Paris, anyone?

[french frank]

No issue is 'self contained', everything is connected (now who said that?)

Even when things are connected, there is sometimes merit in considering them quite separately, if they are perceptibly distinct.

[Serial_Apologist]

Even when things are connected, there is sometimes merit in considering them quite separately, if they are perceptibly distinct.

...provided one's reasons for doing so are made clear at the outset.

[MrGongGong]

Even when things are connected, there is sometimes merit in considering them quite separately, if they are perceptibly distinct.

Absolutely
but its important to recognise the interconnectedness of things.

[P. G. Tipps]

Even following the sad and distressing events in Paris we can always rely on the Fox Comedy Channel to keep up our spirits ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297

[Pabmusic]

Absolutely
but its important to recognise the interconnectedness of things.

What? Is Coleridge implicated?

[french frank]

Even following the sad and distressing events in Paris we can always rely on the Fox Comedy Channel to keep up our spirits ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297

Just read that! I liked the good old British humour shown in the comments.

[french frank]

What? Is Coleridge implicated?

And anyway, the opinion I was expressing was that sometimes it is better, more helpful, if certain issues were detached from their 'connections'. It enables a different type of judgement.

I personally can't see the point of Rosen using the presence of leaders, some of whose actions he vehemently disagrees with, at the Charlie Hebdo rally, as an opportunity to include his opinion (once again?) on those actions. Whether he intends it or not (and I presume not) it gives the impression that all these actions, including the Paris massacre and domestic economic policy, are as bad as each other. It is more useful (again in my opinion) to criticise the actions of Western leaders in their own context - not in the context of a murderous atrocity such as we have just witnessed. This is not the moment.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It is more useful (again in my opinion) to criticise the actions of Western leaders in their own context - not in the context of a murderous atrocity such as we have just witnessed. This is not the moment.

Except, perhaps, the point that these leaders have imposed themselves upon "the moment"? 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?

[Quarky]

The problem is that there are important areas where there seems to be a complete dislocation between the values of secular Western states and fundamentalist Islam. We should be clear that the recent killings are not the deranged acts of psychopaths but the logical application of sharia principles.

Thank you, that was the explanation I was looking for. In my view, it is not just freedom of speech and satire that are dislocated. How about freedom to go about one's lawful business without hindrance? Or a polite kiss on the cheek when accepting an award?

May be this gathering of World leaders might declare a list of matters, for the benefit of those that might feel excused the laws of a Western State, and those that do not, which are regarded as non-negotiable and not open for discussion or modification.

[Beef Oven!]

Except, perhaps, the point that these leaders have imposed themselves upon "the moment"? 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?

Ok, we perceive insincerity in our leaders and we don't like it when they behave like this. But again, criticism of western leaders is not the big issue here, and can more usefully be discussed separately, as ff argues.

[Maclintick]

On Richard's point that the cartoons might appear to the dispossessed Muslims in France to be attacking 'their' Islam, perhaps, though how many would routinely read Charlie Hebdo? Most of us would condemn the things that the cartoons were seeking to ridicule. But as with the Banksy cartoon that I posted, people can read satire in the opposite way from that intended. A disaster when the satire, like Charlie Hebdo's, is not subtle.

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 ? )

[Flosshilde]

Benjamin Netanyahu attended the march ( satire, anyone ? )

Indeed.
I think 'world leaders' should have kept well away - their presence wasn't needed to attract media attention, and anything they can do isn't helped by their presence on such a demonstration.

Meanwhile, in another part of the world, something happened which has received rather less media attention, possibly because it's in Africa & doesn't involve journalists' 'freedom of expression' - just people's freedom.

http://www.news.com.au/world/africa/islamic-extremist-attack-in-nigeria-named-the-deadliest-massacre-in-history/story-fnh81gzi-1227180726580

[french frank]

Except, perhaps, the point that these leaders have imposed themselves upon "the moment"? 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?

But 'hijacking' is your chosen word, which indicates, perhaps, a subjective stance. Obama, for instance, is a Head of State who represents the American people, not just the current administration. Cameron isn't the HoS but either you are 'content' (i.e. don't think it's worth quibbling at this moment) that he should represent all of us, or you're not: it depends on your priorities. But it seems right that representatives of all the nations united in a common emotion of revulsion should be present. Is this the moment to squabble over who that representative should be when this was such a swift spontaneous reaction? Not much hope for any of us if the response of some is, 'He doesn't represent me. Oh, and while we're at it, nor does the Queen.'

[Flosshilde]

But does he represent 'us'? Should he be there representing 'us' - by which I mean should 'we' be represented as a homogeonous mass? Who are the 'us' being represented? There are very likely people living in the UK who support the murderers. The demonstration wasn't a state occasion - if Cameron et al wanted to be there they should have gone in a private capacity.

[french frank]

But does he represent 'us'? Should he be there representing 'us' - by which I mean should 'we' be represented as a homogeonous mass? Who are the 'us' being represented? There are very likely people living in the UK who support the murderers. The demonstration wasn't a state occasion - if Cameron et al wanted to be there they should have gone in a private capacity.

I'd say it was a 'symbolic' occasion, if not a state occasion. And yes, let the satirists point out the ironies after the event. It's one of the facts that gives pause for thought: is it possible for anyone to 'represent' any group if it means that 100% of the group must agree 100% with each other before they can be represented.