suis Charlie! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miss Jessica Lee 43328 Report post Posted January 9, 2015 While I may not agree with everything said here, I found this to be an interesting read... http://feministing.com/2015/01/08/je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-on-the-charlie-hebdo-massacre-and-duelling-extremisms/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cato 160314 Report post Posted January 9, 2015 Interesting, Jessica, thanks. It does sound a bit like blaming the victim, though, doesn't it? I thought that kind of argument wasn't well regarded in feminist circles. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest *Ste***cque** Report post Posted January 9, 2015 I assumed "I am Charlie" was merely a rallying cry for people who support the right to speak freely and feel you shouldn't lose your life to challenge issues, especially extremist positions of any group. I will always stand up to a bully, whether they are radicals, extreme feminists or white male privilege. I personally might have waited until the dead were buried before writing what she did but she is free to do so. Je suis Charlie! I didn't choose my signature "moderation in everything, including moderation" casually. It's about trying to find a balance between two extremes while not being too extreme about it. I like to find the centre or compromise of things, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrrnice2 157005 Report post Posted January 9, 2015 Thanks Jessica. Great article and yes, with words comes responsibility. While I may not agree with everything said here, I found this to be an interesting read... http://feministing.com/2015/01/08/je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-on-the-charlie-hebdo-massacre-and-duelling-extremisms/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MightyPen 67414 Report post Posted January 9, 2015 Moi, je suis Charlie aussi. I don't think there's any doubt we can all climb on board that statement, since people should be able to write or say or draw absolutely anything they want without fear of being murdered by someone they've offended. We can all say "je suis Charlie" with pride and determination to stand up for that principle. On the other hand, freedom of speech doesn't mean you must be able to say anything you want and be utterly free of consequence. If you're a fast food company in the U.S. and you make statements against marriage equality and put money behind efforts to suppress it, you can't sputter with indignation when some of your customers choose to walk away. Similarly, a lot of what Charlie Hebdo has published in the past looks pretty awful and tasteless to me. As many commenters are noting today as they examine Charlie Hebdo's back-catalog, the magazine had an inclination to take swipes at powerless minorities, when the usual targets for the weapons of satire are those too comfortable in their positions of power and privilege. But they seemed within the limits of French law, and if anyone disagreed then they could choose to bring a case. Some laws mandate that some kinds of speech should be outright curtailed in the public interest. You can't be a Holocaust Denier in Canada for example, or try to hold certain kinds of rallies in Germany, without facing legal consequences. Same thing for the Dalhousie students; you don't get to say anything you want, no matter how hateful, without accepting the consequences for the environment you have created, how you may have violated the standards required by your university, or for showing that you can't meet expectations of your future professional organizations. But any repercussions must be legal, and follow a process, and they most certainly can't involve being gunned down in your office. So even if some of what they published was dumb, ugly garbage, it's for the preservation of the rule of law that we should all stand beside Charlie Hebdo and against terror. Few things have made me smile wider than the huge crowd in France on the night of the shootings, with a big illuminated sign "NOT AFRAID". 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cato 160314 Report post Posted January 9, 2015 Well said, Might Pen! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest N***he**Ont**y Report post Posted January 9, 2015 Kyllä olen Charlie! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldblueeyez 15475 Report post Posted January 10, 2015 Free speech is under attack from all (AHEM) angles. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kyra.Graves 23779 Report post Posted January 10, 2015 I much prefer #JeSuisAhmed and #JeSuisDalia, I am not Charlie but no one should die for expressing an alternate opinion no matter what medium and method they choose. I do not believe in violence but above all else have no respect for bigotry and prejudice no matter where it comes from. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7521151/charlie-hebdo-jesuisahmed 7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Miss Jane TG Report post Posted January 10, 2015 In some parts of the world justice is what a man can do for himself. In those cultures, don't expect that when you trigger them, they will follow the rules of the game applicable in Western societies (File a complaint, lawsuit, etc. and spend the next couples of decades wondering about the outcome). They just won't and would take it in their own hands. Je Suis Charlie, Ahmed, Dalia etc. are lucrative initiatives, but the core issue is that when someone chooses to step into others' territory, they might have a different way of handling dispute. Once you know those principles and willing to take the risks, then the outcome becomes secondary, as the history is full of nobles who sacrificed their life in lieu of their ideologies. Charlie, Ahmed etc, were unfortunate secondary casualties in this massacre. Freedom of expression is just non-existent in certain parts of the world compared to the permissible margins in the Western society. And please remember that some speech could lead to criminal charges in the nations bragging most about freedom of expression. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cato 160314 Report post Posted January 10, 2015 I much prefer #JeSuisAhmed and #JeSuisDalia, I am not Charlie but no one should die for expressing an alternate opinion no matter what medium and method they choose. I do not believe in violence but above all else have no respect for bigotry and prejudice no matter where it comes from. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7521151/charlie-hebdo-jesuisahmed Good link, Kyra! Thank you. This adds a lot to the discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted January 10, 2015 How strong is your faith if a mere cartoon can threaten it? If your religion is worth killing someone then start with yourself. Ideas should be defeated by debate and discussion not by killing. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TINCUP 6043 Report post Posted January 10, 2015 Rex Murphy, I am not Charlie, Column in today's National Post (Saturday Jan 10) Here is the link to an interesting read http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/10/rex-murphy-we-are-not-charlie-hebdo/ tincup 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cato 160314 Report post Posted January 10, 2015 In response to tincup's link, I agree that political correctness can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but Murphy's argument makes no sense to me. The reason the cases he cites didn't provoke the same kind of outcry as the Paris massacres is too obvious to mention. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royalfun 55449 Report post Posted January 10, 2015 Je suis Charlie! La liberté de pensée et d'expression est le fondement même de la liberté. My thoughts are that we cannot kill people in view to kill an idea; convincing, debating are the essence of our democracy, our rights and our freedom. I am Charlie, because i support freedom. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TINCUP 6043 Report post Posted January 11, 2015 Je suis charlie has to be the mantra of everyone who loves free speech for 365 days a year, not only when caricaturist, journalist or any one else in society is gunned down by a cold blooded murderer who became a radicalized Jihadist. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MightyPen 67414 Report post Posted January 11, 2015 Je suis charlie has to be the mantra of everyone who loves free speech for 365 days a year, not only when caricaturist, journalist or any one else in society is gunned down by a cold blooded murderer who became a radicalized Jihadist. But what's the principle we're expressing by saying "Je suis Charlie"? a) "All speech must be allowed in all circumstances without consequence." b) "No matter how dire your grievance may seem to you, you don't get to murder people over it." Rex is drawing conclusion a) and complaining that people haven't been following that principle across the board in the past. But I think Rex is wrong and I think a) is wrong (for reasons I've already explained). I think the principle at play here is b). And if we're talking about b), then I agree... 365 days a year. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cinelli 22184 Report post Posted January 11, 2015 I am disgusted that the CBC repeatedly refers to the cartoons as Anti-Islam. The cartoons are satirical and usually have valid obvious points. Why does the CBC not discuss the specific cartoons instead of making ignorant assumptions? I think it is CBC promoting their victimisation dogma. The CBC played interviews with two "offended" Muslims. One of those offended acknowledged she had never seen any of the cartoons...but was extremely offended. The interviewer was sympathetic to the Muslims but never questioned them as to why Muslims should dictate what everyone else should be able to read. If you think something is offensive then don't look at it. Don't tell me what I can read or think. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Emily J 172062 Report post Posted January 11, 2015 Courtesy of Canadian cartoonist, Dan Murphy. 10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest *Ste***cque** Report post Posted January 11, 2015 Love the cartoon, Emily! In keeping with the theme of freedom of expression, why should others get to decide what I can see or hear or in some cases do? Hopefully I don't have to state the bleeding obvious here. Why are 2 adults agreeing to a business transaction for intimate contact doing something Illegal? Why shouldn't that be up to the individual(s) involved? Why do some think it's OK to kill a cartoonist because of what he drew? Why is it OK for "students" at a "University" to shout down a visiting lecturer just because "they" find the issue offensive. This at a place where debate is supposed to be encouraged and enshrined. Ancient philosophers would be rolling in their graves! Speaking of philosophers, both current and past, what would they think about purifying speech to the point that no one would be offended. Do you want to live in that dull world where controversy is a bad thing? Wouldn't it be better to enshrine freedom of speech and if something offends you, use that freedom to say so, debate it or ignore it? We live in a polarized world where it seems many are "eager" to take offense as a way of controlling others or the issue. The world is full of people with agendas, whether politicians or special interest groups, etc.. I say don't let our freedom to have open and controversial speech be eroded by people so fragile or scared to voice a counter opinion. Eliminating controversial speech isn't the answer because then where does it stop? Of course, some ideas are vile but they obviously are held by a minority, and wouldn't you rather know what's on their mind so that you might have a opportunity to debate with them, or avoid them? :) There are no doubt certain exceptions to free speech but shouldn't we be looking to limit those exceptions rather that increase the number of exceptions to free speech? Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is one that comes to mind, but I don't consider that speech. Insensitivity should not be an exception, in my opinion. I intended this as an extension of mrnice2 original post. Apologies if it's seen as a hijack of the thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest N***he**Ont**y Report post Posted January 11, 2015 Religion does that when they try to impose their value system on us .There is no right or wrong in their mindset. Only their values hence they seek to repress the ideas and religions of others. Hence the recent discussions on this board of the recent laws passed by the Bible Thumping Tories in regards to workers rights.That political party seeks to impose their very narrow minded mind set on us until the next legislative change. Je Suis Charlie!A "CRY THAT SAYS" We will overcome your narrow minded views of the world. Nuff Said Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cato 160314 Report post Posted January 11, 2015 Here's an interesting perspective. It makes a good contrast with Rex Murphy's weird argument that someone cited here. The author says that mostly we aren't Charlie, but that we ought to be. https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/cas-mudde/no-we-are-not-all-charlie-and-that%E2%80%99s-problem 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loopie 15358 Report post Posted January 11, 2015 I think there's a big difference between an unpopular opinion and a forbidden one. You can have freedom of speech. But media outlets are under no obligation to broadcast your opinion. Universities are under no obligation to host you and give you an audience. Other individuals are no obligation to listen to you ramble. A lot of people with unpopular outlooks will try to make it seem as though their freedom of expression is under attack as a method of either avoiding realizing how unpopular their opinion is, or as a method of trying to rally support for their opinion by trying to ride the coat tails of a more popular belief. And people picking their priorities doesn't have anything to do with rights. If popularity is more important to you than asserting your opinion, you will choose not to voice any unpopular opinions you may have. That doesn't mean freedom of speech isn't available to you, you just chose popularity over honesty/integrity, that's all. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
