Is Charlie Hebdo to blame for creating an "atmosphere for terrorism" too?

[davidn3600]

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine that drew cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that they knew would enrage Muslim extremists. Some have therefore blamed Charlie Hebdo for inciting the terrorism.

It seems some here are now doing the same thing with this Planned Parenthood attack.

My problem is that I worry this kind of finger-pointing that is going on here is harmful to the freedom of speech.

I am pro-choice. I support Planned Parenthood. But I do not support making it illegal to be pro-life. Shutting down debate and discussion is not what America is about. If you believe certain topics or certain speech (that you pick) should be forbidden from discussion, maybe this country isn't right for you.


I hate what you have to say, but I will die for the right for you to say it.

[valerief]

1. Religion is to blame. And the PTB who exploit it. nt

[HereSince1628]

9. A sense of moral imperative to act in murderous extremists is to blame

It's important to remember that religion, religious beliefs, and messages from god reflect society more than the other way around.

Dear, like it or not, was one of US, what he did is a product of forces that we also live among.

If 'we' want to change this, then 'we' have to change society so that religions will follow.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Not 'to blame', but they were playing with fire.

And it does not detract from 'free speech' to say so, nor does it 'excuse' the violence that occurred as a result.

You have the right to free speech, but hopefully it comes along with the brains to know that real world actions can result, especially if you deliberately offend and incite hatred. Again, it does not 'excuse' violence, but given the world we live in, is anyone actually shocked when such words actually are followed up by violence? I don't 'blame' Charlie Hebdo, but I've lived long enough to recognize that they were doing things that would offend unstable, violent people. I wish we lived in a better world, but we don't.

[REP]

18. So better to live on your knees than die on your feet?

You've got it wrong. Publishing cartoons or performing a medical procedure is not "playing with fire" anymore than you trying to force this terrible analogy to work. The analogy is offensively bad, but no one should come to harm because of it.

Those who attack women's clinics and those who attacked Charlie Hedbo have something in common: they are terrorists. The hope to cause so much mayhem and terror that their targets cease doing whatever offends the terrorists. Most people of character refuse to live on their knees.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. I'm not making any moral judgments.

You can 'live on your knees' or 'die on your feet' as you choose.

And I'm not comparing publishing offensive cartoons to performing abortions.

So really, you're batting .000 in understanding my comment.

I was talking about the hate speech from folks like Carly Fiorina that came before the clinic attack. I think Charlie Hebdo likewise engages in hate speech at times, but that's France's issue.

[REP]

3. False equivalency

Charlie Hedbo did not stalk anyone, publish their names and addresses, call them baby murderers, or start organizations such as The Army of God or Operation Rescue to terrorize anyone, bomb buildings or murder anyone. They published cartoons.

Individual pro-liars can fuck off and die in a fire choking on their own blood for all I care, but they can hold their repellent opinions, just like anyone else. When they start forming terrorist cells and terrorizing doctors, clinic workers and patients, they need to be treated exactly like any other terrorist group.

[Scootaloo]

4. I think you have a pretty big misunderstanding of both situations.

[REP]

19. Mild understatement.

[enough]

5. Where has anyone on DU ever said it should be illegal to be pro-life?

The problem is promulgating lies (such as the falsely edited PP videos) which are in danger of leading people to seek violent retribution. We already have laws in this country about inciting violence. That is the issue, and those are the questions that have to be asked. "Making it illegal to be pro-life" is not being discussed.

[davidn3600]

7. Some here have said the GOP is accomplice to murder for being pro-life

[PeaceNikki]

8. No, they haven't.

They said that because some create fake videos and accuse abortion providers of "barbaric atrocities against humanity"

And support people like Troy Newman who uses Operation Rescue to call for state-sanctioned execution of doctors who serve women.

It's America. You are free to have your speech. The language you choose matters. You are not free from the judgement of the consequences of your hate-filled rhetoric.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156353993570613&id=637905612

Merely being "pro-life" (bullshit term, BTW) is not the reason. You're being silly.

[davidn3600]

10. A lot of things are faked and made to look real

No one gets arrested for it.

If someone says Planned Parenthood "kills babies" and shows pictures of aborted fetuses that are made purposely graphically enhanced to provoke emotion....then then some psycho decides to grab a gun and go shoot up a PP clinic....who's fault is that?

That's the point I'm making. It's the gunman's fault...not the speech.

[PeaceNikki]

12. I was clarifying your complete misrepresentation.

Merely having the belief is not why there are calls for culpability.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. So you should be comparing the pro-lifers to radical imams, not to Charlie Hebdo

ie people who call others evil, not people who draw cartoons. The ones who faked extra 'Mohammed caricatures', for instance.

The dossier also contained "falsehood about alleged maltreatment of Muslims in Denmark" and the "tendentious lie that Jyllands-Posten was a government-run newspaper".[41]

The imams said that the three additional images were sent anonymously by mail to Muslims who were participating in an online debate on Jyllands-Posten? '​s website,[42] and were apparently included to illustrate the perceived atmosphere of Islamophobia in which they lived.[43] On 1 February, BBC World incorrectly reported that one of the images had been published in Jyllands-Posten.[44] This image was later found to be a wire-service photograph of a contestant at a French pig-squealing contest in the Trie-sur-Baise's annual festival.[45][46] One of the other two additional images (a photograph) portrayed a Muslim being mounted by a dog while praying, and the other (a cartoon) portrayed Muhammad as a demonic paedophile.[citation needed]

Experts—including Helle Lykke Nielsen—who have examined the dossier said that it was broadly accurate from a technical point of view but contained a few falsehoods and could easily have misled people not familiar with Danish society, an assessment which the imams have since agreed to.[47] Some mistakes were that Islam is not officially recognised as a religion in Denmark (it is), that the cartoons are the result of a contest, and that Anders Fogh Rasmussen in his role as Prime Minister gave a medal to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (he gave one in his capacity as party leader of the Liberal Party). The imams also claimed to speak on behalf of 28 organisations, many of which later denied any connection to them.[48] Additions such as the "pig" photograph may have polarised the situation (the association of a person and a pig is considered very insulting in Islamic culture), as they were confused for the cartoons published in the newspaper.[45] Muslims who met with the group later said Akkari's delegation had given them the impression that Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen somehow controlled or owned Jyllands-Posten.[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Danish_Imams_tour_the_Middle_East

[enough]

20. Right, thanks for trying to bring some clarity in answer to a question where no clarity existed

in the first place. Valiantly done.

[TomVilmer]

25. That Wiki page needs some work...

... or at least it was easy for you to misread it, maybe because the false story has been widely reported. The story about "the ones who faked extra Mohammed caricatures" is both false and meaningless, as you might yourself read from that Wikipedia page. The addition of that image was clearly explained in the text of the dossier. So much of that whole event is still just rumors.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Then make your case in editing the Wikipedia article

It looks accurate to me:

The Danish imams took the offending images to Cairo and other Middle East capitals. The dossier included an image of Muhammad as a pedophile downloaded from a Christian evangelical website and a picture of a man wearing a pig-faced mask taken at a French food festival with no Islamic connections, neither of which had been published by Jyllands-Posten. The dossier was circulated by the Arab League, and at a special meeting in Mecca of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—an umbrella body comprising fifty-seven Islamic states and Muslim countries. The OIC passed a resolution condemning the insult to the Prophet and the use of freedom of expression as “a pretext to defame religions.”

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/02/09/why-are-muhammad-cartoons-still-inciting-violence/

[TomVilmer]

27. There is nothing directly false in the text....

.... it just includes some pieces of information, that might confuse the reader.
"The dossier included an image of Muhammad as a pedophile downloaded from a Christian evangelical website and a picture of a man wearing a pig-faced mask taken at a French food festival with no Islamic connections, neither of which had been published by Jyllands-Posten."
As stated earlier, the dossier explained what they were and why those pictures were included. Only western media was confused about the image originating from a "French food festival", and that "neither of which had been published by Jyllands-Posten". The words are true, just irrelevant and meaningless, since the dossier in no way was claiming this. Those were
hate-mail pictures and letters that the dossier's authors alleged were sent to Muslims in Denmark, said to be indicative of the rejection of Muslims by the Danish.
And yes - there are millions of websites, I should need to contact and change if I had that urge. I would guess even hundreds just on Wikipedia in all kind of languages. I just reacted on your comments, curious on why you find that info important to put out today. What are the relevance?

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Because this thread was about pro-lifers who made up stuff about Planned Parenthood

in order to get people outraged. The OP compared them to the Charlie Hebdo staff; and said that if we didn't blame the CH staff for the attack on themselves, then we shouldn't say those lying pro-lifers had any responsibility for the attack at Planned Parenthood. I was saying that CH didn't invent stuff for political purposes; and if one wanted a closer parallel for the pro-lifers, then it was the imams who made up stuff to get Muslims more enraged about the Danish cartoons (I didn't put it out 'today', though, it was about 3 weeks ago, when the Planned Parenthood attack has just happened).

[TomVilmer]

29. We all get burned all the time

Since the mass media is such a powerful tool, and that story about "them lying Muslims" was in perfect sync with the common story telling. And yes, the persons who were involved with that dossier were very easy to get mad at. But also the persons on that Danish news paper were making stuff up, they believed was true. Even that little author, who originally claimed no Danish illustrator dared to paint Mohammad for his children's book, was basically inventing that story - or let's say exaggerating wildly. But there it is, and wars have been started on less solid ground.

[etherealtruth]

13. The first place to start: Republicans are anything but pro-life

they are certainly anti-abortion but do nothing that could possibly be construed as pro-life

[GoneOffShore]

6. What kind of word salad have you been eating?

False equivalency lettuce with a nonsense dressing of the worst sort, by the look of it.

[LAGC]

11. Total non sequitur.

If we were to use your analogy, the terrorists would be targeting the pro-life folks preaching the "incitement", not the target of their ire.

[Tipperary]

15. I think your post is a very good one.

Food for thought.

I never want free speech to be curtailed.

[Marrah_G]

16. I don't believe so

Someone making fun of or demonizing your religion does not give anyone the right to violence. If that were the case I, as a Pagan, would have good cause to go on a mass murdering spree from churches in the midwest to studios in hollywood.

[Tarc]

17. false equivalence

Religious people can practice however they like, AS LONG AS it does not infringe upon another person's rights to THEIR beliefs. Muslim people do not have the right to prevent non-Muslims from drawing or depicting Muhammad, and they obviously do not have the right to murder non-Muslims for doing do.

What Carly Fiorina and the rest of the GOP have done is lie....lie lie lie lie lie...about pro-choice advocates. They lie day in and day out, esp about the "baby parts" videos, and purposefully enrage their constituency into a frothing fervor that babies are being killed in Planned Parenthood clinics and by golly if you don't go rescue those poor babies NOW NOW NOW their murder is on your hands. THAT is the message Fiorina sends to the right-wingnuts.

Freakin applies and freakin oranges.

[951-Riverside]

22. Yes, along with the "draw Muhammad" contest too.

Planned Parenthood provides medical services that benefits humanity, OTOH what Charlie Hebdo did was racist, insensitive and did not serve humanity in any way except promote hatred and violence.

I think those are two vastly separate issues.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

23. Wouldn't the equivalent here be Charlie Hebdo inspiring athiests to attack Muslims?

[LoveIsNow]

24. Obviously the final blame rests with the perpetrators,

but I think in this case, public figures who legitimate the villainization of abortion providers are morally responsible. Of course, I am not for censoring hatespeech. It always outs itself as wrong in the light of day, while censorship drives it underground where it grows stronger.

That said, you can't compare this to Charlie Hebdo, because that was people being attacked for publishing satire. They were not on any way inciting violence. On the other hand, those who vilify abortion providers and suggest that they deserve death are absolutely inciting violence, and should be recognized as morally party to that violence, though not held legally accountable or censored.