Paris, anyone?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But again, criticism of western leaders is not the big issue here

I agree. (Which is why I wish ... well, you know ... )

[Anna]

I read that Michael Rosen piece last night and thought - well, he would say that wouldn't he? He's just hijacking the occasion because of his own agenda, so I didn't comment.
As to Cameron (love him or loathe him) he was representing Us - the UK, if he attended in a 'private' capacity I personally would have felt aggrieved that We - the UK - were not represented.
Personally I thought the march was quite inspiring and agree with Maclintick that the Jihadists seem to have scored a spectacular own-goal.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

speaking of own goals

je suis brum


... for what it is worth [not much] i apologise for supporting the invasion of Iraq to ostensibly take away the regime's WMD; i acknowledge that the warnings of such as Diane Abbott and Glenda Jackson and the sage advice of Robin Cook were correct but alas an underestimate of the woe to follow the war - there will be no end to it

with elections looming [and other domestic agendas to pursue] one may note that Sunday in Paris was an excellent photo opportunity for some European and Middle East Leaders as well as another wonderful propaganda initiative for the security state

[Richard Barrett]

By hijacking the expressions of grief and outrage to make personal/political profit, they have brought their part in the events leading up to the murders very publicly to the head of this context?

And nobody more than Netanyahu, who as I previously mentioned has form when it comes to the assassination of journalists, and who apparently was asked by François Hollande not to attend, but determined to do so seemingly on the grounds that his opponents in the forthcoming general election would be there so he couldn't be seen not to be. Who does he think he's "representing" apart from his own agenda?

And surely the point of demonstrations is not to be "represented" there but to be there. There have been many demonstrations over the years and across the world (including this one) which I would have wished to attend but couldn't because I wasn't in the right place at the right time. The thought never entered my mind that some political figure should turn up there to "represent" me.

Apart from which, I don't consider David Cameron to "represent" me in any shape or form whatsoever. I spend enough time as it is explaining to incredulous people from other countries how such an individual could come to occupy the post of Prime Minister of Britain.

[Beef Oven!]

After yesterday's overwhelming demonstration against religion-inspired terrorism, it's clear that the perpetrators of last weeks outrages have spectacularly failed. Firstly by creating a worldwide mood of sheer defiance that is likely to foster more satirical publications in the future, and secondly by posting Coulibaly's online justification
for his & the Kouachis' murderous spreee, pledging allegiance to ISIS and giving the lie to the suggestion made by some on this board that the massacres were in any way undertaken out of fellow-feeling for "dispossessed" muslims in France, Gaza or anywhere else, but were carried out to demonstrate solidarity with oppressed Jihadi fighters struggling to get by on a paltry $150 dollars-a-week, plus the Koranically-approved quota of captive sex-slaves forced into concubinage in ISIS-occupied territories -- mostly paid for by Sunni potentates in the Gulf (this is satire, by the way)

It's true that in the banlieus French muslims of Maghreb extraction suffer discrimination, government neglect, & poorer housing & job opportunities than the French mainstream, but it's still possible for a muslim girl from Seine-St-Denis to top the academic charts, just as it is in Saudi or Qatar ( satire again -- just in case)

Benjamin Netanyahu attended the march ( satire, anyone ? )

I'm not sure that we can say that the perpetrators of these unspeakable crimes have spectacularly failed.

What's the yardstick for success or failure on this?

One could argue that success or failure depends on whether or not journalists, publishers, magazines etc will ever feel able to publish something similar without being summarily executed by Kalashnikov wielding terrorists.

If blasphemy has returned as feature of modern European life, then sadly, they will have won, spectacularly. Whither freedom of speech?

[ahinton]

I'm not sure that we can say that the perpetrators of these unspeakable crimes have spectacularly failed.

We can indeed say it but the question is, of course, with what authority. To the extent that the terrorist crimes in Paris last week have drawn such immense and largely genuine international support for the very opposite aims to those of the perpetrators, it could reasonably be argued that they have indeed "spectacularly failed"; to the extent that such support alone isn't going to stop repeats of this kind of exercise, whether carreid out against or by the West, they have not, but then to the extent that such acts have not caused their targets to give in and adopt sharia law and the like in their societies, they have hardly succeeded either.

What's the yardstick for success or failure on this?

See above, at least for the odd inch on that yardstick...

One could argue that success or failure depends on whether or not journalists, publishers, magazines etc will ever feel able to publish something similar without being summarily executed by Kalashnikov wielding terrorists.

One could indeed, but I'm not sure how much water such a specific argument might hold. "Journalists, publishers, magazines" and what and who else, for starters? Moreover, not all who fall into these grounps will share the same kind or level of fear of further such acts. Also, the extent of such fear will vary from country to country, from place to place within any given country and from time to time in either.

If blasphemy has returned as feature of modern European life, then sadly, they will have won, spectacularly. Whither freedom of speech?

If by this you seek by implication to draw attenton, for example, to the abolition of blasphemy laws in any Western country, I do not see how such legislative reforms could of themselves impact directly in any way upon those who live in other countries that have yet to be subject to it, so I cannot see how those criminals and other like them could be thought to have "won" anything thereby.

[Beef Oven!]

We can indeed say it but the question is, of course, with what authority. To the extent that the terrorist crimes in Paris last week have drawn such immense and largely genuine international support for the very opposite aims to those of the perpetrators, it could reasonably be argued that they have indeed "spectacularly failed"; to the extent that such support alone isn't going to stop repeats of this kind of exercise, whether carreid out against or by the West, they have not, but then to the extent that such acts have not caused their targets to give in and adopt sharia law and the like in their societies, they have hardly succeeded either.


See above, at least for the odd inch on that yardstick...


One could indeed, but I'm not sure how much water such a specific argument might hold. "Journalists, publishers, magazines" and what and who else, for starters? Moreover, not all who fall into these grounps will share the same kind or level of fear of further such acts. Also, the extent of such fear will vary from country to country, from place to place within any given country and from time to time in either.


If by this you seek by implication to draw attenton, for example, to the abolition of blasphemy laws in any Western country, I do not see how such legislative reforms could of themselves impact directly in any way upon those who live in other countries that have yet to be subject to it, so I cannot see how those criminals and other like them could be thought to have "won" anything thereby.

I was using reason rather than logic, so there probably isn't a useful exchange of ideas to be had between us, if you present your ideas in the way you do.

[french frank]

Another irony is that Americans coined the phrases "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", and particularly "freedom fries" to indicate contempt for the French refusal to join the invasion of Iraq. The central issue is Charlie Hebdo, the cartoons and the consequent massacre of the cartoonists.

This is why it's my view that one should separate one's own personal agendas and priorities and leave them for a different occasion.

[Serial_Apologist]

Another irony is that Americans coined the phrases "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", and particularly "freedom fries" to indicate contempt for the French refusal to join the invasion of Iraq. The central issue is Charlie Hebdo, the cartoons and the consequent massacre of the cartoonists.

This is why it's my view that one should separate one's own personal agendas and priorities and leave them for a different occasion.

Is adjudging others on their record a matter of personal agenda? If so a personal agenda seems not only unavoidable but would seem to me a perfectly valid basis for not disconnecting things from the continuum which they (and especially the characters we're criticising for being there, given their part in what has led to the present situation) represent.

[french frank]

Is adjudging others on their record a matter of personal agenda?

Very often, yes.

If so a personal agenda seems not only unavoidable but would seem to me a perfectly valid basis for not disconnecting things from the continuum which they (and especially the characters we're criticising for being there, given their part in what has led to the present situation) represent.

In principle, true. Though I'm not clear why people are criticising these people for being there. I'm only absolutely clear why various actions that they have performed in the past are regarded (I would say justifiably) with anger, even venom. The question of their presence or non presence seems to me a matter of little importance. But, as I say, that's just my view.

[ahinton]

I was using reason rather than logic, so there probably isn't a useful exchange of ideas to be had between us, if you present your ideas in the way you do.

You might think that: I couldn't possibly comment unless you present yours on the above.

The actual success or failure of these crimes may differ from the perceptions thereof which will themselves inevitably vary from person to person. Of only one thing can we be certain about this, namely that, if their perpetrators intended to kill, they have succeeded in their mission; any other interpretation of the success or otherwise in this would need first to address what if any other avowed aim/s on the killers' part in carrying out these murders can be said to have been fulfilled thereby.

Presenting your ideas and reasons for the extent of fear among possible future targets that you believe these murders to have spread might help towards the possibility of a useful exchange of ideas, as will your specific views on the impact of people's views on blasphemy, bearing in mind that nations which harbour such murderers tend often to maintain very strict blasphemy laws whereas nations that harbour their victims tend to maintain much milder ones or none at all.

[Beef Oven!]

Is adjudging others on their record a matter of personal agenda? If so a personal agenda seems not only unavoidable but would seem to me a perfectly valid basis for not disconnecting things from the continuum which they (and especially the characters we're criticising for being there, given their part in what has led to the present situation) represent.

The characters being criticised haven't had a part in what has led to the present situation, if the present situation is the summary execution of Charlie Hedbo staff and French police officers by jihadists to 'avenge the prophet' and punish 'blasphemy'.

[Nick Armstrong]

...if the present situation is the summary execution of Charlie Hedbo staff and French police officers

... and the 4 people executed by the lunatic Coulibaly in Vincennes for being Jewish and for going shopping in a kosher store

[Beef Oven!]

... and the 4 people executed by the lunatic Coulibaly in Vincennes for being Jewish and for going shopping in a kosher store

Indeed, shame on me for the oversight. And thanks for pointing it out, Caliban.

[Serial_Apologist]

The characters being criticised haven't had a part in what has led to the present situation, if the present situation is the summary execution of Charlie Hedbo staff and French police officers by jihadists to 'avenge the prophet' and punish 'blasphemy'.

While it's easy to say in two lines what half a lifetime of evidential re-inclusion would be needed to rectify, it beats me how you can say that the role of current world leaders, especially Mr Netanyahu, has no bearing.