France - Machine Gun attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo #1

[SStarr33]

We do. It's not clear whether the cartoons would have been against the racial discrimination act. If it's satire on a religion or political group, that's fine. I think some MSM publications don't want to publish them so as not to offend millions of moderate Muslims. I agree with that decision. Freedom of the press surely includes the freedom not to publish certain things. I defend their right to publish it, but I hope they're not bullied into doing it by commentators with an anti-Islamic view.

Sounds like it is illegal for both citizens and the media to freely express themselves.

 

[jillycat]

We do. It's not clear whether the cartoons would have been against the racial discrimination act. If it's satire on a religion or political group, that's fine. I think some MSM publications don't want to publish them so as not to offend millions of moderate Muslims. I agree with that decision. Freedom of the press surely includes the freedom not to publish certain things. I defend their right to publish it, but I hope they're not bullied into doing it by commentators with an anti-Islamic view.

Since neither Islam or Muslims are a race, how would publishing the cartoons violate any racial discrimination law?

 

[katydid23]

I don't know why - I think it was a mistake too not to have a high level rep there. The only thing I can think is that possibly they felt it would detract from the moment to have the president or VP show up. Kerry was already slated to visit a school India that had been victim to a terrors attack, and to back out of that would look bad. They should have kept holder there, IMO.

But to make the charge that the mistake was made not out of bad decision making but because the president cares more about football is just over the top. To disagree with policies is one thing but when you let the disagreement color your thinking to the point where you are basically accusing the president of being an uncaring psychopath (because that's what you'd have to be, to care more about football than about dead innocents, really) is just beyond reason. It's entering tinfoil hat territory.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never once said anything about Obama choosing football over the march. I am not sure where that is coming from.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, it's beyond pathetic, this critical mewling, from "patriots" who'd gladly send a U.S. President into a hastily organized three million person march in a country with unsettled security concerns and 17 freshly dead in terror attacks. If any doubt the U.S.'s commitment to freedom and to Europe, a walk on Omaha Beach might be a nice refresher; and if any doubt our president's patriotic lineage, then that person can reflect on Obama's granddad and great-uncle, both of whom were in France and in uniform within six weeks of D-Day.

But I get it, I get it -- it's never about truth; it's about something much more hidden, fearful, and unclear.

BBM

Forty Four other world leaders managed to travel and stay safe that day. Heads of State from Israel, Palestine, Germany and 41 other countries figured out a way to make it happen. Not sure why the USA should be any different.

I am not sure which truth you are referring to. Omaha Beach was a long long time ago. As was the service of Obama's grandfather and granduncle. We are in a much different war now. Much less defined and without borders, imo.

 

[Waddles]

I never once said anything about Obama choosing football over the march. I am not sure where that is coming from.

It is in reference to post 1439.

 

[Waddles]

#JeSuisNico

This is hilarious

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy ridiculed under #JeSuisNico for moving to front of Paris march


https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=#jesuisnico&src=typd

Thank you for posting this! Some of those photo montages left me in stitches, too funny!

 

[katydid23]

It is in reference to post 1439.

OK. but in reply TO ME, it was said:


but when you let the disagreement color your thinking to the point where you are basically accusing the president of being an uncaring psychopath (because that's what you'd have to be, to care more about football than about dead innocents, really) is just beyond reason. It's entering tinfoil hat territory.



So I was a bit confused by all of the YOU's....:waitasec:

 

[Waddles]

OK. but in reply TO ME, it was said:


but when you let the disagreement color your thinking to the point where you are basically accusing the president of being an uncaring psychopath (because that's what you'd have to be, to care more about football than about dead innocents, really) is just beyond reason. It's entering tinfoil hat territory.



So I was a bit confused by all of the YOU's....:waitasec:

Ah I see, I think it's the "you" meaning "one" When one lets one's disagreement etc. I think that is what is meant. Just assuming so!

 

[jillycat]

Yes, it's beyond pathetic, this critical mewling, from "patriots" who'd gladly send a U.S. President into a hastily organized three million person march in a country with unsettled security concerns and 17 freshly dead in terror attacks. If any doubt the U.S.'s commitment to freedom and to Europe, a walk on Omaha Beach might be a nice refresher; and if any doubt our president's patriotic lineage, then that person can reflect on Obama's granddad and great-uncle, both of whom were in France and in uniform within six weeks of D-Day.

But I get it, I get it -- it's never about truth; it's about something much more hidden, fearful, and unclear.

I'm not sure to whom the above is directed, but it doesn't remotely characterize my remarks about the lack of executive presence in Paris. Or the remarks described and quoted here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/media-slam-obamas-paris-snub-200928.html

Is Andrea Mitchell a mewling critic?

In regard to Omaha Beach and D-Day, we can add the Hindu Kush and a host of other places to the mix, and say that the sailors and soldiers and Marines who shed their blood and lost their lives there were quintessential American warriors. Kunar Province really sticks in my mind. But we can't say politicians or governments are the same thing as the men who stood on those lines. And those places have nothing to do with whether or not this POTUS went to Paris. Nor do a President's relatives tell us a thing about a President's commitment to anything at all.

So, on the subject of the lack of American executive presence in Paris, judging from the thumbs down from members of the media seated on the left side of the aisle, tweets from Paris citizens, and the head-shaking from former officials who have served both Republican and Democrat presidents, it seems this was an equal opportunity failure. This is why Josh Earnest had a nerve-wracked day running damage control after the pulse of public and media sentiment was checked. To those then who say this has become political, I would ask what screams that louder than a Press Secy showing up with a mop and pail?

 

[Waddles]

Newflash on phone saying a French citizen being held in Bulgaria for having ties with the Kouachi brothers. He was apparently trying to cross to the Turkish border with his child. His wife says he abducted the child with a view to bringing him along to jihadist training.

 

[Brightbird]

Since neither Islam or Muslims are a race, how would publishing the cartoons violate any racial discrimination law?

I have no idea. But according to some politicians in Australia, the discrimination act would prevent many of them being published. I'm just going off the article Mrs G linked to. However, in the same article it refers to comments made by the race discrimination commissioner -

Mr Soutphommanse also said many of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons could run in Australian publications without breaching racial discrimination laws.

"People can make complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act only about things which concern the attributes of race, colour, ethnicity and national origin," he said.

"If a complaint is made about offence that is taken on the basis of religion, this is something that does not come under the Racial Discrimination Act.

So perhaps some cartoons would not be allowed if they depicted Arab people, or people from Iraq (for example), in a very negative way. But not on the basis of religion. Sounds to me like some politicians and social commentators are using this tragedy to whip up support for their desire to repeal parts of the racial discrimination act, something that's been going on for a while here and has more to do with feeding xenophobia than free speech. Here's an article about an Australian cartoonist that is receiving police protection because his cartoons are probably offensive to Muslims.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ned-about-islam-drawings-20150113-12mz70.html

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Yes that sounds right Brightbird, perhaps it simply needs to be rewritten? Also I have seen worse satire in Australia that is pure racism so I'm really not quite sure what would be censored. Looks like this debate has fired up, I do think we can't legislate against insults, but hate speech I have always seen as speech with 'intent' although I could be wrong.

 

[jillycat]

And forgive me for quoting myself, but I do it just to chastise my own self really. Because look - here we are, making it all about us USians again. As usual. There was an attack on France, on the French people, yet the topic inevitably comes around to us. We are like the toddler or teenager who cannot bear to not be the center of attention. And I included myself in this. I apologize.

Maybe we should just shut up about what we here in the U.S. Are doing/not doing, and listen and learn from the French. Because again, Europe has a lot more experience dealing with terror attacks than we do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not seeing any "about us" when Americans express sympathy for the French, appreciation for the march and those who showed up in solidarity, and embarrassment or sadness that we had no executive presence in Paris for the French people.

I feel very much like an adult when expressing my views on America's historical relationship with France. Let's not forget that France sits on the Security Council with the US. So I'm not sure why we are to silence all opinion and sentiment, particularly when the desire to silence others is what underpins the attack on France. ?

I'm just not following the claim that we've made this about America. On the other hand, the claim in another post that POTUS may have felt his Presence would detract from the Paris event suggests that indeed at least one American can't stop viewing himself as central to all things.

I look at it like this. If Obama or the VP had made this about Paris, the news outlets could have devoted more time to coverage about France, instead of Josh Earnest and his baton twirling act on behalf of the administration. JMO

 

[Colin de France]

The idea that the world dosn't turn around America and that solutions or alternatives can be found without them is healthy. The fact they didn't want to be there isn't the end of the world and may of even been perceived by the terrorists as an attempt at appeasement .....

 

[katydid23]

The idea that the world dosn't turn around America and that solutions or alternatives can be found without them is healthy. The fact they didn't want to be there isn't the end of the world and may of even been perceived by the terrorists as an attempt at appeasement .....

BBM

See, that is what I find both interesting and disappointing. That it is seen as a fact , by others, that the US administration 'did not want to be there.' I find it sad, but most likely true that our President couldn't be bothered. Nor could he make sure an appropriate representative attended. :no:

 

[jillycat]

I have no idea. But according to some politicians in Australia, the discrimination act would prevent many of them being published. I'm just going off the article Mrs G linked to. However, in the same article it refers to comments made by the race discrimination commissioner -





So perhaps some cartoons would not be allowed if they depicted Arab people, or people from Iraq (for example), in a very negative way. But not on the basis of religion. Sounds to me like some politicians and social commentators are using this tragedy to whip up support for their desire to repeal parts of the racial discrimination act, something that's been going on for a while here and has more to do with feeding xenophobia than free speech. Here's an article about an Australian cartoonist that is receiving police protection because his cartoons are probably offensive to Muslims.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ned-about-islam-drawings-20150113-12mz70.html

This is an example of what I was saying in my previous posts about "offending" Muslims, or anyone else for that matter. Larry Pickering's position on his content is on the mark. We cannot be willing to surrender speech freedoms because of how others feel about what we say. Good for Mr. Pickering for taking the interviewer to task for her remarks, which were another version of, "Free speech has to be protected..BUT..."

On the subject of racism, I see this issue arise routinely in American media and the national discourse. Criticism of Islam and/or Muslim actions is equated with racist narrative, and the critic is considered a bigot, or assumed to be a political "right-winger".

 

[Footwarrior]

BBM

Forty Four other world leaders managed to travel and stay safe that day. Heads of State from Israel, Palestine, Germany and 41 other countries figured out a way to make it happen. Not sure why the USA should be any different.

How many of these world leaders traveled as far as the distance from Washington to Paris?

 

[Waddles]

BBM

See, that is what I find both interesting and disappointing. That it is seen as a fact , by others, that the US administration 'did not want to be there.' I find it sad, but most likely true that our President couldn't be bothered. Nor could he make sure an appropriate representative attended. :no:

I very much doubt that the President "couldn't be bothered" - the administration has expressed their regrets at not being here and I'm sure it was discussed and decided against for some reason that was not a question of not being bothered. I assure you all it is not seen as a slight here. The French very much feel the solidarity of the US and everyone I spoke to was touched by Kerry's beautiful speech of solidarity given very soon after Wednesday's attack and Obama's message subsequently. I fully realise it's disappointing and embarrassing for Americans that a high up US dignitary was not present at such a historic march but I see no criticism from the French people overall and the support of the US is very much felt and understood.

 

[Waddles]

Very moving live footage of the tribute to the fallen police officers on TV now. Hollande hugged and kissed and spoke at length to each family member in tears. One woman was so distraught he stayed with her quite a while. Very moving ceremony.

 

[Elley Mae]

Let me just say that I am me and I am not in the ball of people when referring to the us/americans, because a sitting pres makes a bad decision/mistake I am not at fault. This is about terrorism in France and the fall out after. Never was about the us and isn't now. Because the sitting pres dropped the ball, (no pun intended) the people here should not be blamed, he is one person and does not speak for me.
I personally feel that the pres/vice pres/ secretary of state should have been there. jmo