For those who can read French:

http://www.les-crises.fr/indecense-rendons-hommage-a-charlie/.

There's no freedom of speech in Europe unless you're a Leftist or a Liberal, the EU has even more restrictive libel and "hate speech" laws than Australia it's just that they're selectively applied and publications like Charlie Hebdo get a free pass because of their Leftist sympathies.
I think we've only seen one person, Brendan O'Connell actually jailed for speech crimes in Australia, in Europe there are dozens of political prisoners in jail for speech crimes and politically incorrect people are fined, dismissed from their jobs and harassed by the state all the time.
France has the Gayssot Act, as fine a piece of Communist thought crime legislation as has ever been written;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayssot_Act
Politicians like Holland, Angela Merkel,Stefan Lofven and Helle Thorning-Schmidt only care about suppressing political opposition to their programs, they don't give a damn about democracy, free speech or human rights.
Europe's political elite aren't scared by Islamic activism but they're terrified of PEGIDA, FN, The Sweden Democrats and the Danish People's Party, they're outraged and humiliated when "far right" activists mobilise but an Al Qaeda massacre can always be spun into a display of superficial tolerance and be used as a bridge building exercise, albeit a bridge that goes nowhere and which will never be finished.

To foster a "culture of encounter" and not spread malicious slander - that is a freedom of the press, a freedom of speech, worth marching for.
As another commentator cautioned in a recent thread, sit not with the mockers.
The link posted by George above can be translated by Google and is well worth a read.

This article is silly.

"there should be laws that would teach it to respect the rights and sensibilities of others." this is the crux of the matter, and the author is wrong.

Threats to book stores in Belgium.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-15/bookstores-selling-charlie-hebdo-sent-warning-letters/6018032

Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.

I think the Pope wearing a condom would be ironic given he more than anyone is against birth control, particularly in those extremely poor Catholic communities that can'afford the kids they having now, or sometimes, any! In any event, a lifetime of celibacy would have surely resulted in erectile dysfunction, and therefore, rendered the depiction actually impossible!

And women are just not mindless incubators!

I think anyone who understands irony sees a social message in such depictions.

Yes it might be very rude and disrespectful; but sometimes that is what it takes to make a truly unwelcome social message penetrate absolutely closed minds!

Celibacy is entirely unnatural and against God,s Law, to go forth and multiply; and a must for those who purport to believe in such things.

Therefore, there is irony in such pornographic images as nuns masturbating; as opposed to going slowly mad?.

I don't believe anyone truly secure in their belief system is upset to the point of violence at such messages, which for all practical purposes can remain unread!

And therefore, not be upsetting.

Those who find such things amusing, minus the social message have very small minds, and therefore, hardly a real problem for the mainstream.

The problem here, as far as I can see, is the complete intolerance in Islam and that violence is sanctioned in their belief systems, none of which are ever examined!

Which possibly the cartoonists were trying to encourage; particularly where nothing else has done so!?

After all, an unexamined life is hardly worth living, and in that context, an unexamined belief system is hardly worth following; certainly not to the point of blind obedience!

Nor is peaceful cohabitation possible with such people, who believe in violence as the first answer; and along with lying to infidels, is proscribed in entirely inflexible religious law; and therefore, really should be asked, to go back where you came from.
Rhrosty.

So a Muslim writer is protesting hate and slander in Western media.

Yawn!

Let me know when he protests the hate and slander against non-Muslims in the Quran, and then he would have a little credibility.

Once again, respect, for Muslims is a one-way street.

You can’t slander the dead. Depicting a long-dead religious leader in an undignified or even obscene pose is not slander. The author is trying to stretch the definition of something that should be protected by law to cover something that shouldn’t.

Rhian,
Believe it or not, in Europe you can be charged with "disturbing the peace of the dead" just for speaking certain words, German chemist Germar Rudolf faced just such a charge for questioning the "Holocaust", as did a group of Austrian youths who disrupted a holocaust memorial gathering.
So publishing a report saying that the no homicidal gas chambers were used by the Nazis or yelling out "Heil Hitler" during an official Holocaust ceremony attracts the same charge as grave robbing or interfering with a corpse.

If a right wing cartoonist had published those Mohammed cartoons he'd have been jailed, no two ways about it, Christine Tasin recieved a suspended sentence and a fine for saying the following in a public debate with a Muslim:
“Yes I’m an islamophobe and so? The hatred of Islam, I’m proud of it. Islam is a saloperie [filth] (…), it’s a danger for France”.
Another French "anti establishment"comedian and satirist, Diuedonne M'bala M'bala was arrested and charged yesterday for posting off colour remarks on Facebook:
http://www.thejournal.ie/dieudonne-arrest-1880765-Jan2015/
So you see, one set of rules or codes of conduct applies for the right and another for the Left, any utterance of non conformist views from the right triggers an immediate response from the French state whereas the Left are allowed to pretty much get away with anything.

About that freedom of speech thing, and I notice that today's news carries a story about an Israel newspaper editing our the women, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, from the photo of the March of Hypocrites in Paris the other day.
And from France, that paradigm of free speech, a French comedian is under investigation for saying he felt like Charlie Coulibaly instead of Charlie Hedbo.

“disturbing the peace of the dead”: An odd law, perhaps, but surely aimed at protecting corpses, not preventing slander.

Yes, in some countries it is illegal to deny the holocaust. This is not a law I’d support, either.

And it looks from a quick google search as if Tasin’s conviction was overturned.

I’m no fan of racism, but nor do I support restrictions on speech to prevent it, even (especially) if applied only to the left or to the right. I’d like to see 18C repealed

Hal,

Can you understand the difference between:

* the right to offend and insult,

* incitement to violence, and

* slander ?

The last two are covered by standard law, at least in British-derived law, including the law against defamation.

Surely the essence of the Charlie Hebdo assassinations is that we can support the right to offend and insult without doing so ourselves - i.e. we support the rights of others to freedom of expression, including the freedom of speech, even of what we disapprove of, as Voltaire etc. are supposed to have said.

The essence of free speech is not just what we want for ourselves, but for people the contents of whose 'free speech' we disagree with.

As for slander, if a man rapes a nine-year-old girl, even if her parents have sold her to him when she was six, then it is still rape. It may have been okay back in tribal society, but it's still rape. And we have the right to say so, even if someone else is so uncivilised that they can't see anything wrong with it.

Joe

The author refers to cartoons of catholic nuns masturbating as
malicious slander. Only if the author has hang-ups about
the normality of human sexuality can I understand a view of
this as malicious slander.

Is it malicious slander to say that he himself most probably
masturbates or that every animal on the planet is sexual
and enjoys sex.

Some people just don't like having reality thrust into their consciousness. That's why they were killed because of those cartoons.

The pope should allow the wearing of condoms when millions are dying
from aids. If he did put a condom on and pose for a photo so what.
if God made his penis what could be wrong with it.
It is just humans and the way they like to make things taboo
that is the problem, I can't see God being at all shocked.

If you believe in creation he gave us our sexual organs didn't he
so why should we be ashamed of them. This again is just human
squeamishness about sex. Nothing to do with God.

Religion always wants to make sex the biggest sin and taboo, even
more than murder and child abuse. It is certainly true of the muslim fundamentalists. Whacking women with rods if they show and inch of ankle. They need to grow up and face some reality.
They'd rather kill first.

Any way you look at it humiliating moderate Muslims while we are fighting extremism is more than a tad stupid.
The media is full of morons that don't think past their own financial gain even if it does mean inciting global violence.
The lampooning of the prophet Mohammad on the latest cover of Charlie Hedbo after the bloody violence that occurred there a few days ago made me realise that the people that work at the magazine/comic are absolute dead set morons.

The author also sets up a false dichotomy for the title “real heroes of freedom of expression” between the Charlie Hebdo staff and Steven Sotloff and James Foley, the journalists beheaded by IS. Much though Sotloff and Foley deserve our admiration, and their families our compassion, I don’t think they were killed for “speaking truth to power”, as Jamil claims. They were killed because they were western targets who would attract media attention, much like aid worker David Haines and mountaineering guide Hervé Gourdel. Their work took them to dangerous places, and their courage deserves respect. But in this case, I doubt it was the content of their work that got them killed – unlike the CH staff.

On a completely different, but also very much related note re the function of the mainstream media in manufacturing consent (Chomsky) and protecting the interests of the rich and powerful FASCISTS that really run the entire world why not check out this video - it goes for 3 and a half hours.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/assassination-studies-1/everything-is-a-rich-mans-trick

The long segment on the assassination of JFK is particularly fascinating - especially the role of a certain member of the BUSH clan who was carrying on the very dark legacy of his father Prescott whose activities during WWII are described earlier in the video.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if the recent Paris murders were a false flag operation to serve who knows what purposes of the behind the scenes players.

Re these FASCISTS, some people actually pretend that what is broadly called the left is responsible for all of the worlds troubles.

Leftism equals fascism, or so the fantasy goes.

You can have whatever laws you like in your muslim society and you have to afford us our preferences too. Perhaps a cartoon of muhammed having sex with a nine year old girl would be offensive to you but as he actually did it I cannot see why?
We in Australia would not only find that offensive but the act illegal in Australia. Perhaps this can assist you understand why we cannot get excited about you being offended.

@Loudmouth, Posted Thursday, 15 January 2015 5:17:15 PM
Joe
Yes I can see the differences you mention.
I respect the right to offend and insult, but I draw the line at incitement to violence. And slander is slander.
In my opinion the Charlie Hedbo cartoons crossed the line from the first to the second and third. They were, again in my opinion, an incitement to violence. They were also slanderous, not only to a man long dead but also to all those who hold him in the highest esteem.
The editorial board of CH let the cat out of the bag when they fired one of their own for not apologising after making an apparently anti-Semitic remark. And all the while they kept on with their puerile cartoons whose only purpose could only have been to offend and incite.
I do not consider the cartoonists at CH to be exercising free speech, but to be using free speech to offend and incite.
As for the nine year old girl, get over it. This was fifteen hundred years ago. Look to the royal families of Europe and the way they acquired brides not so long ago. Look to tribal societies today.

Erdogan the Turkish leader says the West was behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks.http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/14/turkish-president-says-the-unsayable-west-is-behind-charlie-hebdo-false-flag-attacks/

See some hard evidence. http://stormcloudsgathering.com/charlie-hebdo-shootings-censored-video

@ Arjay

<<Erdogan the Turkish leader says the West was behind the Charlie Hebdo >>

No big surprise. Erdogan --like a couple of others on an earlier thread -- holds firm to the position that Islam can do no wrong.

He also no doubt believes the Armenian genocides are a Western concoction and the crusades were an evil invasion of a peace loving Muslim community.

Hal,

Yes, that was my point: that there are already laws against incitement to violence, and anti-defamation laws against slander and libel. I believe truth is a defence against slander, or it should be.

As for slandering a psychopath, here's one:

Aisha goes in to see Muhammad, dressed in little fairy wings and with a suicide vest strapped around her waist.

Mohammad says, "What are you dressed as ?"

She replies, "I'm your blow-up sex-toy."

Busted myself !

Yes, CH pushed the boundaries of free speech, but I don't see that they ever incited violence. Ridicule of outmoded ideas, and of the mind-set which exposes the incapacity to discuss, criticise or modify any of those outmoded beliefs, but not incitement. Perhaps you can give examples ?

Totalitarians of the world unite, ay, Hal ?

Joe

Crowie,
The people at Charlie Hebdo weren't morons but the European elite are hypocrites, the successors of the people who hanged Julius Streicher now defend Charlie Hebdo? Seriously?

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING TOLERABLE: Thoughts on the shooting in France and multicultural stupidity
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-importance-of-being-tolerable.html

Es Brennt - Megaherz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw5i-TVjTMg
It's Burning

Afraid of the truth
Fear of (making a bad) appearance
Everything is too large
All is so comfortless

Fear of the insanity
That has reawakened
The fiery zealotry
that has been rekindled

All is too bright
All is too fast

Too high the horse
On which we’re sitting
Too deadly the poison
In harmless points

Too small is our courage
Too big is the yearning
Too hard is the fight
So easy the flight

So lazy of mind
Too weak of will
We silence ourselves
dead silence

Because no wall protects us
Because all the talk doesn’t do anything
When a people is resigned
And a former power reasserts itself

The East is burning
Tell me don’t you see
the fire front on the horizon
The East is burning
Our land of plenty
is burned
it burns

Fear of Freedom
Fear of duty
above all, what is strange
Fear of renunciation

Too rotten is the wood
in the ruins
Too powerful the desire
To serve the lie

No fortress protect
If everything is useless talk
When a nation shuts up
And bows down to barbarians

The East is burning
Tell me you do not see
the fire front on the horizon
The East is burning
Our land of plenty
is burned
it burns

The East is here
The East is us

The East is burning
(The East is here)
The East is burning
(The East we are)
Tell me you do not see
the fire front on the horizon
The East is burning
(The East is here)
The East is burning
(The East we are)
Our land of plenty
is burned
it burns