I'm glad you said some on the left.. I'm sure there some on the right as well.

I think to most important point to consider is should we use this as a trigger to enshrine freedom of expression in our Constitution.

I'm in one of the camps of 'I don't condone the murder of cartoonists but...', the but being that I don't need to identify as Charlie to voice my disgust at the murder of police, cartoonists, journalists, cleaners an economist and shoppers.

I am not Charlie, I disagree with what I have read of their approach to a broad brush needling of muslims on an ongoing basis (and not just extremists will be hurt by the portrayals of their prophet even if the others don't take up arms in response). From what I've read I consider that reverence for their prophet to be misplaced but no good is served by offensive portrayals outside of considered discussion.

I get that Islam is not a race, that its not necessarily zenophobia to express concerns about cultural clash where there appear tobe real issues. I don't know Charlies efforts well enough to make any kind of call regarding racism, I do get the impressiin of extremism though.

I do think that the kind of needling used by Charlie was a gift that keeps on giving to extremist recruiters, serving to further alleniate those already alleniated.

So I don't condone the murder of cartoonists, police, journalists, cleaners, economists, shoppers (or anyone else) but neither do I condone broad brush needling of grouos of people with little or no regard to the consequences.

I will stand for the right to that freedom of speech but don't need to identify with those who abuse that freedom (which in my view Charlie appears to have done).

R0bert

As the race discrimination commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, was quoted as saying in today's Guardian, “Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it’s not an absolute right.”
There is such a thing as abuse of a right, and Charlie Hedbo's continuing use of provocative cartoons which he would have known were truly offensive to the world's Muslims was an abuse of the right to free speech.
And it's not as if France doesn't have its own limits on freedom of speech. As Gary Younge noted in a Guardian column yesterday, in 2005 Le Monde was found guilty of “racist defamation” against Israel and the Jewish people. Also, in 2008 a cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo was fired after refusing to apologise for making anti-Semitic remarks in a column.
Or as The Saker has it, a group of “caviar-lefties” made their money spitting in the souls of billions of people and then dared them to do something about it.
Well, someone did. So find them and try them for murder. But that can't be as those designated as the murderers have been found and "double tapped". No arrest, no trial, no cross examination, end of story. But it's not, is it?
Now comes the dangerous part, and I anticipate a further erosion of our remaining civil liberties. As 9/11 showed, there's nothing like a bit of fear to get everyone ready for the show of a controlling hand.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/12/community-leaders-reject-calls-to-ease-ban-on-racial-insults-after-france-attacks
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/charie-hebdo-danger-polarised-debate-paris-attacks
http://www.vineyardsaker.net/i-am-not-charlie/

Tim. A particularly good article, readable, clear and very accurate but.......
RObert has a very sage comment, clearly articulating the conundrum inherent in making comment about this incident, I think that I agree with ROberts' 'but' in this incidence.

The return of the S18C argument to the public arena, recognising the nuanced and or 'grey' areas of the legislation. I do not like being insulted, humiliated etc by what others say of me, but I am prepared to accept the cost to my sensitive feelings if I am to continue living in a democracy. The dropping of the 18C legislation repeal legislation has moved my future vote from the disappointing liberals.

Interesting article.

'I don't condone the murder of cartoonists but...'

Translation, anyone who criticises Islam could be killed at any time, so keep silent, and anyway, those cartoonists must have been very bad people because someone shot them in the head.

Hear, hear and well said Sir!
Rhrosty.

So a writer with articles in The Guardian condemns a cartoonist for publishing works in the Guardian that exhibit the censorship he decries. It is a strange world, but I was certain that the Guardian will only publish writings that have an anti-Western, leftist, Islamist agenda.

Looked around but couldn’t find the Guardian article(s), but found out that Mr. Napper likes Blade Runner and has an independent, ornery streak. So far, so good.

There can be no ‘but’s to free speech, no limits, at least among adults. If you give an inch, people will take a mile. One day it is cartoons, then it’s the Quran, then dress codes, then footbaths, and then they want to take away your bacon.

For some people, respect -- like both free and hate speech -- is a one-way street: Bad for some, fine for others.

I dislike cartoons that rely on social, religious or cultural stereotypes. I don't think they further any agenda apart from promoting hate.

I believe that the (mis)use of religion or religious ideology by extremists resulting in terrorists acts is abhorrent. There is no place for this in modern society.

There is no but. Being against both things isn't wrong.

Carz

Do CH's cartoons rely on religious or ethnic stereotypes? The ones I have seen didn't, but I have only seen a small sample. They attack religion and religious figures, extremists and bigots. Some are pretty eye-watering, but that's the genre. Parodying Jesus or Mohamed is not racist, in my view.

Should the management of Charlie Hedbo have put their employees as well as the police and members of the public at risk simply because they thought it was clever to constantly provoke a bunch of psychopaths?

To clarify my sources and because this error has been rightly been brought to my attention, the quote which I posted at the beginning of this thread can be found at http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/, is titled I am NOT Charlie, and is dated Thursday, January 8, 2015. Scroll down to find it if you like.
The other site where I first found this article is by the same person but seems to have gone weird.

The first verse of the first Psalm is:

Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers

No, it's definitely wrong with no reservations to take the life of mockers,
It's even wrong to stop them using the force of the law,
but mockers, who make a living out of hurting the feelings of others, will be brought to justice and punished - if not during their current lifetime then afterward, they have no escape.
Meanwhile, it's best not to sit in their company.

I am sad for those who were killed for sitting in the company of mockers and for their families, I am especially sad for the cleaner.

Rhian, yes they do. Google them and see for yourself.

Yuyutsu,

I'm sure you're equally sad for the policewoman and the people doing their shopping...who weren't "in the company of mockers"...but nonetheless were killed randomly by these people.

They had absolutely no connection with any perceived "provocation".

Dear Poirot,

Yes of course, but that is not the topic as well as completely uncontroversial. I am equally sad for the passengers and crew of AirAsia flight QZ8501.

Yuyutsu,

I was merely pointing out since so many are citing "provocation" as the reason the attackers committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre - that their confederates targeted people randomly who had nothing to do with cartooning.

Yuyutsu,

It would depend on what is being mocked, wouldn't it?

Question: Do you think that evil, hate and violence deserve to be exempt from mockery?

You know where I am going with this so please think about your position -- and answer my question.

Jay kactuz

The author doesn't appear to give a flying rubber duck about the murder of the cartoonists or free speech. The thrust of the article is to condemn the Left's supposed fanatical need to defend Islam at all costs.

Since the Hebdo shootings, I've read dozens of articles on left-wing alternative media sites (e.g. Media Lens [UK], Global Research [Canada] and The Saker [US]; anti-war/anti-Zionist 'conspiracy' sites like What Really Happened (US); radical 'Socialist Alternative' websites like RedFlag; articles by high-profile left-wing intellectuals like Noamh Chomsky and left-wing journalists like Pepe Escobar, Robert Fisk and Jonathon Cooke; left-wing comedians like Russell Brand; and non-aligned, left-leaning media networks like RT [Russia] and Press TV [Iran]).

NEVER have I seen any attempt in any of those websites or the journalists' writings to resort to condemnations of Islamphobia to justify the Hebdo shootings. The overwhelmingly consistent argument running through all these 'left-wing' writings is the condemnation of Western hypocrisy in taking the high moral ground on freedom of speech, after decades of raining down death, misery and destruction on Islamic countries without any apparent sense of conscience.

I would suggest to author, Tim Napper, that if you see the Left as your enemy, then get to know it better.

Correction: In my comment above, instead of 'non-aligned', I should have said 'non-US-aligned'.

Tim Napper must be a racist if he does not respect the commands of Allah. Under the sacred ideals of multiculturalism, majorities must respect the rights of generally crime prone and welfare dependent minorities to do exactly what their God or Prophet has commanded.

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?"

Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"

Qur'an (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."


From the Hadith:

Bukhari (59:369) - This recounts the murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote verses about Muslims that Muhammad found insulting. He asked his followers, 'Who will rid me of this man?' and several volunteered. al-Ashraf was stabbed to death while fighting for his life.

Bukhari (4:241) - Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority.

I don't condone the murder of journalists, but, anybody who promotes the idea that Muslims can exist peacefully within a secular democratic society has only themselves to blame when the Muslims who's cause they champion, turn on them and kill them.

Poetic justice.

Muslims believe that those who insult the prophet should be killed. That is the law in every Muslim country on Earth. If the world was composed of "moderate" Muslims then the concept of murdering people who insult or even criticise Islam would not be universal. If we import people with this mindset into western countries, we can hardly be surprised when the Muslims do exactly what their God and Prophet commands them to do

You will notice, Lego, the total absence of free-Speech marches and demonstrations in the Muslim world. While in many cities around the world they held marches to support the ideals of the Paris victims, none happened in Islamic societies.

In fact, even Muslims joined in these demonstrations -- in the West.

So, what do you think? Why do Muslims in the West, where they are a minority, tell us they support free speech and equality, yet we see none of this where they dominate?

Could it be they are sincere, or could it be they are deceitful, or maybe even is it that they want to believe that islam is what they want it to be, not what it is?

The answer is not difficult.

"There is nothing intrinsically violent about Islam."

There is something 'intrinsically violent' about any belief system that encourages its followers to ignore reality and construct fantasies about what an all-powerful being desires them to do.

If we laugh sufficiently hard at theists and their bizarre beliefs, we may be able to shame them into rationality. That's a lot more humane than the alternatives.

Dear Kactuz,

<<It would depend on what is being mocked, wouldn't it?>>

Regardless, mocking others makes one a mocker.

Even if and when your duty calls you to fight evil, mockery hardly ever toppled a tyrant, but rather douses petrol on fire and is like the high-pitched squeak of a small dog on hearing the deep growl of a big dog.

<<Question: Do you think that evil, hate and violence deserve to be exempt from mockery?>>

In his Yoga Sutras, Patanjali prescribed four attitudes towards four different types of people:

"friendliness towards those who are happy, compassion for those who are suffering, goodwill towards those who are virtuous, and indifference or neutrality towards those we perceive as wicked or evil."

- http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-13339.htm#1.33

Note that this doesn't mean that you should never fight evil if your duty calls for it, but rather that it's best for you to fight professionally with an attitude of indifference, because it is your duty to do so rather than out of emotional hate.

Yuyutsu,

Which human ever fought out of indifference?

Emotive reaction is triggered ten-fold when group-think is enacted....in the case the human condition words and meaning are incendiary when applied to emotions.

Dear Poirot,

Indifference is the attitude of the best fighters, not the motive - which should be to do one's duty.

When emotions are triggered, one's balance is lost and they are more likely to lose the battle. Emotions made Australia to unnecessarily lose 10,000's of its best in Gallipoli.

Those who fight with indifference fight best, emotion gets one killed. What also gets others killed are sophists, quislings and "I don't draw mean cartoons". Stand up strong to Muslim murderers and they quail, weak kneed prevarications empower them.

Yuyutsu, McCackie,

I take your point that in the theatre of organised military manoeuvres, combatants are better served if they follow set strategy and not emotive reactions.

However, I'm referring to the base motivations involved in fighting for a particular "cause". The attackers in Paris and other similar operatives are operating to a strategy, but the origin of their involvement is an emotive one in the defence of what they deem worth fighting for.

If they were "indifferent" to their cause, they would not take up arms.

Dear McCackie,

<<Stand up strong to Muslim murderers and they quail>>

Stand up wise and they will do your work themselves - that's the essence of every martial art.

Those who draw mean cartoons - demean themselves.

Cursing and mocking the prophet does him no harm (after all he is long dead), but makes the moderates take the side of the extremists.
If I were a jihadist, I would therefore covertly pay the cartoonists to achieve that end!

Dear Poirot,

<<The attackers in Paris and other similar operatives are operating to a strategy>>

Yes, I just mentioned that strategy above: they want to alienate the moderate Muslims from the general society.

<<If they were "indifferent" to their cause, they would not take up arms>>

Who said that one should be indifferent to their cause? One should rather be indifferent towards an evil enemy.

Had the Jihadists been indifferent to non-Muslims, working calmly and calculatedly, without hate, to achieve their goal of making the world Muslim, thus using logic, sweet talk and flowers instead of guns and bombs, then by now they would have probably succeeded in that goal.

Are others not allowed to totally disbelieve in the
prophet Mohammed and Allah, must they be killed and everyone made to
believe. Charlie was a secular Frenchman, why should the muslims tell him what he should believe? Why should he not have the freedom to laugh at something he didn't believe in. Read my lips
he has the freedom to laugh at something, he doesn't believe in.

I suggest if the muslims don't like it, they stay in their own
countries where everyone is forced to agree with their ideas
or die.

Don't come to European countries that don't have the muslim faith
as their religion, don't go on Websites from non-muslim countries
and then become offended. People from other countries have
their own beliefs just as the muslims have their beliefs in their
own countrys and communities.

I've got one thing to say to them.
We didn't ask you to come to non-muslim countries. The fault is yours.