Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Je Suis Charlie

charliehebdo.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 292 posts

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#91

Post by DanBC »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #48
daeken wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is freedom of speech best defended in the face of unreasonable people who have no limits to what they are prepared to do? By everyone continuing to utilize their freedom of speech. It's really that simple. The only way to lose is to not make use of your freedom.

Even aside from the blatantly unreasonable people, consider the reasonable people who don't think that you should have that freedom of speech. Demographic trends present in Europe today make eventual change in public policy on the matter an increasingly realistic prospect. This is one of the underlying reasons behind the European right's distress about rising influence of Muslims, and a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment a…

Hang on: in england we had blasphemy laws that meant you could not do an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using christ (those laws have recently gone); and we had racial discrimination laws which meant you could not have an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using g*d.

It's not some radical muslim fundamentalist conspiracy to extend these protections to muslims.

(I am not saying it's the right thing to do. I think the blasphemy laws should have gone a lot sooner and racial discrimination laws should have been clearer about who was included and what was prohibited).

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#92

Post by happyscrappy »

icebraining wrote: post #84
happyscrappy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that you need to have tight control of citizens if you have a significant Muslim population? Somehow the US doesn't have this problem within the Muslim community.

Somehow the US doesn't have this problem within the Muslim community. Really? What about the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and the Boston Marathon bombings? Also, the US certainly keeps a close - often oppressive - watch over its Muslim community. This American Life had an episode about it: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471 (See also the AP prize-winning i…

As far as I know none of those were related to free speech which is what the GP meant by strict controls, i.e. you are not allowed to insult a religion.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#93

Post by krig »

RivieraKid wrote: post #72
mercurial wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian norwegian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik Sure. And there were also numerous bombings and attacks in Europe by left-wing extremists during the "years of lead". That said, the difference between Breivik and these guys is just the beard length. Right…

The difference is that religion didn't play a role in the motivation behind Breivik's attack.

No? He himself claims that it does, in the sense that he sees himself as a Christian crusader defending the european christian monoculture against an islamic invasion. His reason for killing social democrats was that he feels that the party is too supportive of a multicultural society.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#94

Post by francoisfeugeas »

jayess wrote: post #14
yodsanklai wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative. Not going to happen. French people value satire and freedom of expression.

Really? http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/11/mish-fine...

Your link is so much more relevant than the thousands of people taking the streets brandishing "Je suis Charlie" signs when the terrorists are still at large. /s

Sorry, I meant : yes, really.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#95

Post by oh_sigh »

coldtea wrote: post #74
Kiro wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can muslims not be religious fanatics or what do you mean? Sorry if I missed something obvious with your comment.

He means it was "islamic fanaticism", so it's islams fault, and those other types are not fanatics... On the other hand the Sintoist Japanese did horrible attrocities in China and Korea back in the day, Israeli Jews can also be genocidal against Palestinians etc. And Christianity has had its share of crime, starting with the Crusades. Budhists might be better, dunno.

Nope. Look at the behavior of the Tamil Tigers specifically, and generally the civil war in Sri Lanka.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#96

Post by [deleted] »

blfr wrote: post #23
robteix wrote: post #3

I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative.

Religious fanaticism? Were the attackers Buddhists? Shintoists? Jews?

[deleted]

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#97

Post by sarciszewski »

My belief is that, when something like this happens, we need a strong show of solidarity with the victim.

If you are (or know) a journalist, please consider publishing some of the Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoons, unredacted and uncensored, in your coverage of this story.

Terrorists may be able to kill some of us, but they can't kill all of us.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#98

Post by agumonkey »

venomsnake wrote: post #89
agumonkey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tiny detail, one of the cops that was killed on duty was a Muslim man named Ahmed. Hoping this will help avoiding the racist crowd to take advantage of the event too much.

I really doubt it ... the recent Ny cops death and the reaction of the minority of the force (and mostly the union leadership) showed - people will spin any event in whatever is needed, if it is their job to do so.

Can you give me a link or two, I'd like to read more about it.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#99

Post by microtonal »

mikeash wrote: post #31
krig wrote: post #22

This is horrible, and we as a society need to somehow make this kind of thing not happen. I have no idea what that means in practice, though. It seems everything that has been tried so far has only escalated the hatred and strengthened the extremists. Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian norwegian. https://e…

I don't think technology or psychology is yet sufficiently advanced to be able to stop this stuff altogether. However horrible it may sound, I think our best course of action is to accept that these things do happen occasionally. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight them, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to prevent them, but it does mean that we must accept that we'll never get to 100%. If we can move f…

Upvoted, because you make a very important point: I think our best course of action is to accept that these things do happen occasionally.

It is very hard to stop all zealots, especially if they act on their own or in small groups. Trying to extend spying, restraining ourselves in our free speech, starting to hunt down people of a certain religion, etc. will only have the opposite effect: stifling democracy and free speech.

The best reaction is to stay calm and continue to be rational: terrorism exists to instill fear in people. However, looking objectively, the chance of being hurt in a terrorist act is fairly slim in most countries. Especially if the problem is treated well, besides smart intelligence, social improvement: ensuring that kids have a future, talk with them before they radicalize, etc.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#100

Post by klibertp »

happyscrappy wrote: post #65
creamyhorror wrote: post #25

BBC coverage: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883 I am outraged at the enormity of the murders, but I can't see a simple solution given the significant presence of extremists. Their brazen acts know no limits; what then are governments to do? In my country, Singapore (which has a significant Muslim population), we have a relative lack of incidents or conflict, but the government also maintains tight control…

Are you implying that you need to have tight control of citizens if you have a significant Muslim population? Somehow the US doesn't have this problem within the Muslim community.

What? I don't live there, I've never even been to USA so I know nearly nothing I can be spectacularly wrong. However, if even 1/10 of what I read about TSA, Patriot Act, NSA and so on (and on...) is true then I think there is at least some degree of control over Muslim citizens? Isn't it actually an official policy?
Post reply on HN