How Emmanuel Macron wants to retaliate against Erdogan

[Lucifer_Decoy]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=364920411392156

Civilized french people practicing freedom of speech

 

[Costin84]

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-mulls-trade-action-against-turkey/

 

[Waz]

Freedom of speech hypocrisy.

Macron calls out Bolsonaro's 'extraordinarily rude' insults against wife Brigitte

French President Emmanuel Macron hit back Monday against the "extraordinarily rude" comments made about his wife Brigitte by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters on social media, calling…

www.france24.com

Lmao, that was hilarious.

Wasn't he 15 years old when he began to have sex with her? She was 44? That's rape here in the UK....

 

[Zafer]

No matter how provoking, murdering is NOT ACCEPTABLE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. IT MUST BE CONDEMNED UNEQUIVOCALLY.

Get that into your head. When placed next to murder of a teacher, showing a cartoon is nothing. They are not equivalent. They are not even close.

This backward mentality is why many parts of the Muslim world are in constant conflict and unable to create stable, thriving societies. We have to get out of this mentality - for our own sakes. What's in the past cannot be changed BUT AT LEAST LEARN FROM IT SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

Looks like that so called teacher didn't know the consequences of spilling filth. Like he didn't live in France before and not seen how Muslim people are offended by cartoon provocations, didn't learn a thing from the past. Muslims won't retaliate them by insulting their sacred values out of respects while the French look down on Muslims with all that disrespect.

I don't have the knowledge of who killed that teacher but probably it was his misconduct.

 

[Sinan]

Populist leaders doing their thing for their political careers, ordinary people suffering for their actions. People need to step back and thing are their leaders actually working for the interest of them.

 

[Nilgiri]

Quick question (and then my take on this issue and a larger issue beyond that):

If a Muslim (in whatever definition...let me go by the basic one that submits to the Quran as his/her central tenet of faith) is offended by these cartoons in some significant way, does that not mean he/she is first recognizing in some way (overtly or subconsciously o whatever mix) the prophet is capable of being visually depicted in first place?

Does that not run fundamentally contrary to what is stated+mainstream-interpreted in the Quran itself (the final prophet and other prophets before him) cannot be visually depicted.

If this holds true, where is the fundamental cause for offense to be had? Any visual depiction (mocking , glorifying. neutral or otherwise) is summarily rejected if you hold your faith. Is it not?

Ab initio, the misunderstanding is totally to be held by the other side in that they have no idea or understanding of what they are attempting to do.

Not to put Yankeestani on the spot here but am I as a Hindu/Indian supposed to be overly offended at this meme?:

The Meme Thread

defencehub.live

Am I to call for its removal from sight and vision for my personal offense (or the affront/offense it may have on my larger community of faith/identity....as though I can somehow personally harness that too in the resolution needed for some further argument and reasoning?)

If this meme were published in charlie hebdo or even a mainstream publication, should I ask for that publication to be banned? Nope....because I have literally no way of giving objective reference to my personal offense level to another person in first place. Neither does he have in the other way.

How do any ONE of you know what resides in my personal faith and conscience? How may I describe it to ANY single one of you in the most appropriate way so you may understand it fully with your own context and references to get exactly HOW i feel? How would you know its real or if I am lying?

It is impossible....is it not? So how does it make it possible for you to do so for another?

There is a reason why such relative things are left in the realm of faith and why the best system of laws must govern what is physically proven to a much higher absolute standard.

My religion makes no rule against visual depiction of anything in the supernatural or earthly realms...all that has existed, exists and will exist....all is fair game.

As the dragon told Merlin, the old religion was around eons before you my young warlock, and will be there eons well after.

It is I that have to then give everyone a full benefit of the doubt as the default as to their intention and understanding. It rests on me, no one else. In the end the realm of faith is a personalised exercise, it is your decision to believe and implement in your actions. If a society deems it should be collectivised, I disagree with it...but then that society simply does so in the well-spring of this to begin with....it has no foundation to (forcibly) exert on another society the same thing. History (and current affairs) have too many examples of where this leads to, please read up on them.

It is why I simply reject (in capacity I have to bring to bear...i.e myself) any misconstrued mocking or humour thrown my way at my religion or any other identity (country, ideology, ethnicity...you name it). They simply do not know of it in the way I hold dear...but that is my personal decision, and theirs....as nothing can be proven....can I reach into their head and they into mine to fully establish this stuff?

So the freedom for anyone to engage in that must never be limited...as it is simply highly non-referenced in the absolute sense.

On this issue I stand 100% with the French republic. @Vergennes

You can attack Macron all you want....but he is a President, he is the highest executive, brought there by the democratic process of his nation.

Many of you here do not seem to understand he is merely voicing what is long established in something deeper: The French constitution and its judicial branch. Surely the highest political office of a country must be aligned to this?

As close French friend of mine years ago gave as parting conclusion (I was taking many of your lot position for devils advocate game I like to play from time to time with people in general...and he fell for it then ):

(In French, paraphrasing) This country my good friend, is the land of Voltaire....there are certain things you simply won't understand....and what blood and strife and cost it involved to get here....we hold it dear, the dearest thing of all about our nation.

I can go on at some length on how this still manifests an ocean distance away here in Quebec (our BQ party leader just stepped into it recently...but he explained it so well it stunned the typical liberals these days).

So what is the real problem many of you seem to have?

Is it where free speech starts and ends compared to freedom of expression?

Many of you, in fact I would venture most of you, do not know the difference between these two concepts in first place... sorry to say (and one or two of you are noticeably severely intellectually deprived on this whole topic to begin with).

You will have to define what they are before we can get into things like its application w.r.t Holocaust denial (which by the way I consider as free speech....but French republic disagrees...and I do not agree with them there).

My own position is maximising free speech is a good thing...but freedom of expression is not absolute and must be well defined (your rights end where they provably infringe on mine). The countries that define, implement and achieve the greatest amount of free speech are noticeably far more developed and (intrinsically) progressive (in the original definition) for a reason.

Likewise in that exercise, this is the reason freedom of expression is (and must be) constrained by provable tort.

You don't get to yell fire! in a crowded theatre etc...and say hey free speech right?!

You don't get to spray paint nazi signs on a synagogue and say free speech!

You don't get to enter a private home by force to tell someone something and say free speech!

You all have to try understand what is provable action and intent (and the tort)....and what cannot be proven (and resides in the mind and conscience fully).

By this, the (murdered) French teacher did nothing wrong legally. Do we even know the context of why he was bringing up the cartoons for study? This is important btw.

After all if offense-basis is the principle for employment legally, where does the limit go?...till whole society is totally fractured on it (given at some point something that doesnt offend you... offends someone else).

Leaving side Islam and Hinduism which I have brought up already here:

Are we to ban halloween and any potential mocking of witchcraft....because a number of Wiccans assert they are offended?

I have a Jehovah's witness friend....each year around Christmas time, he diligently explains to me new things that offend him about this "Pagan" holiday and how he says Christianity mainstream has been corrupted.

He hates pretty much every cultural depiction of it that is mainstreamed, and the very holiday's date itself (moved to cover a pagan solstice festivity by a certain sect of Christianity that seem to have the naming rights and inertia itself he says). He hates Christmas trees, the decoration of them, he hates visual depiction of Santa Claus (very different to Saint Nicholas he says), the idolatry of this and that...and just about everything causes him great offense...(known to only him).

But what he wont say is there should be a legal movement to change all this...much less some mob force (even if say his group was big enough to do so)....because he gets what Faith is in the end. This is why he can literally have a conversation and earthly co-existence with me (that even has elements of friendship), a complicated Eastern Pagan by his definition.

You all can take all of this and compare it to charlie hebdo depictions and think strongly upon your reasoning on what you can prove (emotional hurt wise) to another on it....and if you do so...what can be done back your way if that is the standard? What if the very intrinsic performance/rituals of your own religion/culture is highly offensive to another...if we are to have an offending basis for rule making?

There is reason why you must approach certain crucial things with deductive reasoning....not a flawed inductive one.

This applies to every identity issue in general...not just Faith.

Would like to hear @Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321 take if they would like to share theirs.

 

[Zafer]

I might not get "liked" for what I'll say,but I fully support harsh freedom of expression without any restrictions in public and private places,no matter if it is considered as negationism,racism,hate,religious extremism,blasphemy,apostasy and what not....

Nowadays what's considered as freedom of expression and not is being set by politicians for whatever their goals and interests are.

You often find some things are readily censored by media outlets and you can not express what you think while some others are freely circulated. If you can not create equality you can not provide full freedom of expression. In which case you stick to reason and stop the spilling of filth.

 

[Skyfall]

This is your logic:

If I was to call you a *******.

Now you strongly believe that you aren't a *******.

So you shouldn't be offended.

Quick question (and then my take on this issue and a larger issue beyond that):

If a Muslim (in whatever definition...let me go by the basic one that submits to the Quran as his/her central tenet of faith) is offended by these cartoons in some significant way, does that not mean he/she is first recognizing in some way (overtly or subconsciously o whatever mix) the prophet is capable of being visually depicted in first place?

Does that not run fundamentally contrary to what is stated+mainstream-interpreted in the Quran itself (the final prophet and other prophets before him) cannot be visually depicted.

If this holds true, where is the fundamental cause for offense to be had? Any visual depiction (mocking , glorifying. neutral or otherwise) is summarily rejected if you hold your faith. Is it not?

Ab initio, the misunderstanding is totally to be held by the other side in that they have no idea or understanding of what they are attempting to do.

Not to put Yankeestani on the spot here but am I as a Hindu/Indian supposed to be overly offended at this meme?:

The Meme Thread

defencehub.live

Am I to call for its removal from sight and vision for my personal offense (or the affront/offense it may have on my larger community of faith/identity....as though I can somehow personally harness that too in the resolution needed for some further argument and reasoning?)

If this meme were published in charlie hebdo or even a mainstream publication, should I ask for that publication to be banned? Nope....because I have literally no way of giving objective reference to my personal offense level to another person in first place. Neither does he have in the other way.

How do any ONE of you know what resides in my personal faith and conscience? How may I describe it to ANY single one of you in the most appropriate way so you may understand it fully with your own context and references to get exactly HOW i feel? How would you know its real or if I am lying?

It is impossible....is it not? So how does it make it possible for you to do so for another?

There is a reason why such relative things are left in the realm of faith and why the best system of laws must govern what is physically proven to a much higher absolute standard.

My religion makes no rule against visual depiction of anything in the supernatural or earthly realms...all that has existed, exists and will exist....all is fair game.

As the dragon told Merlin, the old religion was around eons before you my young warlock, and will be there eons well after.

It is I that have to then give everyone a full benefit of the doubt as the default as to their intention and understanding. It rests on me, no one else. In the end the realm of faith is a personalised exercise, it is your decision to believe and implement in your actions. If a society deems it should be collectivised, I disagree with it...but then that society simply does so in the well-spring of this to begin with....it has no foundation to (forcibly) exert on another society the same thing. History (and current affairs) have too many examples of where this leads to, please read up on them.

It is why I simply reject (in capacity I have to bring to bear...i.e myself) any misconstrued mocking or humour thrown my way at my religion or any other identity (country, ideology, ethnicity...you name it). They simply do not know of it in the way I hold dear...but that is my personal decision, and theirs....as nothing can be proven....can I reach into their head and they into mine to fully establish this stuff?

So the freedom for anyone to engage in that must never be limited...as it is simply highly non-referenced in the absolute sense.

On this issue I stand 100% with the French republic. @Vergennes

You can attack Macron all you want....but he is a President, he is the highest executive, brought there by the democratic process of his nation.

Many of you here do not seem to understand he is merely voicing what is long established in something deeper: The French constitution and its judicial branch. Surely the highest political office of a country must be aligned to this?

As close French friend of mine years ago gave as parting conclusion (I was taking many of your lot position for devils advocate game I like to play from time to time with people in general...and he fell for it then ):

(In French, paraphrasing) This country my good friend, is the land of Voltaire....there are certain things you simply won't understand....and what blood and strife and cost it involved to get here....we hold it dear, the dearest thing of all about our nation.

I can go on at some length on how this still manifests an ocean distance away here in Quebec (our BQ party leader just stepped into it recently...but he explained it so well it stunned the typical liberals these days).

So what is the real problem many of you seem to have?

Is it where free speech starts and ends compared to freedom of expression?

Many of you, in fact I would venture most of you, do not know the difference between these two concepts in first place... sorry to say (and one or two of you are noticeably severely intellectually deprived on this whole topic to begin with).

You will have to define what they are before we can get into things like its application w.r.t Holocaust denial (which by the way I consider as free speech....but French republic disagrees...and I do not agree with them there).

My own position is maximising free speech is a good thing...but freedom of expression is not absolute and must be well defined (your rights end where they provably infringe on mine). The countries that define, implement and achieve the greatest amount of free speech are noticeably far more developed and (intrinsically) progressive (in the original definition) for a reason.

Likewise in that exercise, this is the reason freedom of expression is (and must be) constrained by provable tort.

You don't get to yell fire! in a crowded theatre etc...and say hey free speech right?!

You don't get to spray paint nazi signs on a synagogue and say free speech!

You don't get to enter a private home by force to tell someone something and say free speech!

You all have to try understand what is provable action and intent (and the tort)....and what cannot be proven (and resides in the mind and conscience fully).

By this, the (murdered) French teacher did nothing wrong legally. Do we even know the context of why he was bringing up the cartoons for study? This is important btw.

After all if offense-basis is the principle for employment legally, where does the limit go?...till whole society is totally fractured on it (given at some point something that doesnt offend you... offends someone else).

Leaving side Islam and Hinduism which I have brought up already here:

Are we to ban halloween and any potential mocking of witchcraft....because a number of Wiccans assert they are offended?

I have a Jehovah's witness friend....each year around Christmas time, he diligently explains to me new things that offend him about this "Pagan" holiday and how he says Christianity mainstream has been corrupted.

He hates pretty much every cultural depiction of it that is mainstreamed, and the very holiday's date itself (moved to cover a pagan solstice festivity by a certain sect of Christianity that seem to have the naming rights and inertia itself he says). He hates Christmas trees, the decoration of them, he hates visual depiction of Santa Claus (very different to Saint Nicholas he says), the idolatry of this and that...and just about everything causes him great offense...(known to only him).

But what he wont say is there should be a legal movement to change all this...much less some mob force (even if say his group was big enough to do so)....because he gets what Faith is in the end. This is why he can literally have a conversation and earthly co-existence with me (that even has elements of friendship), a complicated Eastern Pagan by his definition.

You all can take all of this and compare it to charlie hebdo depictions and think strongly upon your reasoning on what you can prove (emotional hurt wise) to another on it....and if you do so...what can be done back your way if that is the standard? What if the very intrinsic performance/rituals of your own religion/culture is highly offensive to another...if we are to have an offending basis for rule making?

There is reason why you must approach certain crucial things with deductive reasoning....not a flawed inductive one.

This applies to every identity issue in general...not just Faith.

Would like to hear @Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321 take if they would like to share theirs.

 

[Nilgiri]

This is your logic:

If I was to call you a *******.

Now you strongly believe that you aren't a *******.

So you shouldn't be offended.

I am not. Why would I be?

You can call me anything to your heart's desire. You mean zilch to me...you don't even know me.

 

[Ravenman]

Well, Charlie Hebdo never made a cartoon about Europe's own elites. Could they draw a cartoon about the Queen being gangbanged? Or Macron being assaulted by his elderly granny wife? Or Netanyahu killing babies? Or Anne Frank in bed with Hitler? Freedom of expression my ass.

They fired their own cartoonist when he draw something about jews.

 

[rainmaker]

Quick question (and then my take on this issue and a larger issue beyond that):

If a Muslim (in whatever definition...let me go by the basic one that submits to the Quran as his/her central tenet of faith) is offended by these cartoons in some significant way, does that not mean he/she is first recognizing in some way (overtly or subconsciously o whatever mix) the prophet is capable of being visually depicted in first place?

Does that not run fundamentally contrary to what is stated+mainstream-interpreted in the Quran itself (the final prophet and other prophets before him) cannot be visually depicted.

All this hullabaloo of the cartoons in various Muslim countries is meaningless and just something that certain Islamist groups are doing just because they want to be seen as "doing something" so that their followers don't say, "What were you doing when France was disrespecting the Prophet?".

The vast majority (in Bangladesh at least) don't care what shitty cartoons is printed in any foreign country, at least not enough to protest in the streets or do anything more complicated than post on social media.

 

[Ryder]

Well, Charlie Hebdo never made a cartoon about Europe's own elites. Could they draw a cartoon about the Queen being gangbanged? Or Macron being assaulted by his elderly granny wife? Or Netanyahu killing babies? Or Anne Frank in bed with Hitler? Freedom of expression my ass.

They fired their own cartoonist when he draw something about jews.

The same people who defended charlie hebdo when he mocked Prophet Muhammed, Moses and Jesus got outraged when Charlie hebdo mocked the Hurricane hitting USA and the earthquake that hit Italy.

Let the gates of free speech be opened. People should be free to insult anybody.

 

[Costin84]

The followers of the religion of peace have just beheaded another 2 people in a Church in Nice, France.....otherwise, Islam doesn't have a problem...

 

[Ravenman]

The followers of the religion of peace have just beheaded another 2 people in a Church in Nice, France.....otherwise, Islam doesn't have a problem...

Thanks to Charlie Hebdo & Macron. Its their seed.

 

[Costin84]

Thanks to Charlie Hebdo & Macron. Its their seed.

Macron said the truth, and we see it clearly....as per beheading people over caricatures, I won't even dignify that with an answer. Muslims who think like that have no place in Europe.

 

[Ryder]

Macron said the truth, and we see it clearly....as per beheading people over caricatures, I won't even dignify that with an answer. Muslims who think like that have no place in Europe.

Europe belongs to the Somalis. We are the natives.

 

[mulj]

All this hullabaloo of the cartoons in various Muslim countries is meaningless and just something that certain Islamist groups are doing just because they want to be seen as "doing something" so that their followers don't say, "What were you doing when France was disrespecting the Prophet?".

The vast majority (in Bangladesh at least) don't care what shitty cartoons is printed in any foreign country, at least not enough to protest in the streets or do anything more complicated than post on social media.

what a joke of the post after i read news in link

Bangladesh: Thousands protest anti-Islam acts of France

Protesters want UN, OIC to take immediate actions for inter-faith peace - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

 

[mulj]

Macron said the truth, and we see it clearly....as per beheading people over caricatures, I won't even dignify that with an answer. Muslims who think like that have no place in Europe.

i dont see how is he different from those guys as there is still museum with beheaded skulls of north african people in france.

 

[Vergennes]

The followers of the religion of peace have just beheaded another 2 people in a Church in Nice, France.....otherwise, Islam doesn't have a problem...

«Aujourd'hui, nous sommes en train de payer un tribut beaucoup trop lourd en étant une fois de plus victimes de l'islamo-fascisme (...) Cela ne fait aucun doute, (...) il n'a cessé de répéter 'Allah akbar'», a précisé à la presse Christian Estrosi.

“Today, we are paying a much too heavy price by being once again victims of Islamo-fascism (...) There is no doubt, (...) he has not stopped to repeat 'Allah akbar', ”Christian Estrosi (the mayor of Nice) told the press.

EN DIRECT - Attentat islamiste à Nice : «C'est la France qui est attaquée», dénonce Emmanuel Macron

Un homme a été interpellé après avoir fait au moins trois morts et plusieurs blessés dans la basilique Notre-Dame de Nice et ses alentours. Sur place, le président de la République a apporté le «soutien de la nation toute entière aux catholiques» .

www.lefigaro.fr

Those attacks are proving Macron is right regarding radical Islamism,these attacks are opening the eyes of many blind people on the threat of islamism in France.

 

[mulj]

«Aujourd'hui, nous sommes en train de payer un tribut beaucoup trop lourd en étant une fois de plus victimes de l'islamo-fascisme (...) Cela ne fait aucun doute, (...) il n'a cessé de répéter 'Allah akbar'», a précisé à la presse Christian Estrosi.

“Today, we are paying a much too heavy price by being once again victims of Islamo-fascism (...) There is no doubt, (...) he has not stopped to repeat 'Allah akbar', ”Christian Estrosi (the mayor of Nice) told the press.

EN DIRECT - Attentat islamiste à Nice : «C'est la France qui est attaquée», dénonce Emmanuel Macron

Un homme a été interpellé après avoir fait au moins trois morts et plusieurs blessés dans la basilique Notre-Dame de Nice et ses alentours. Sur place, le président de la République a apporté le «soutien de la nation toute entière aux catholiques» .

www.lefigaro.fr

Those attacks are proving Macron is right regarding radical Islamism,these attacks are opening the eyes of many blind people on the threat of islamism in France.

well, hundreds of thousands of those people in www1 were not islamo-fasist when they were saving your ass from germans.