French weekly publishes cartoons ridiculing Mohammad

But I am sure Liberals in the US will blame Romney and Bush....yawnnn.

This is just getting old. Some country decides to use their freedom of speech and OH! What a surprise people who take RELIGION way too seriously go out and riot, demand to CUT THE HEADS OFF of anybody making fun of their god, prophet, religion etc..this is the bloody 21st century, time to get a life, time to not worry about BS. If god is almighty, god will not worry about BS, right?? My guess is god would say, dudes, relax, worry about taking care of yourself, your family, your country, but do not worry and go hog wild every time somebody makes a stupid cartoon, video etc..it is not worth it, we are ALL HUMANS FIRST, god wants us to ACT and BEHAVE like humans, not like wild beasts who can not get above raw feelings of hate, revenge and thirsting for blood. Yes, the good people of Arab countries, just like of European etc.are all HUMANS, wow! What a surprise?? First we are humans, when we are born we are humans and like it or not until we die, the last time I checked EVERYBODY dies in a human body. So, time to get all people to behave like decent humans and LOVE EACH OTHER, not hate. NMRK

This is making me rethink my stance on laws against hate speech.

I don't know though. This could be labeled as incitement to violence, something already illegal in many places. Am I supposed to believe that people are making cartoons of Mohammad showing his butt and balls for some purpose of greater good?

Its funny though. Most of the people who would claim the magazine has a right to print these cartoons would seriously waffle if they were Little Black Sambo cartoons or cartoons that cracked anti-semitic jokes while Jews were being gassed. Then I am positive all the arguments for limiting the freedom of speech would flow out of the woodwork.

Incitement of violence? Wtf? It shouldnt be. There have been many cartoons about the christian religion but all they do is ignore it or fire off an angry email.

Friday - I wouldnt seriously waffle if they were black sambo cartoons or anti-semtic Jokes - I would condemn them as what they are - racism against living people. The movie (dire as it is) and the previous mohammad cartoons refer to a historical figure not actual living people. If some people today find discussions (and lets be clear - Muslims dont like any discussion of mohammad, no matter how reasonable) of a historical figure unacceptable then the problem lies with them. Your comparison between racism and this current muslim drama is invalid.

The bottom line is what may people have been saying all along - discussion of mohammad is not morally wrong nor illeagal. It may end up being in bad taste but recourse for angry muslims is to peacefully protest within established frameworks, not kill people and threaten violence. One movie clip/cartoon/book is not worth a human life. Muslims need to grow up and accept this.

Good on them, the more the better, maybe if it will be daily ,they will get tired of rioting

and I sincerely hope that any violent protest occurring in western countries will be violently dispersed

I say, "go for it."

Charlie Hebdo has some serious brass.

@Elbuda Mexicano:

For once we are in total agreement. I think people in countries with freedom of speech laws have coddled to these Imams for far too long. If a country practices Sharia law, then don't defame the Prophet in those countries, but they can not tell a French magazine, an idiot amateur film maker in the U.S., a Salman Rushdie what they can do in their own country.

Charlie Hebdo has just sold out 75,000 copies in a space of 2 hours, with printing occurring for another 200,000 copies.

Clearly this magazine is in touch with current French sentiment.

Congratulations to Charlie Hebdo for attempting to confront a real issue in France!

Satire or ridicule aimed at religion is not hate speech because ridicule of ideas is not hate speech. Can conservatives claim protection under hate speech laws if conservatism is ridiculed? Any parallel with anti-Semitic propaganda or black sambo cartoons is inaccurate. Muslims have tried to rather sneakily use the expression 'Islamophibia' - as if Islam were a race and due the protection of hate speech laws. All religions are opinions or 'faiths' and are open season so grow up and get over it.

Alex EinzSEP. 20, 2012 - 08:20AM JST and I sincerely hope that any violent protest occurring in western countries will be violently dispersed

Absolutely! Protests need to be violently dispersed by special squads. No more going soft. Soft does not work.

Everyday people should not be hassled and bullied, or feel fear on the streets of the FREE WORLD by rampaging mobs. Look at Sydney for example.

When all is said and done, a civil, rational, reasoned, response of the truly outraged is to write an angry letter to the editor. A primitive, barbaric, animalistic response is to go on a rampage, destroying property and threatening lives.

Why are people scared of Muslims? Because they have no clue what makes them laugh, but they have seen what happens when you try to poke fun.

@Farmboy - Jimizo (above) beat me to it. Nothing racist about ridiculing an idea.

Insulting others is ok, but when they get the same back they become angry?

These French bigots are either simply trying to capitalize on a crisis, or to inflame the crisis because they are somehow in league with the scumbags in the USA responsible for producing the disgusting "film" that caused this uprising in the first place.

If it were actually about the right to free speech then I wouldn't say it is so wrong, but clearly this is just to make a big profit and increase the reputation of the paper, as well as to inspire hate.

The people who publish such offensive trash are just plain stupid, and I hope the blow-back is not too serious. They have the write to print what they choose, of course, but clearly they don't have the morals to choose wisely if one of their goals is to offend other religions and their believers.

@Farmboy. "The cartoonists are racist and insulting..." Maybe you don't understand the difference between "race" and "religion." You are born in to the former and you choose the latter. It is for this reason that religion cannot be exempt from criticism, satire or parody.....even if you are Muslim and insulting the mythical figure Mohammed hurts your feelings.

If not for the fact that they are selling millions of copies of this issue of their sociopathic magazine, how is it that these maggots have enough time on their hands to create bigoted cartoons and nothing more?

@Jimizo

You are wrong and obviously haven't even consulted the Wiki pages on Hate speech.

Inciting violence is Hate speech.

These French maggots are guilty of Hate speech.

I hope they get their their just deserts.

"These French bigots are either simply trying to capitalize on a crisis, or to inflame the crisis because they are somehow in league with the scumbags in the USA responsible for producing the disgusting "film" that caused this uprising in the first place."

So are you saying that whenever there is a film, cartoon, joke that criticizes the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc. that you expect these other groups to start rioting? Can you name the last time there was a Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, etc. riot over a perceived slight?

The guy who drew these cartoons is going to get shanked by some nutball.

Good job France, show these Muslims that not everyone will kowtow to their temper tantrums.

@samwatters

you are trying to redirect the conversation away from the matter at hand into a non-existent parallel universe.

this is not an abstract issue, but relates to a concrete manifestation of ongoing violence arising from the dissemination of a Hate speech film from the USA.

i do not support Islamic extremism in any way shape or form, and completely abhor their destruction of Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan and Sufi Muslim tombs in Timbuktu.

Religious strife is not what this world needs, and that is part of the reason for the promulgation of Hate speech laws.

@ubikiwit.

"you are trying to redirect the conversation away from the matter at hand into a non-existent parallel universe." Rather, I think I am trying to point out that religious violence from other groups is non-existant. Why do Muslims believe they have a special right to be offended?

"...arising from the dissemination of a Hate speech film from the USA." That is an extremely simplistic and irresponsible apologistic approach to these riots. In no way, shape or form did the US contribute to this film. As a matter of fact, I think President Obama asked YouTube or another server to remove the clips from their web site. The server refused...and good for them.

"Religious strife is not what this world needs, and that is part of the reason for the promulgation of Hate speech laws." I agree with you 100% and SmithinJapan has a great comment on the motivation regarding the publishing of these cartoons. But we need to remember there is a world of difference between a cartoon or movie and the true definition of hate speech. Muslims across the world (maybe not all but the vast majority) deem ANY depiction of Allha, etc. to be "blasphemy." Well, many people are not Muslim and therefore are not bound by the laws of Islam. On a positive note, I am very happy to notice that quite a few Imams are condeming violence from the protests and requesting calm. This is a sign of hope. And thank you for debating this subject; the people on this board who do so are contributing to a dialogue that is long overdue.

completely abhor their destruction of Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan and Sufi Muslim tombs in Timbuktu

Hey wait a minute! When the taliban trashed those buddhist graven images in afghanistan they were working under direct orders from mohammad. If you abhor what they did then you're critisizing mohammad.... right? I think you should be a little more sensitive to people's religious beliefs and not go around abhoring them for being good muslims.

At this point it just seems like a game the West is playing: Who can, by using the most insignificant, laughable reason, piss off the Muslim world the most?

Middle-eastern newspapers are full of anti-semitic cartoons: why don't the leaders in those countries condemn those cartoons as well?

Elbudo Mexicano:

" What a surprise people who take RELIGION way too seriously go out and riot, demand to CUT THE HEADS OFF of anybody making fun of their god, prophe "

No. Not people who take general "religion" seriously, but only people of particular religions, who do not accept our concept of free speech.

You did not see Buddhists riot, after the Taliban blew up the Bahmiyan Buddhas, or Catholics after Bill Maher published his anti-Catholic film "Religiolous". Continue at will.

Of course, religious and historical figures must be open for satire. It will be a sad day, when we bury our freedom of speech and bow to the demands of violent religious fundamentalists. Alas, many of our politicians are already tenderly stepping on that slippery slope, and some contributors here seem to agree.

There really should be Mohammed cartoons in the masthead of every single newspaper everywhere, until these outrageous threats stop. But already our press is so intimidated that it is a sensation if one French magazine dares to break the self-imposed censorship.

Scrote:

" Middle-eastern newspapers are full of anti-semitic cartoons: why don't the leaders in those countries condemn those cartoons as well? "

Because Jewish mobs do not riot, burn down embassies, and behead cartoonists? The double standard here is really amazing.

WilliB.

Except that you got muslims and buddhists killing each other in southern Thailand, etc.

Islam is not just a religion, rather a military force and government combined under the banner of Islamic faith. The Muslims (believers) have value and virtue, for the rest are "infidel" (non-believer) and "people of the book (Jews & Christian) that must be deal with under Islamic doctrine. The prophet Mohammed led an army with swords in battle to conquer one after another, for the ultimate goal is the world of Islam ( Indonesia, Malaysia....were not Muslim nations to begin with). All these events are bound to happen, since it is a clash of value system. The world has a problem to deal with and the clash will continue to happen until the West finally wake up to this unpleasant reality before it is too late. Most sacred religious texts (!) talk about LOVE to certain extent, but followers practice HATE in all religions. However, we can evaluate them by their deeds and process of some maturity in respecting human rights for ALL. Politicians are playing game for their interests, thus disregarding the real issue that might blow up beyond proportion in days to come.

It's ironic that the religious, in this case the Muslims, try rather pathetically to get their unfounded opinions exempt from criticism by screaming 'hate speech' while believing in books which advocate executing homosexuals, beating women and genocide. Compare that with a schoolboyish cartoon and then come back with your disingenuous 'hate speech' smokescreen.

@WilliB obviously it has more to do with governance than religion. All religions in the past killed each other all the time. But we can't do that now because of our modern governance.

Buddhists are the exception probably because they don't worship anyone. Violence is not a path to enlightenment unlike some other religions.

Jimizo.

That would be the old Testament/Tora. Yes they all share the same source and worship the same god.

Jimizo, " Satire or ridicule aimed at religion is not hate speech because ridicule of ideas is not hate speech."

This is circular reasoning. I agree that satire is not hate speech(regardless of what Wikipedia may or may not say about it).

EVERY religion is eligible for satire and/or ridicule whether the followers of the religion like it or not. Some of the funniest movies have openly ridiculed ( Monty Python's Life of Brian, History of the World - Mel Brooks come to mind), and the stories of LDS an are comical in and of themselves.

Sorry, but Islam gets no special consideration. Any person can believe any religion they like, but NO ONE has any right to threaten or impose their religion/FICTION on any other person.

I believe.......................I'll have a beer with Santa and the tooth fairy while we wait for Mo to show.

Simply put, the world will not tolerate violent temper tantrums as a form of communication any longer. If you demand, first and foremost, complete and utter subservience (as opposed to respect) to your belief system, under the threat of mob violence if it is not given, do not expect to be considered a first-world culture.

As a non-muslim Im not bound by muslim laws. If I wish to debate/discuss/laugh at a religion with other people who also choose to do so then it is no business of muslims what I read/watch/discuss/draw/produce. Charlie Hebdo has an established record of debating/mocking issues that muslims dont like. The simple response from muslims should be to avoid patronising/purchasing the rag. Muslims - if you dont want to see it, turn it off. Dont go searching for it. We can all find opinions we despise on the internet. Turning the other cheek is something the muslim nutcases have to get used to.

All of you pseudo enlightened wannabe pundits should spend a little bit more time and efforts studying history to try to understand what motivates this sort of reaction in humanistic terms instead of trying to assign it to some inherent fault in Islam or Muslims.

The West is degenerate, and the cretins putting out these publications are living proof.

All of you pseudo enlightened wannabe pundits should spend a little bit more time and efforts studying history to try to understand what motivates this sort of reaction in humanistic terms instead of trying to assign it to some inherent fault in Islam or Muslims.

The West is degenerate, and the cretins putting out these publications are living proof.

Does the publication hurt them physically in any way? No Do the have to look at the cartoon? No

What's the fuss? they are always overreacting.

@ubikwit I'm just wondering what your solution would be. A ban on criticism, satire or ridicule of religion? Only Islam because of their particular sensibilities or history?

All of you pseudo enlightened wannabe pundits should spend a little bit more time and efforts studying history to try to understand what motivates this sort of reaction in humanistic terms instead of trying to assign it to some inherent fault in Islam or Muslims.

There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to understand the motivation behind the behaviour, however regardless of whether you consider it enlightened or not, their reaction is no longer acceptable on the global stage. Regardless of why they are violently lashing out, it doesn't change that they are violently lashing out, and those who are doing so have done absolutely nothing to enlighten anyone on why they are acting that way. I am interested, though, in how you could possibly frame these riots and enraged mobs in any humanistic way. Rational? Reasoned? Inherently good? Just how are you defining "humanistic" here?

Ubikwit,

The West is degenerate, and the cretins putting out these publications are living proof.

These French maggots are guilty of Hate speech.

they are somehow in league with the scumbags in the USA

how is it that these maggots have enough time on their hands to create bigoted cartoons

Who is spewing hate speech?

@Jimizo

I simply think that the Hate speech laws should be implemented in a manner that enables the judicial system to hold culpable people that are inciting riots in this manner, especially in this case where there is a history of centuries of conflict between Muslims and Christians. People should not be able to exploit religious tensions to cause trouble in this manner. Religions are meant to bring people together, not push them apart and set the stage for conflict. There are irrational dogmatic extremists in Islam that even go about destroying the cultural heritage of Islam in the form of the Sufi shrines, so obviously it is easy to incite those people when it comes to the West.

I've written about this before here and occasionally have been censured, so I'm not going to go into detail now, but all you have to do is look at the old history of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, and the 20th century history of Freemason American president Harry Truman to find the basis for the reaction of the Muslims.

They have every right to feel like the West is encroaching upon them in every way shape and form, and these manifestations of that are particularly uncivilized and disgusting.

Particularly brave considering the amount of muslims we have here.

This is freedom of speech from France, as opposed to last weeks fanfare about poor pictures of undersized boobs that had no place in the public domain.

This is France, right?

The country that made it illegal to wear a burka?

Bertie: "The country that made it illegal to wear a burka?"

Indeed it is, Bertie -- a Western nation that has gone out of their way to limit the freedoms of certain practices while claiming a right to others. While the government has reportedly criticized the paper for releasing the cartoons, I have no doubt some at least are secretly cheering about it and hoping for some of the backlash so they can toughen laws even more -- or at least try and justify the hypocrisy of some current ones.

"The country that made it illegal to wear a burka?"

In public. For obvious security reasons.

France has a policy towards all immigrants - if you don't like it, feel free to piss off back to where you came from.

I commend this honesty.

Smith,

"a Western nation that has gone out of their way to limit the freedoms of certain practices while claiming a right to others"

Such as?

@ubikwit This incident does show how religion 'brings people together' - united as one religion in violent mobs with the usual 'behead those who insult the prophet' signs. As has often been pointed out, we can get more anger and vitriol from many Muslims when Western magazines publish childish cartoons than when Sunni Muslims blow up Shia holy places or commit massacres at funeral processions. You are still claiming that Muslims have a special right not to be offended - sorry, not a chance. How far would you go? Admittedly, these cartoons are trash but how about prosecuting Salman Rushdie under your definition of hate speech? How about prosecuting serious academics questioning the authenticity of some Hadiths?

@farmboy So satire or parody of Islam which is 'funny or insightful' is okay? I don't think anyone here is claiming these cartoons are not childish.

Madverts: "Such as?"

The freedom for Muslims to wear Burkas -- or at the very least the headdresses. Did France not pass that into law last year?

"The freedom for Muslims to wear Burkas -- or at the very least the headdresses. Did France not pass that into law last year?"

The was wasn't about muslims, France is a laic country smith.

The law meant any garments that covers any person face.

Male or female.

Muslim or Jedi.

Whoops that wasn't about muslims.

"while claiming a right to others"

Oh and Smith could you clarify who the "others" are, too? Thanks.

@Jimizo

Admittedly, these cartoons are trash but how about prosecuting Salman Rushdie under your definition of hate speech? How about prosecuting serious academics questioning the authenticity of some Hadiths?

The point is that these cartoons, coming in the wake of the movie and continual sporadic protests, has caused an unacceptable disruption to normal international relations. In the case of the movie, how many people lost their lives because of that?

France has had to close embassies and schools across the Muslim world because of these cartoons.

Some people are probably happy that diplomatic relations are being damaged by these incidents.

I think it is absurd, basically.

I'm not for throwing out free speech laws, just making sure that the legal regime keeps this type of deliberately provocative act in check.

Though I haven't read Rushdie's novel, I don't think it would fall under the same category of the cheap production movie that has nothing to do with art or cinema, for example. Did Rushdie's novel cause rioting and diplomatic turmoil?

I had to look up what a Hadith is, but the work of serious academics criticizing something that amounts to a clerical decisions or the like is not something at which a broad swath of the population of Islamic countries are going to take offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

"Though I haven't read Rushdie's novel, I don't think it would fall under the same category of the cheap production movie"

It does. Read it. It's poop.

"The point is that these cartoons, coming in the wake of the movie and continual sporadic protests, has caused an unacceptable disruption to normal international relations"

No, uneducated muslims have been fired up by the fundie base to do this lest they question their faith in a 1600 year old storybook.

Politely put, bollocks to the muslims and their sensibilities.

When they stop slaughtering each other, let alone anyone else, I may have a minute for respecting them.

People may well die over this. And they might not have had anything to do with it. It could spark another 9/11.

But hey, we finally got to see Muhammad's balls right? We all been dying for that! And if we didn't, it would lead right to the slippery slope of tyranny!

Never mind Guantanamo! Never mind the Patriot Act! Never mind the civilian carnage in Afghanistan! The right to cartoonize Muhammad's balls MUST be protected at all costs!

I suppose we could simplify the whole the thing by boiling it down to intent. What is the intent of these cartoons?

Do you suppose the intent of the cartoonist just might have been to start a riot or war? Is it wise of us to condone a person abusing the freedom of speech for such a purpose?

The difference between treating Jesus this way and Muhammad in this way is that generally Christians don't get murderous. But just because pushing a certain button does not cause riots in one group does not mean we should be allowed to push that button with impunity.

Some fear we are being held hostage by Muslim dictate not to draw pictures of Muhammad. But that only works if you really have a well intentioned coincidental urge to see Muhammad drawn, and the thing is, you don't! The only reason anyone wants to do it is to see sparks and fur fly. It would be a lot different if it were a telling of Muhammad's life, whether totally serious or even Monty Pythonesque. Those would surely garner some outrage too, but I would defend them. But Muhammad's balls? Come on! Can't you see that you are being played by a bully?

" Never mind Guantanamo! Never mind the Patriot Act! Never mind the civilian carnage in Afghanistan! The right to cartoonize Muhammad's balls MUST be protected at all costs!"

In a word, YES! As detestable or offensive it may be, including all pejoratives, abridging speech, especially the printed form, is essential. If some words are permitted, then speech is not free. Permitted speech, by definition, means censorship.

There was only one reason to forbid the portrayal of Mohammed. To stop people worshiping an object that might get in the way of direct experience of Allah/God, just as many Christians get caught on the image of Mary or Jesus and lose sight of God/Allah. Buddhists might say "Look at the moon; do not get caught on the finger pointing at it."

Actually, banning the physical image seems to have had the opposite effect, elevating Mohammed to a place where he outlines and so blocks out Allah in people`s minds.

Showing him with a bare bum is silly and childish, but some people need to feel free to do so.

Fridaythe13th-san,

I suppose we could simplify the whole the thing by boiling it down to intent. What is the intent of these cartoons?

The same thought occurred to me.

When I was a kid, there was a "joke" that did the rounds at break time.

It wasn't funny. It was just horrible.

"What's the difference between a (member of minority group) and a bucket of sh*t?"

"I don't know. What is the difference between a (member of minority group) and a bucket of sh*t?"

"The bucket, har, har, har!"

These cartoons and that ghastly "movie" on YouTube are at that level.

The intention is to provoke a fight.

@ubikwit I can only assume you are much younger than I if you don't remember the fury which erupted over the 'Satanic Verses'. Rioting, particularly violent in Pakistan and a fatwa issued by the spiritual leader of Shia Islam which offered a money reward for the murder of Rushdie. Translators of this novel, a work of fiction, were murdered by fanatics. Whether you like Rushdie's work or not, any idea that a more serious critique by a serious writer wouldn't create as much violence as a idiotic cartoon in demonstrably false. I agree this cartoon was stupid and infantile, but don't think for a second that a more mature, serious criticism will be met with reasoned consideration.

If you want to make a dog so angry that it bites you, that is your prerogative. I think it become idiocy when you provoke a dog so much that it bites someone else. Should the dog bite? No, it is a bad dog. Are you an idiot for trying to get the dog to bite? Yup! Really very little high ground here. Just a bunch of idiots. It is not that I am against free speech, I am just more for respecting the religious beliefs of others. If you hate someone because of their religion, you have your own issues to deal with.

Calling a cartoon "incitement to violence" is ridiculous. Incitement means speaking to a group of people, and getting the group to hurt someone ELSE, not the speaker or those like him. For example, "hey, let's get those damn blue-eyed people, they're no good, I say we all get guns and go shoot them all. Let's start with that guy over there. Who's with me?!?!?"

THAT is "incitement to violence".

The reaction to the cartoons is 100% the fault and responsibility of those reacting. For those who don't know, and/or can't speak French, Charlie Hebdo has a long and glorious history of lampooning and caricaturing virtually anybody. No sacred cows, no favourites. They insult all with equal vigor.

The whole "Muslims forbid images of Mohammed" meme is getting tired, and is historically and factually wrong. There have been images of Mohammed created for centuries. You can find one example in the United States at the Supreme Court in Washington. Mohammed is depicted there, along with many other historical law givers. Funny how there have never been any protests of that...

Free speech must by definition include the freedom to offend, to shock, and to disrespect. Otherwise, it isn't really freedom at all.

@Jimizo

Yeah, I don't remember that very well, but I do recall being somewhat shocked at the uproar. On the other hand, now that I think about, the title of that book, "Satanic Verses" is rather more juvenile delinquent than literary. I don't know what serious criticism of Islam would involve, other than in a philosophy of religion kind of assessment.

Anyway, when you think about the fact that the West had been invading Muslim lands trying to retake the Holy Land for centuries, and that multiple Islamic countries have been invaded by the West since the end of WWII, it's not unexpected that there will be outrage at such deliberately bigoted provocations.

I know that there have been Muslim invaders and conquerors in the past as well, but compared to the West and Islamic countries, India and Pakistan, for example, get along well.

What I am most concerned about is the self-righteousness that these perpetrators seem to be able to play on with respect to free speech in order to commit acts that in turn destabilize peaceful relations between countries, between populations.

The makers of that film are responsible for numerous deaths, such as the suicide bombing in Afghanistan that was directly in response to that, without even a connection to 9/11. The cartoonist and magazine have caused a major rift for the government of France, and who knows what fallout will occur because of these cartoons.

Frankly, I'm all for "free-thinking", but that is not what these people are engaged in. They are applying themselves to a situation in a manner such as to exacerbate it and seek personal gain, with not concern for the consequences.

I don't think that peoples lives should be subject to upheaval because of such acts. The motivations of the producers of these publications are not related to the rationale upon which are free speech laws were drawn up.

@ukbikwit I recommend a bit of research on the 'Satanic Verses'. I think you need to look at the meaning of the title 'Satanic Verses' and it's controversy in Islam. It relates to Mohammed's 'possession'.

The suicide bombing in Afghanistan as you call it ubikwit, (which one, the US base?) had been planned from long before. The 'film' was just a convenient reason to give afterwards, along with Captain Wales being there, etc, etc., and I am sure the Hebdo cartoons will be good enough 'reason' for other unforgivable outrages and atrocities too.

If you want to make a dog so angry that it bites you, that is your prerogative...

Amusing. Are you saying that muslims are nothing more than dogs? Well, given the typical muslim reaction to freedom of speech perhaps Pavlov's experiment has been confirmed yet again...

Seriously, going out of your way to provoke a response is tasteless. But when the response is violence then civilized people have to take notice, and condemn, the violence first. No more dhimmies!

I fully support that newspaper. Shame on Francois Hollande for condemning it. People in the West need to understand how radical these people are. Sure, they might be your next door neighbour. Then when you insult the Prophet and speak the truth, your house will be lit on fire or you will find yourself stabbed soon. Mohammed himself was a pedophile, and had sex with a 9 year old girl when he was 54. If one simply stated that fact on television, the Muslims would condemn it as "Islamophobia" and then mobs would start burning flags and rioting. Why do we let these people in?

@nandakandamanda

No, I'm referring to the bombing that killed pilots on contract with USAID, mostly "Russians and south Africans", which I chose because there are no extraneous connections to other events.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/world/asia/bomber-strikes-vehicle-carrying-foreigners-in-kabul.html?pagewanted=all

According to the article, this bombing brought the death toll to 28 due to the Hate speech film. This had nothing to do with 9-11 or British inanity.

I'm afraid you're probably correct in what you see in your crystal ball regarding carnage resulting from this offensive cartoons.

Correction: South Africans

I am just more for respecting the religious beliefs of others. If you hate someone because of their religion, you have your own issues to deal with.

@meanringo I don't dislike muslims because of their religious beliefs, I dislike their religious beliefs and the ideology it promotes. Big difference between hating a people and hating an ideology. If you hate Christianity because you're athiest but don't have anything against christians... do you understand yet?

@ubikwit this is exactly what I've told Medka

...you can feel sad, or disappointed when someone says or does something you find offensive to your religious beliefs. But whether you like it or not, people in this world do have the right to criticize and oppose an ideology they don't agree with as long as they're not killing someone. You yourself have taken the right to post your own opinion of Islam through natural means of debate for which we commend you.

The rest of the world does not see exactly the same nor respect religious beliefs the way you think they should just because you do. This is exactly why in every religion there are so many different sects because people all see things in different ways.

I know that there have been Muslim invaders and conquerors in the past as well, but compared to the West and Islamic countries, India and Pakistan, for example, get along well.

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of Pakistani's and Hindus would disagree with that.

@HonestDictator

But whether you like it or not, people in this world do have the right to criticize and oppose an ideology they don't agree with as long as they're not killing someone.

I would basically agree with you here, but we seem to be not jibing on the norms of civility with respect to "critique".

And it should be pointed out, again, that people have died as a result of these, shall we say, uncivil critiques. And all hell has broken loose, basically, with more opportunistic cretins coming along to throw fuel on the flames.

Maybe the producers of the incendiary film didn't kill them directly, but what role did they have indirectly in those deaths?

Not to be completely off topic, but in the US there is an Arab festival held every year in Dearborn Michigan. I would like to specify that the festival is an ARAB festival, not a muslim festival, nor an Islamic festival (if it was then it shouldn't be named the ARAB festival since those of Arabic descent can be athiest, jewish, christian, muslim, hindu or w/e).

Every year since 2010 when some christian missionary types were driven away from the festival for peacefully handing out pamphlets near one of the entrances and the city law enforcement did not uphold their constitutional rights there have been annual protests.

Unfortunately the more offensive types of "christian" evangelists have been showing up with signs of stupidity saying, "You're going to hell" and that kind of thing, but even so they didn't attack any of the fair goers. But while the signs were offensive to Islam (a religious ideology), the mostly Arab community became hostile anyway to the point of assault by throwing debri at the "christian" protesters. I'd personally prefer to see less christian protesters and more athiest/agnostic/hindu/buddist/protestors show up for upholding constitutional rights in the US though.

Now the problem here is that while I don't agree with the "statements" that these particular "christians" were using to protest against Islam, it still does not justify the physical aggression that was put on them.

The same type of protest happened in reverse in Australia this year during the 2012 Athiest convention. Muslim protesters were outside the convention center with the same type of "statements" on signs (You're going to hell... blah blah blah) and the athiest conventioners laughed and made statements (even an athiest gay couple to kissed) but were never really upset to the point that they physically assaulted the muslims protesting against athiesm.

Think hard about your rights to believe what you want to believe, say what you want to say, and protest what you want to protest against, and your reactions to opposing views. Nothing justifies a violent reaction. Words and illustrations are nothing but words and illustrations, how a person reacts to them is their own personal responsibility.

Now this is just stupid. Just because he didn't feel like joining a riot...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistani-businessman-accused-of-blasphemy-for-not-protesting-anti-islam-film/2012/09/19/713c3c28-0258-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html

If the intent is get people killed, then this isn't about the freedom of speech anymore. Its about yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire!

Last I checked, that was as illegal as voicing death threats.

But nowhere near as repulsive as rioting, destroying property, and threatening lives, because you don't like critique.

Friday, you are exactly wrong.

The "fire in a theatre" analogy has no relation to the current situation. In the theatre, the victims have no choice but to hear another person shouting "fire". In the Charlie Hebdo case (and the movie about Mohammed), those who are offended must actively seek out and view things they think are blashemous. As one French journalist said, "if Muslims don't like what Charlie Hebdo publishes, then they don't have to buy the magazine". Nobody is forcing them to see the cartoons, they choose to do so.

The intent of te publishers is completely irrelevant. Are you saying that, if the publisheers were only trying to start a dialogue or just to make a political comment, they would be less responsible? Or if their intent was to stir up crap they would be MORE responsible? Nonsense. The cartoons are what they are. How others react to them is completely the fault of the readers.

MeanRingo-san,

If you want to make a dog so angry that it bites you, that is your prerogative. I think it become idiocy when you provoke a dog so much that it bites someone else. Should the dog bite? No, it is a bad dog. Are you an idiot for trying to get the dog to bite? Yup! Really very little high ground here. Just a bunch of idiots. It is not that I am against free speech, I am just more for respecting the religious beliefs of others. If you hate someone because of their religion, you have your own issues to deal with

Thank you for a voice of sanity.

It's up to each individual to decide whether or not to believe in a religion or what religion to believe in.

We have to respect that.

There needs to be more tolerance and understanding.

Its time for halal markings on published works. Any cartoon/newspaper/book/magazine/etc without the marking can contain topics muslims may find potentially controversial. Then it becomes about choice. Muslims need to recognise they dont control what I as a non-muslim see, think, talk about or produce.

It is ridiculous to claim that we need to watch ourselves because some people act like vicious dogs. In most countries, a dog that viciously attacks at minimal provocation gets put down. We do not tolerate that behaviour in dogs and we certainly should not tolerate that behaviour in people. At least the dog has the excuse of being an intellectually primitive animal.

I want a T-shirt with those cartoons!!!

GurukunSep. 21, 2012 - 10:02AM JST

I want a T-shirt with those cartoons!!!

You will fail at US airports and be arrested for security reasons.

@Bertie, you are wrong. We DON'T have to respect the cholces people make at all. We need to tolerate them, but not respect them. Respect implies agreement at some level. Tolerate just means live and let live, whether or not we agree.

The "dog" analogy is not relevant, as people have free will and control over their behavior that animals don't. We shouldnt be so bigoted as to lower our expectations of people based on the religion they choose to follow.

IT`s ME:

" Except that you got muslims and buddhists killing each other in southern Thailand, etc. "

No. you got muslim radicals kill Buddhists in Southern Thailand, and typically after Friday prayers at the mosque. Have you been in Pattani? I have. Buddhist monestaries, temples, and schools need police protection around the clock. Nobody on the other hand needs to protect mosques. The violence there is entirely one-sided.

And after the Bahmiyan Budda attack, there was NO violence from the Thai buddhist majority against the muslims in the South. Zip, none, zero.

ubiquit:

" I simply think that the Hate speech laws should be implemented in a manner that enables the judicial system to hold culpable people that are inciting riots "

And how exactly do you want to implement Western hate speech laws against radical imams in Pakistan or Libya?? Because they are the ones who are inciting riots.

Or are seriously telling us that an obscure French satire magazin like Charlie Hedbo has any subscribers in Pakistan?

WilliB

And how exactly do you want to implement Western hate speech laws against radical imams in Pakistan or Libya?? Because they are the ones who are inciting riots.

That's a valid point, as religion should not be about promoting self-righteous ignorance, let alone violence. Just look at the book burning fraud Terry Jones, also involved in this incident. instead of encouraging people to read the Koran to get a better understanding of followers of Islam, he has sunk to the debased level of burning their holy book.

Perhaps these Imams you speak of are doing things than him, but they are at the receiving end of the hostilities emanating from people in the West on more levels than one. At any rate, I fully agree that the governments should be better able to influence the course of events and actions of religious leaders. And more cooperation between highly positioned religious leaders should help lead the way to reducing inter-religious tensions.

Civil rights are a complex set of interrelated rights that need to be implemented and enforced in a way that protects the overall fabric of civil society, striking a balance with individual rights.

HonestDictator pointed to some scenarios in which the freedom of association has come into conflict with the freedom of speech (protest). In the US the authorities would seem to have acted in a way to diffuse tensions and prevent escalation of hostile confrontation. Of course I think that the reaction of the "Arabs" with violence to such inane provocations was abhorrent, and perpetrators of violence need to be held accountable under the law.

The case he points out is, however, is interesting in another respect in that it is related to "race"--being Arab--but the protesters were apparently erroneously protesting their perceived religion. I think that in this instance you have a simple case of racial profiling that had the potential to result in inter-religious and inter-racial strife. Here you have a further complication of the complex of rights involved in civil rights. The ARAB festival has a right to be held, and protesters have a right to protest. But how can the authorities sanction a protest based on racial profiling that targets religious erroneously? It seems that the authorities in Michigan have a good grasp on the issues at hand and handled the matter responsibly, even if people have issues with that.

Maybe the producers of the incendiary film didn't kill them directly, but what role did they have indirectly in those deaths?

They didn't kill them directly or indirectly. The response to the film is entirely the responsibility of those doing the response. That is like going out there and saying I'm responsible for the death of someone because I said the world was flat and my audience didn't like that and so decided to kill someone because they didn't like it. I'm not responsible for that.

The makers of that film are responsible for numerous deaths, such as the suicide bombing in Afghanistan that was directly in response to that

By that argument the Pakistanis and Taliban are responsible for all Pakistani civilian deaths by US drone strikes.