Terrorism

Financial Times Writer Says Charlie Hebdo 'Just Being Stupid,' 'Not the Most Convincing Champion' of Free Speech

With friends like these...

|

Here's how Tony Barber of the Financial Times reacted to this morning's massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo:

Apparently, "common sense" now means "censoring yourself for fear of being murdered."
Signet

Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.

This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

If there is an unconvincing champion here, it is not Charlie Hebdo. It's Mr. Barber, a man who seems to think "the principle of freedom of speech" is best represented by speakers with views so inoffensive that no one would want to censor them in the first place.

Update: The Financial Times has replaced Barber's original post with an "expanded and updated version" of the article; in the new version, the phrases "just being stupid" and "not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech" have been removed. Fortunately, I took a picture before the whitewash:

Here is how it looks now:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

296 responses to “Financial Times Writer Says Charlie Hebdo 'Just Being Stupid,' 'Not the Most Convincing Champion' of Free Speech

  1. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

    Go castrate yourself now, you fucking pussy.

    1. Indeed. That article is a very long-winded way of saying, “I’m a more sensitive person than those nasty provacateurs. Please don’t hurt me.” Spineless and arrogant–a two-fer.

    2. Strange that this religious satire only seems to illicit violence from certain religions.

  2. Tony Barber is a fucking pussy and a coward.

    1. Stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    2. Exactly my first reaction: “Chickenshit.”

    3. Perhaps someone should chop his head off next time he insults Jesus.

      1. Crucify him!

    4. That’s an insult to pussies.

  3. Jesus, the West really has lost its way. Freedom of thought and expression, the marketplace of ideas. . .all the reasons those are good things are completely lost by so many these days, even those whose very profession depends on them.

    1. Freedom of thought and expression, the marketplace of ideas

      And one of the major aspects of Western societies that separates us from more backward Eastern cultures. If we lose those things, we lose much of our identity.

      1. And freedom of expression played and plays no small role in our economic, scientific, and technological advance.

        In so many ways, so many people are trying to strangle the Golden Goose.

        1. That was before we knew everything. We pretty much know everything now. No need to avoid censoring the stupid, nonsensical, and hateful, and by that, I mean people who disagree with me.

    2. But at least we have Diversity!!

    3. The Progs extinguished the enlightenment long ago.

  4. Murder is a crime, and crime must be *punished.* End of story.

  5. Horseshit!
    ‘I support free speech, but…’.
    No, you don’t.

    1. That reminds me of the conversation I had with my son last night:

      “You were rude to your mother and me when asked to come to the table. Forget dinner, you can go to bed now. I’ll see you tomorrow.”

      “I’m sorry, but I was busy doing….”

      “Stop right there. Apologies with qualifiers aren’t apologies. See you later.”

      1. You so mean.

      2. He didn’t murder you in your sleep?

        1. I’m sure it’s crossed his mind a couple of times.

          1. I have some “Ressurection” scrolls, if you’re interested.

            Also “Charm Recalcitrant Teenager”, but they’re a bit rarer, so I’d have to charge you a premium.

          2. I always tell my sons that by the time they can take me in a fight, they won’t want to anymore.

            1. You sound pretty sure of that.

              1. There’s always hope.

              2. I put in the time when they were little. I beat on them and caused all sorts of emotional and mental suffering.

                And even if they managed to overcome that, I am naturally way more muscular than they are. They got too much of mom’s slender asian genes.

                1. It’s worked for me so far. Now the oldest is 28 and a SFC in the 101st Airborne. He can *so* take me in a fight, but I’m proud and reassured to know he has my back.

      3. I’m going to file that away for future use. How old is your son?

        1. 12, with all the love and joy that comes at that age.

          1. OMG, a tweener! Tweeners are the worstest ever!

            1. Add full-blown Aspergers to it. The 4 year old is more reasonable.

              1. my 7 year old can be rude and apologizes like his mother (with qualifiers). It drives me crazy. on the other hand, he often makes really, really, really good and rational arguments about why he should be able to do what he wants… it’s frustrating.

                The 4 year old twins are getting there too.

                Now if I could just get the wife that apologies that are really blaming the other party for your rudeness aren’t apologies…

                1. Imagine for a moment a 12 year old child with an IQ of 150, a tenuous grasp on reality, and well-developed rationalization skills. No joke. It’s fucking exhausting.

                  1. I’m headed that way… it looks like 3 times. It’s killin’ me!

                    1. Good luck. My second, and particularly my third, are much more level-headed and reasonable. The first was challenging from the beginning.

                  2. Are you me? From another dimension two years ago?

                    Only my Aspergers genius with a tenuous grasp of reality is 14. And yes, it gets worse. I’m amazed I haven’t taken a bat to him.

                    It’s something to look forward to, Scruffy.

            2. I don’t know the problem with my son really started around 15. The only reason he is still living is because I remember how fucking dumb and obnoxious I was when I was that age. I figure he’ll grow out of it in a few years.

              When I was 14, my father was so stupid I could scarcely stand to have the old man around, but by the time I was 21, I was amazed by what he’d learned in just seven years

              Mark Twain

      4. The being sent to bed is fine, but I would consider withholding food as punishment to be abusive.

        1. He’s not starving, besides which, he didn’t really want dinner, that was half of his complaint about having to come to the table and leave his videogame.

        2. Nonsense. A missed meal won’t hurt the kid, and maybe it’ll drive home the lesson.

        3. One meal? I don’t think so. Not in this country where he probably had more calories for breakfast than kids in most countries have all day. I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, but he isn’t going to starve.

        4. Is this joking?

        5. Clearly, you don’t have kids.

        6. why, then, would being sent to bed not abusive? It’s the imposition of your will over theirs… right?

          What happens if they say no? Do you physically MOVE them… isn’t that aggression and physical violence?

          It’s all silly. Kids are irrational and need to follow rules with consequences for bad behavior. Sometimes that consequence is a hunger pang.

          1. I had to come to the conclusion that authoritarianism is the only solution when it comes to kids. That requires some level of force. If you’re lucky, you can find leverage to use that is easy for both parties. If you’re not…

            1. Even the most rational children are irrational actors. I always am able to explain my actions and reasons- and expectations are known in advance- as are consequences.

              Teaching that actions and decisions have consequences is vital, IMO.

              1. That’s one of the unfortunate traits of Aspergers kids. They have very little concept of consequences. They have a very difficult time accepting that they made a mistake, to the point that full-blown denial can set in. They believe that it wasn’t their fault, that it didn’t happen, that it was a plot against them just to get them in trouble.

                I had to make myself a chart just to keep up with the evasion techniques.

                1. Is liberalism the adult form of Aspergers?

                  1. Is liberalism the adult form of Aspergers?

                    You might think so.

        7. Jesus Christ that is a moronic statement. I was sent to be w/o supper quite a few times. Although, I grew up in the age before “trophies for everyone”

        8. Teach the brat to cook for himself. It’s a good skill to have.

      5. Yet another child in America goes to bed hungry. You can expect a visit from CPS, you brute.

  6. This is not in the slightest … to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion.

    FTFY

  7. So why was he being stupid? Mostly it seems because he insulted some people who were crazy enough to kill him. To say that the problem is Hebdo being “stupid” instead of the problem being the animals who killed him is to deprive the people who murdered him of their humanity. It is to treat Hebdo’s act of offending these people the same way you would the guy in Grizzly Man who kept playing with bears until finally one of the bears went grizzly on his ass and ate him and his girlfriend.

    Tony Barber is at heart a profound racist. He basically considers Muslims to be such irredeemable animals that anyone should now and expect that offending them will result in death.

    1. The proggies see radical Islam as their ally. They see anyone who is not a right wing white male as their ally.

      They also hope that Muslims will help them abolish free speech.

      The thought that these monsters will turn on them and murder them doesn’t seem to cross their minds.

      1. They also want all of the Jews dead and having islamists around will get that done.

        1. I don’t get this. Jews seem to always vote democrat and identify themselves with liberals and progressives. I can’t make any sense of it.

          1. It’s a numbers game. There are far more Muslims than Jews.

          2. Jews voting democrat doesn’t make sense. Whites supporting a party that essentially vows to destroy them, doesn’t make sense. Every person who supports the Democrat party and it’s platform and talking points, doesn’t make sense. Top to bottom. Some must be sensible before you can make sense of it. It’s irrationality all the way up.

            1. Republicans aren’t exactly fuzzy kittens.

              1. That’s true no doubt. But the support base of the Democratic Party kind of disproves the notion that voters vote in their rational self-interest.

                1. I agree but they say the same thing about red states ie “What’s the Matter with Kansas”. They’re like, Why can’t we bribe these bastards!

                2. …in state elections, blacks bloc voted for George Wallace AFTER he stood in the doorway at Bama.

            2. Chewbacca living on Endor does not make sense.

            3. NYC Jews ostracized the Schechter brothers for their win against the NIRA for upholding kashrut and allowing customers to chose their own chicken.

              And they probably voted for Roosevelt all four times?

          3. Why do black people do the same thing? Habit and social signalling, mostly.

            I also suspect collective guilt over what some perceive as their own culture’s unforgivable arrogance:
            Yes, yes, they are God’s Chosen People. But they want you to know they had nothing to do with that choice and that they deeply regret the whole incident.

      2. Radical Islam in its current form is nothing but Progressive fascism put into the language of Islam. And Leftists have always condoned and used mob violence to further their ends. I have no doubt Barber is perfectly happy to see radical Muslims do the dirty work of policing speech he doesn’t like while allowing him plausible deniability.

        1. Islamists are your conservative brethren. They oppose and fight liberalism, science, and academia just like fundie Christians do.

          1. Shut up retard, the adults are talking. You are so fucking stupid that your points are not even wrong.

            Go post on a thread where you have talking points to post.

          2. So conservatives are all xenophobic nazis, until it becomes convenient to claim that they’re actually xenophile Luddites.

          3. You’d think that would be the case, but everywhere we look, we see the Left standing arm-in-arm with the Islamists.

            They have the same enemies: Liberal democracy, Christianity and reason. That’s why the alliance is so strong.

          4. Progressivism is not liberalism. You are confused.

            1. Oops I meant to say “You are confused; you fucking fascist moron.”

      3. Radical Islamists have WAY more in common with people like Eric Rudolph than Angela Davis. The proggies are really barking up the wrong tree with that idea.

      4. This. Progs can’t see past brown people and self proclaimed struggle. And progressivism is kind of like a watered down version of Islam: authoritarian, correct/incorrect speech and behavior, group think, etc.

      5. It’s pretty bizarre that the left has any sympathy for Islam at all, given their nearly opposite views on the rights of gays and women. I guess destroying Western civilization takes precedence over feminism and gay rights.

        1. PapyaSF,

          If Muslims ever become a significant and powerful voting block in this country and one that supports progressive politics, the gays are in for one hell of a rude surprise. The Progressives will turn on them in a heartbeat if doing so means furthering their sick cause.

          1. It happened in Iran. The Iranian Left allied itself with the Islamists in the overthrow of the Shah, confident they would run the show, or at least share power in the wake of the coup.

            What happened was the Islamists tossed all the Leftists into prison and executed them.

            1. Not seeing the problem…..

              1. Problem might be when the fundamentalist Islamists in power decide that they don’t like some group they can identify YOU with…

                Just another reason to support 2nd Amendment rights… some day it might be you looking into the muzzle and not down the sights.

        2. Feminism IS about destroying western civilization. I doubt they care too much about tactics.

      6. The proggies see radical Islam as their ally. They see anyone who is not a right wing white male as their ally.

        Including a couple of fake libertarians who are major contributors to Reason (I’m looking right at you, Shikha “Dipshit” Dalmia).

        1. I wouldn’t say Shikha sees Islam as an “ally,” it’s just that she’s too much of an ideologue on immigration to admit there might be any downsides.

          By the way, I’ll bet all those German Pergida demonstrators are all having an “I told you so” moment. But they’re all just hateful haters and should be ignored, I’m told.

          1. I see her as a pragmatist who wants access to a cheap live-in nanny from India.

        2. Meh. reason/i has had a ton of non-libertarian contributors over the years.

          1. HTML fail. Shame on me.

        3. Dalmia is one of these “all cultures deserve equal respect” types. All stemming from her “let’s brown up the place” position on immigration.

          1. I have no issue with browning up the place, but let’s admit that there is a reason that, say, Gaza is what it is and Hong Kong is what it is for a reason.

            1. Browning it up for it’s own sake is… what’s that word… starts with an ‘r’ I believe…

              Gaza is what it is because of culture and Hong Kong is what it is because of culture. One is objectively superior to the other.

      7. “The thought that these monsters will turn on them and murder them doesn’t seem to cross their minds.”

        For that matter, the four cartoonists that were murdered, probably were Progressives.

        So, I’m inclined to think it’s likely just cowardice.

    2. He certainly seems ignorant of the perverse incentives he is endorsing: the message “Don’t provoke the violent” also means “Be violent toward critics and you won’t be criticized.”

    3. There is an interesting question here:

      When we say that getting drunk at a frat party is a bad idea, we get called victim blamers. However, when someone says that inciting a bunch of tribal and ignorant Muslims is a bad idea, we call them victim blamers.

      Is Barber going further than saying it was a bad idea? What’s the distinction?

      1. The difference is in the nature of the behavior you are blaming. Feminist get upset when people tell women not to get drunk alone with men because they think women should be able to engage in any sort of activity, no matter how irresponsible without the fear of rape.

        You are correct that the same sort of thinking is happening here. I am objecting to Barber calling the victim stupid because I think people should be able to draw pictures of Muhammad and do other seemingly reasonable things that offend Muslims without fear of being killed.

        The question is, what sort of behavior are comfortable with calling “stupid”. For me at least, publishing Muhammad Cartoons is nothing like getting drunk and passing out while making out with a guy you just met. Thus, I have no problem condemning the second behavior as stupid. In either case though, does the behavior in any way justify the resulting crime.

        1. In neither case though, does the behavior in any way justify the resulting crime.

          Agreed.

          I think Hebdo had the right to say whatever he wanted to, just like I think women have the right to dress any way they want to. That’s doesn’t necessarily mean I think either behavior is good for your long term health or safety.

          1. But I don’t think you can call Hebdo “dumb” unless you think Muslims are just animals whose actions cannot be controlled. If Hebdo is “dumb” it is because his magazine wasn’t funny or well done, not because it offended Muslims.

            1. Since it’s behind a paywall I can’t read the entire thing.

              which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

              I think that needs some further explanation.

            2. C’mon John, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t bring your usual “you’re removing agency from these people” complaint, while simultaneously talking about how Islam is a great threat that motivates terrorists.

              Hebdo is “dumb” because there obviously are some Islamic extremists out there who will brutally kill over minor slights. They had a decade of experience with such people.

              1. Oh yes I can. Muslims are human beings who have chosen to follow a murderous and nasty ideology. If they don’t want to give that up and the other people who follow the religion are not willing to step forward and take their religion back from the lunatics, they are responsible.

                The ideology isn’t responsible for anything. It is the people who choose to follow that ideology. And the people who do are responsible for their actions and are responsible for allowing other people to turn their religion murderous.

                1. take their religion back from the lunatics

                  “They have hijacked a great religion.”

                  How would one go about “taking back” a religion? Rename it?

                  1. Last time, it started with posting a list of grievances on the church door.

            3. But I don’t think you can call Hebdo “dumb” unless you think Muslims are just animals whose actions cannot be controlled.

              Then how can you call women dumb unless you think men are just animals whose actions cannot be controlled.

              1. Because getting drunk is not the same as publishing a cartoon, that is why.

                1. I don’t see how that is relevant. You are saying Hebdo isn’t dumb because Muslims can and should be expected to not kill people over stupid offensive shit. I don’t necessarily disagree with that.

                  But you seem to be saying women are dumb because…men can’t be expected to control themselves in the presence of a drunk woman?

                  1. More to the point, I think anyone who does something particularly risky without at least considering the possible consequences is dumb. It sounds to me like Hebdo did consider the consequences and decided to go ahead anyway. I don’t necessarily think that is dumb, it just reflects a particular acceptance of risk in the face of something Hebdo valued.

                    Likewise, I can’t really call a girl who decides to get drunk at a party but tries to take steps to mitigate her risk (going out with friends, avoiding being alone) dumb.

                    But someone who completely ignores the risk of living in a world with evil people? Yeah, that’s dumb. And it really doesn’t have much to do with the particulars of the evil people.

                  2. It is relevant Lynch pin because there is nothing about drawing a cartoon that should make you more likely to be a victim of a crime. Getting drunk with strange men does make you more vulnerable. Publishing the cartoon doesn’t make you vulnerable.

                    It is perfectly reasonable and consistent with a free society to tell people to lock their doors, don’t get drunk in strange places and do other things to limit their vulnerability to crimes and call people out as foolish who fail to do such things and are later victimized.

                    It is not reasonable or consistent with a free society to say that people must be weary of offending a certain protected group or risk being murdered. It is therefore wrong to call someone who has done that “stupid”. To say they are is to say that all those of good sense need to censor their thoughts and speech. And saying that is not consistent with a free society.

                    1. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. You’re right that in a civilized world, drawing a cartoon shouldn’t make you more likely to be a victim, but it does. Similarly, in a civilized world getting drunk and being a woman shouldn’t make you more likely to be a victim of rape, but it does. Because we don’t live in a perfectly civilized world. It’s ignoring that fact that is dumb.

                    2. Lynch Pin,

                      How are we poorer or worse off as a society if we tell people to lock their doors and not make themselves obvious victims to the pitfalls of human nature? We are to some degree but only to the degree we can’t live in a perfect society.

                      If however we tell people that they must censor their speech and if they don’t they are stupid, we are much poorer and really no longer a free society.

                      In some ways feminists have a point, it is just a foolish and unrealistic one. They think women should have the right to get drunk with no worries of the consequences. So they object to saying women who do are dumb. The problem is that that is a foolish and unrealistic set of expectations given human nature.

                      Here, the same logic is being applied but the expectations are not foolish or unrealistic. In fact, they are essential to a free society. We can’t have a free society if it is foolish to say anything that offends Muslims. Therefore, no one who values a free society should ever admit that offending Muslims is the wrong or dumb thing to do. To do that is to say it shouldn’t be done.

                      I don’t see how you can say that a society where only the foolish can say something is in any way free.

                    3. If however we tell people that they must censor their speech and if they don’t they are stupid, we are much poorer and really no longer a free society.

                      Which is why I’m not saying that. I would never tell people they should censor their speech. But taking any action without considering the consequences is dumb. That’s all I’m saying.

                    4. But taking any action without considering the consequences is dumb. That’s all I’m saying.

                      If it is dumb, then doesn’t that mean people shouldn’t do it? We don’t want people to do dumb things do we?

                    5. Yes, but so what? Saying: “Think before you speak” is not the same thing as saying “Shut up”. Not even close. I think people who consider the possibility of violent reprisal and continue to go on speaking are doing something brave. More power to them.

                    6. There is a kind of conditional probability thing going on here, what is the probability of X given Y. X here is “getting murdered for publishing satirical cartoons”, Y is “the existence of medieval savages who will definitely kill blasphemers if they get the chance”.

                      Not necessarily dumb but there was risk involved with the behavior.

                2. Both actions carry risks. If I determine that the reward out weighs the risks than that’s not necessarily stupid. Its when someone takes risks then acts baffled that there where consequences to those risky activities that is stupid.

                    1. Also at issue I think is that when you try to inform young women of risks based on history, statistics, and facts you are accused of slut shaming or whatever. I personally am fairly risk averse. I do however take some risks and I like to believe usually recognize when I am doing so.

                  1. A much more succinct version of what I said.

                    1. Lynchpin,

                      We tell women not to get drunk at parties because we understand that men raping vaunerable women is a fact of human existence and something we have to live with.

                      If we say someone who publishes or says something that offends Muslims is stupid to do so because they are risking murder, we are accepting that Muslims now have a veto over our speech to such a degree that we cannot change it and must live with it the same way we live with the fact that some people are rapists or thieves.

                      I refuse to accept that. I do not have to live in a world like that and will never call anyone stupid for offending Muslims.

                    2. Muslims, in regards to their religious sensibilities, deserve every last scrap offense that comes their way. Every fucking bit of it. They deserve far more than they get.

        2. You are agreeing with the feminists principle concerning victim blaming. Sayin ghtat “people should be able to draw pictures of Muhammad…without fear of being killed” is the same as saying that women should be able to get drunk along with men they don’t know and not fear getting raped. Its saying that people should be able to do whatever they want without fear of consequences. What is stupid is not acknowledging the risk and taking steps to mitigate it. If you do something to piss off people you know are violent and fanatical, it is stupid to not take defensive precautions such as arming yourself or hiring guards (unless you live in a place where taking such defense steps is prohibited. then it is pretty stupid to put yourself in danger by pissing those extremists off).

      2. Agreed, I think there is a bit of hypocrisy here, when people are loudly denouncing those who suggest the editors are not blameless. Barber does go too far, while I think Carney’s comments from 2012 do not (though there is the argument that a public official should make full-throated support for what’s right). For one thing, Barber is suggesting that Charlie Hebdo would have been “more” in the right if they had the wit of Voltaire.

        Still, the basic claim should be pretty uncontroversial: these guys increased their risk of being harmed. They had every damn right to do what they did, and it is deplorable that anyone would harm them in response, but it was a known risk. Just as a woman does have every right to walk anywhere on public property at any time wearing a slinky dress. But doing that, particularly with the intention of rubbing it in people’s faces, is risky. Because there are terrible human beings in this world.

        1. No, I think your comparison is completely off the mark.

          This isn’t equivalent to a woman walking on public property at any time wearing a slinky dress. This is the equivalent of a woman wearing a slinky dress for a photo shoot and later having a rapist later break into her office and rape her in the middle of the work day.

          1. No, the comparison is about the victim assuming a known risk. The similarities of the attacks is not at issue. These guys were well aware that extremists were likely to retaliate; they already had a few years ago, and they had killed artists who produced similar work. Your rapist scenario is not a known risk, nor is it reasonable for a model to fear it.

          2. OK, I can see that distinction. So if Hebdo were to walk around carrying a caricature of Muhammad in Tahrir Square?

          3. It’s not off the mark. You seem to be ignoring the fact that you can mitigate risk. In your example, a woman who has done something that potential rapists might view as something that makes her a better target, could mitigate that risk by keeping a gun on her, so when the rapist breaks in to her office, she can defend herself.

        2. If these people took a risk of being harmed to prove a point that people should be free to express themselves, then they are heroes of free speech and Barder can fuck off for saying otherwise.

          1. Agreed. His complaint is basically that they should’ve risked their lives for better art. Fuck that.

          2. That is true

          3. They would also have been heros of free speech if they would have taken precautions to defend themselves and did so successfully.

        3. I don’t see them as being the same. One action(binge drinking at frat parties) makes you an easy victim. The other just makes you a target. It would be like if a woman published an anti fraternity rape culture article and one of the frats decided to gang rape her.

          1. Ah, that’s a better distinction.

          2. The difference between a victim and a target is time. You are a victim after an attack. Prior to the attack, you are a target. So if the frat decided to gang rape the article author, she is a target until after they committed the act, then she is the victim of the act.

      3. You’ve been given way too much credit for this comment, Scruffy, and you’re giving other people too much credit. When we say not getting drunk at a frat party is one way to avoid being raped, we’re not actually blaming the victim. “Victim blamer” in that case is just an ad hominem to end the conversation. Saying that a publisher who was murdered for what he published was “actually just being stupid” is actually blaming the victim. The distinction is the situation.

        1. Saying that a publisher who was murdered for what he published was “actually just being stupid” is actually blaming the victim.

          But is he blaming him? I don’t think that’s actually what he’s doing. I think he’s being a pussy and elevating the value of self-preservation over speech. In doing so, he’s qualified his support for freedom of expression which is deplorable, but not so much as to say that the victim got what was coming to him.

        2. neither is victim blaming. All it is, is just after action review. Looking at what happened and how it could have been avoided or how it could have been done better to avoid the negative outcome. It’s what professionals or people who care about improvement do.

    4. It’s the heckler’s veto writ large. It’s not the guy who can’t handle your words that’s the problem, see, it’s the guy who says mean things.

    5. I was curious as to his argument if this was a McVeigh type attacker on, say, a mother jones or rolling stone type establishment.

    6. So why was he being stupid? Mostly it seems because he insulted some people who were crazy enough to kill him. To say that the problem is Hebdo being “stupid” instead of the problem being the animals who killed him is to deprive the people who murdered him of their humanity. It is to treat Hebdo’s act of offending these people the same way you would the guy in Grizzly Man who kept playing with bears until finally one of the bears went grizzly on his ass and ate him and his girlfriend.

      Tony Barber is at heart a profound racist. He basically considers Muslims to be such irredeemable animals that anyone should now and expect that offending them will result in death.

      No, he’s saying that a large enough number of them are like grizzly bears that will kill you if you provoke them that it’s stupid to provoke the whole lot of them. Aren’t people here saying the same thing about cops? That you’d better do everything they say, because a significant fraction of them will kill you if you don’t? That’s not to deny the humanity of police in gen’l.

  8. Look, there’s only one solution to this problem. France has to issue more visas to Muslims to prove how liberal they are. That will fix it.

    1. This certainly must be a paradox for Cytotoxic. “All immigration is good, but Muslims are bad, but all immigration is good, but….”

      1. Just follow them with drones, problem solved.

      2. Cytotoxic isn’t anti-Muslim, he’s just got a sledgehammer approach when it comes to foreign policy. This is the guy who said he wished that the Umayyads won the Battle of Tours and overthrew feudal Christian Europe.

        1. Cytoxic is legitimately nuts when it comes to a lot of things.

          1. Cytotoxic is legitimately evil when it comes to a lot of things.

            1. Don’t inflate his ego like that. Its big enough as it is.

      3. These guys were ISIS fighter. They came from Syria for this purpose, as well as the other shootings that have happened since. Likely, they are there illegally since France has put a halt to immigration from that area due to the threats made by ISIS. Judging by the weapons they used, i’m even more inclined to think they smuggled their way into the country illegally. Immigration restrictions did nothing to prevent this tragedy.

  9. Even the great censors of history would blanch at the idea of punishing allegedly bad speech with assassination and murder. Anthony Comstock would recoil in horror. The English press licensors would be like, “dude, that’s totally not cricket.”

    Murder is murder is murder.

    1. ***cough***HolyWar***cough***

      1. Uh, what?

        1. A poor attempt to express the, um, rationale of the murderers.

          1. Who cares about their *motive*? Who cares about whether they objected to the speech of their victims, or their eating pork, or them being some kind of alleged sinner, murder is murder, and this goes way beyond freedom of speech.

            Even the censors advocate judicial proceedings and proportionate punishments for the badthinkers.

            This isn’t even about speech, it’s about finding the killers and giving them the worst punishment available in the criminal code.

            1. …which would include allowing each perp to witness coating a .357 mag slug in pig fat before you jam it through their skull at roughly 1100 fps

    2. Lots of people argued that Edward Snowden should be hung for treason. Even in the US, this is not uncommon. Only difference is the threshold which triggers the call for assassination and murder.

  10. I don’t get how people don’t understand that the bounds of free speech have always – always, always, always – been defined by the unpopular, the juvenile and childish, the inappropriate, the intentionally offensive

    In that spirit, Tony Barber can suck a cock.

    1. More broadly, the real test of whether or not you believe in the right to say a word or think an idea is whether you’ll step up for that right even when you really, really dislike the word, idea, speaker, or thinker in question. Both TEAMs seem to screw up this one on a regular basis, mostly failing on that “identity of the speaker” thing.

      It’s wicked easy – as as gutless – to stick up for these things when it’s for your friends or your pet cause.

    2. Today, we are all Illinois Nazis.

      1. I hate…

      2. If we can’t hate Illinois Nazis today, we still get to hate Illinois legacy politicians though, right.

  11. He is saying that it is ok to kill people for what they say. That’s pretty bold for a mouthy POS that probably lacks any concept of self defense.

    1. I don’t see that.

      1. “It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.”

        Mighty nice newspaper you got there…

        \close enough for me

        1. I think he may be elevating self-preservation over speech. Which is not the same as your original statement.

          1. Ya I do suppose it reads more like a shit eating appeasement weasel then a statist dick smack. I concede

    2. That’s not true. What he’s saying is that you should self censer so as not to offend crazy people.

  12. Oh, and to the assassins – fuck you very much for being murdering bastards, and for stopping me from criticizing this magazine for fear of giving aid and comfort to your sinister doctrines.

  13. France is the land of Voltaire

    the author who wrote the play, “Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet,”

    1. Voltaire’s “Fanaticism” portrays Muhammad as a ruthless tyrant bent on conquest. Its main theme is the use of religion to promote and mask political ambition.

      Obviously, Muslims consider it blasphemous, and have recently protested any production of the play in France.

  14. Speaking of the French, what happened to the 75% tax? I thought that something like this is exactly what we need here in Murika and will usher in a new age of progressive utopia. Weren’t we just waiting for the French to prove the experiment so that the NYT could run with the story? Doesn’t sound like it’s going too well, I wonder why?

    1. The president quietly withdrawn it. Anyone who paid attention to the Laffer curve could’ve told him that the tax revenue will go down. But this tax isn’t exactly enacted to generate tax. It’s to punish the successful. Well, mission accomplished. Those who would’ve been affected by it either leave the country or go Gault after hitting their threshold and take the rest of the year off.

      1. go Gault

        What you did there, I see it.

    2. The tax went away recently.

      And how’s gun control doing in France?

      1. Really well, only the terrorists have guns.

    3. France’s economy started tanking so they had to hold off on raising taxes. Even the Keynsians would advice the socialists to cut taxes in the face of recession.

  15. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

    Concerned troll is concerned

  16. If we lose those things, we lose much of our identity.

    That train left the barn and promptly sank quite some time ago.

    1. “That train left the barn and promptly sank quite some time ago.”

      I wee you got a Mixmaster for Christmas…

    2. Freedom of speech is a political football hacking away at the roots of the Ship of State.

    3. You can lead a horse to the water, but a pencil must be lead.

  17. He’s not saying speech must be inoffensive, it just has to be important and good. But when it comes to crappy, uninspired offensive speech? Who cares!

    What’s strange is why he decided to mention that. He could just as easily share his dislike for the magazine, and even suggest that they were knowingly risking this outcome, without suggesting that free speech is only valuable for protecting better satire. The principle of freedom of speech does not need a champion; it’s a basic liberty that does not need justification or defense. We don’t need to justify our freedom to these fucks. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were not “striking a blow for freedom,” they were a celebration of it.

    1. He of course doesn’t mean a word of that. If Christians had murdered the artist who did piss Christ, an utterly vulgar and useless work that served no purpose other than to offend and shock, this guy would be having a stroke. Indeed, that Christians even objected to their tax money paying the artist to produce it was offensive to people like Barber.

      What is happening here is Barber doesn’t like the speech and is happy to see radical Muslims do the dirty work of shutting it down. Barber views radical Islam as an ally in his cause and those who object to it as enemies. That is it.

      1. What is happening here is Barber doesn’t like the speech and is happy to see radical Muslims do the dirty work of shutting it down. Barber views radical Islam as an ally in his cause and those who object to it as enemies. That is it.

        This is frightening to think about but considering the direction the UK has been going, not entirely surprising.

      2. So you’re saying that multiculturalism doesn’t include right-wing redneck nativist xenophobes but DOES include fundie immigrant right-wing xenophobes? [seems hard to reconcile but it is a huge piece of irony in Leftist Progressive ideology]

    2. The principle of freedom of speech does not need a champion; it’s a basic liberty that does not need justification or defense.

      Obviously it does, or we wouldn’t fuckin’ be here writing about it!!

      Basic liberty doesn’t fall out of the sky. It exists only because, where, and when people make it so. Freedom isn’t free.

      1. I hear Freedom costs a Buck O Five.

  18. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

    It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as the Financial Times which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke libertarians, but are actually just being stupid.

  19. If you are an artist you don’t have the right to draw something that screams ‘Heresy’ in an Islamic theater.

    Free speech is every man’s turd in his own bowl.

    /says all the people who love their shiny communities with all the ivy and brick and assholes stuffed with dry cedar logs.

    1. you don’t have the right to draw something that screams ‘Heresy’ in an Islamic theater.

      And, as “the audience in the theater” shrinks to one person, we see the right to not be offended.

  20. Let’s assume they were just being “stupid” and lacking common sense. Doesn’t freedom of the speech/press exist to protect those who say/publish controversial/stupid/offensive/nonsensical things? Aren’t champions of those freedoms the ones who push the stupidity envelope as far as possible?

    1. “Doesn’t freedom of the speech/press exist to protect those who say/publish controversial/stupid/offensive/nonsensical things?”

      There’s no reason to have it, if it doesn’t do this.
      You can spout commie/Nazi BS all day long as far as I’m concerned, and I’ll just point out you are defending mass murderers.

      1. Mass murder can be acceptable, depending on the targets.

        Not that I would say that aloud in public.

        /progtard

  21. As they say, when you incentivize a behavior, you get more of it. If your response to barbarians murdering people who say things they don’t like is “Well, while you should have the right to mock anything, you’re shouldn’t mock Islam because they will kill you”, then, yeah, you’ve proven the most effective means of suppressing free speech is appalling violence.

    If some loony-tune fundie outfit starting shooting up the offices of magazines or TV channels because they mocked Jesus, somehow I suspect very few press outlets would say “Well, you know, you should have the good sense not to mock Jesus”.

    1. Of course not. When Christians even dared object to using tax dollars to fund art they didn’t like, these people had a fit saying it was the end of free expression. If they ever started killing artists, these people would want Christianity banned entirely and every practicing Christian put under government surveillance.

  22. Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims…

    This is not in the slightest … to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion.

    Didn’t take this halfwit long to contradict himself did it? You either believe in free expression or you don’t, dipshit. DIAF Tony Barber.

    1. Weeny Tony, the demon Barber.

      1. I got it; it’s a play on the title of that broadway musical: “Little Shop of Horrors”, right?

  23. Again – stop talking about free speech – it plays into the murderers’ hands.

    Most censors want to have some kind of judicial or administrative proceeding before condemning someone’s speech. Even if you think their censorship ideas are horrible, they don’t go in for murder, and they have as much right as you to denounce these attacks.

    This is not the occasion to have a debate on the limits of free speech, just like the assassination of a politician is not the occasion to debate the merits of the politicians’ policies. It’s time for civilized people, even censors, to rally around the cause of catching and punishing the murderers.

  24. Great to see that ‘they were asking for it’ is apparently justification for violence.

    1. I don’t know if that was the point, but i would say that this serves as a learning opportunity. Lesson: If you are asking for it, make sure you’re ready for it.

  25. He thinks, if he crawls and mews convincingly enough, they’ll kill him last.

    He’s wrong. The people with guns will survive.

      1. +1 Old .45

  26. Aren’t champions of those freedoms the ones who push the stupidity envelope as far as possible?

    So you’re saying Tony Barber is a champion of freedom of speech and that even though I was outraged and offended by his words I shouldn’t feel provoked enough to go chop his head off? I think Tony Barber would disagree with you. I’ll ask him when I show up at his office with my scimitar.

  27. Here’s a Tweet from a Muslim friend/former co worker.

    @redacted: Islam is dead! AQ, ISIS, terrorist cell, lone wolves etc have been killing those with peaceful hearts. Muslims have relinquished their Islam faith to organized thugs

    1. He is absolutely right. And only they can take it back. Non Muslims can’t reform Islam or stop people from doing horrific things in its name. Only Muslims can do that.

      1. Well Mr Naked force used to sort out Muslim issues quite nicely. Of course he also had a British accent back then.

        1. Non Muslims can kill and terrorize Muslims into submission. There is always that. And indeed, that is what is going to happen if things don’t change. I don’t think however Muslims are going to like non Muslims stepping in to solve their problems very much.

          1. Barbary Pirates for instance.

      2. Islam is a decentralized religion. No pope, no archbishops, just a lot people trying to make ‘sense’ of a ‘prophet’ and his book from the distant past.
        All of the major religions are seriously fragmented. Islam is no exception. A lot of the success in pushing the War on Terror is in convincing us that Islam is a united force.
        It is not and it poses no existential threat to our way of life. Progressivism poses a greater threat to our Life and Liberty.

        1. Sure it is fragmented, but that doesn’t make it immune to the influence of the people who practice it. As little as 20 years ago no one in Iraq or Pakistan would have ever considered being a suicide bomber. They only do now because the radicals have changed the religion in these places. And the Muslims who allowed that to happen are in measure responsible for that. Again, other than just killing and terrorizing people, there isn’t much non Muslims can do to make the religion more tolerant. Muslims have to do that themselves.

          1. I would argue that Iraq and large swathes of Pakistan have been some of the most violent parts of the world in the last 20 years. Violence begets violence. Life is cheap when their isn’t much to live for.

            1. They fought the Soviets for ten years in Afghanistan in what the Muslim world universally considered to be a legal jihad. Yet, there was not a single instance of suicide bombing or wanton murder of civilians by Afghans in that war. Not one.

              The religion changed. And it changed primarily because Saudi funded Imams showed up and changed it.

          2. You understand that what you’re asking is like demanding liberal Germans stand up to Nazism at the height of its power and make Germany more moderate. It isn’t going to happen.

  28. I suspect that he’s a liberal, since they prefer political correctness to freedom of expression. Recall Obama’s response to the Benghazi and Cairo riots — jailing the maker of an anti-Muslim video. In Europe, Judaism is considered a race/ethnicity as much as a religion, and American liberals regard Islam the same way.

  29. I had to laugh at a friend’s suggestion that the West carpet bomb Islamic cities with nasty pamphlets purporting to be anti-Sunni from Shiites and vice versa. Get all the assholes killing each other.

    1. ‘Carpet bomb’? Nice slur. *adds to list of culturally insensitive phrases*

  30. So if a bunch of jewish terrorists went to an arabic newspaper and slaughtered the cartoonists who wrote bad things about the jews (like this), Tony Barber would admonish the arabs about how they were dumb to print the cartoons?

  31. “France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.”

    He’s definitely saying, here, that free speech is okay so long as it’s coming from the elite.

    Whether Voltaire was actually elitist or simply has been ensconced on an elitist shelf is beside the point…

    He’s saying that free speech is okay so long as it’s coming from the elite.

    From the European perspective, I don’t think this is about free speech as much as it’s about countering the mainstreaming of anti-Islamification, such as was on display the other night in Dresden:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEGIDA#Development

    18,000 people showed up to an anti-Islamification rally the night before last, and after this attack, if they held another anti-Islamification demonstration tomorrow, ten times as many people might show up.

    That’s what they’re worried about. They don’t seem to be as afraid of the loss of free speech as they are of the anti-Islam movement, and from the looks of it, they seem to be more afraid of the anti-Islam movement going mainstream than they are of Muslim terrorism, as well.

    1. Maybe they’re *more* afraid of Islamist terrorism than of anti-Islamist activism…maybe that’s the point…maybe they’re going with the strong horse rather than the weak horse.

      1. If the anti-Muslim went mainstream, terrorism would only strengthen it. Eventually, even moderates would them expelled to majority Muslim lands, if not *harmed*, per se.

      2. The idea that a King could come and take our rights away still has some currency here in the U.S. …and we haven’t had a king for more than 200 years.

        The Nazis were a lot more recent than that, and the wars the Nazis fought and the damage they inflicted on civilians was a lot worse than anything George III did to us.

        It’s sort of like civil rights people today talking about discrimination like Jim Crow could be reinstituted at any moment. Seems so silly to so many of us, and maybe it is. …but it probably doesn’t seem so silly to people whose grandparents can remember living under Jim Crow.

        If there were a big conflagration over Islam in Europe, a couple generations from now, people would be more worried about that happening again. But we’re gonna worry most about repeating the last catastrophe. …not preventing the next.

        We must have evolved some kind of cognitive bias that makes us this way.

    2. I think you are right Ken. Why that is, is a good question. Some of it is that they are afraid of the Islamists. But I think it is also that they hate their own populations and their own culture and view Muslims as a weapon to be used in their war against non elites. It is similar to how elites in America use the charge of racism. The charge has nothing to do with black people and is all about one group of whites asserting their social superiority over another. Here, the elites reflexively defend Muslims and Islamification as a weapon to show their elite status over other Europeans.

    3. Islam would not be a problem in Europe if the average immigrant wasn’t facing crazy levels of unemployment and underemployment. The Social Welfare State and mass immigration are contradictory policies. The Right and the Left in Europe fight over the immigration policy. The Social Welfare state is an Institution that is never called into question by either.

      1. The Social Welfare state is an Institution that is never called into question by either.

        Because neither party sees an alternative and both want to win the battle for control of the system.

      2. “Islam would not be a problem in Europe if the average immigrant wasn’t facing crazy levels of unemployment and underemployment.”

        And it’s not just that.

        Germany, France, and Italy are staring a triple-dip recession in the face, right now. Nothing makes people like immigrants less than a nice triple-dip recession.

        Except maybe, like you said, instituting a welfare state. The more people are forced to pay for each other, the more picky they are about whom they’re paying for. The last major anti-immigration legislation we saw in Arizona came on the heels of both a recession and ObamaCare.

        Before Social Security, the Welfare State, and the Great Society, did anybody except for Arkies and Oakies competing for migrant farm jobs give a damn about illegal immigrants in this country?

  32. Well, it is pretty clear that if you don’t want to be killed by radical Muslims, printing satirical cartoons of Mohammed might not be the first thing on your to-do list. I think people actually being shot to death might have more of a chilling effect on speech than any calls for political correctness by Western liberals. That’s the second tragedy here.

    1. As Muslims gain more of a share of the population and political power in Europe, you will probably have to add “being a homosexual” to that list. Well, you’ll have to move it to a more prominent place on the list, that is. “Educating women” too.

      Sorry, but Islamic extremism is one of those ideologies where “first they came for the X” really does apply.

      1. I support the eradication of fundamentalist religion everywhere by whatever nonviolent and effective means possible. Then religion in general.

        1. God you are a hideous person Tony. Just a seriously hideous and oppressive person. You need to start wearing a brown shirt or some kind of uniform so the world knows who you are.

          1. I’ve never harmed anyone. Can you say the same for religion?

            1. You just want others to harm people for you.

              1. That’s rich coming from a Republican.

                1. But true nonetheless.

                2. “I know you are but what am I?” – Tony

        2. So much for the First Amendment, eh?

          1. An antiquated relic of a bygone age that should be laid to rest in this age of enlightened secularism.

        3. Right, never ever single out Islam.

          Here, I’ll help.

          I’ll stop the genocidal psychotic lunatics in Catholicism, Buddhism, and Christianity all by myself.

          All three religions will decry any such acts done in their name, and cast out any who would sanction such lunacy.

          There, I’m done.

          Oh hey, I’ll handle the Yazidi faction as well; since they were the focus of the recent Muslim genocidal killing, there’s hardly any of them left so that’ll be simple.

          Now can you focus on Islam?

          Or do you still need to play the “all religions” card because you’re unwilling or unable to see reality?

    2. Tell the truth: how much is it burning your ass that the French of all people just cut taxes on the rich?

      I know it’s got to be absolutely killing you.

      1. Since the rate was 75%, it is plausibly a good idea.

        You guys don’t get that not all people are blind dogmatists like you, do you?

        1. So…not all people support a 75% tax rate?

        2. You’re full of shit. You and your ilk think the top marginal rate should be at least 75%, if not even higher.

          1. Depends on the circumstances.

            1. Everything depends on circumstances for you cock suckers, nothing based on principle. Just a pragmatic form of proto-Fascism.

    3. “Well, it is pretty clear that if you don’t want to be killed by radical Muslims, printing satirical cartoons of Mohammed might not be the first thing on your to-do list.”

      What a disgusting piece of shit you are, Tony?

      Do you blame rape victims for the way they dress, too? I mean, if she didn’t want to get raped, maybe she shouldn’t have dressed like that, Tony?

      Tony, you’re a sick fuck.

      1. I’m not blaming any victims. My point is that the murder of these cartoonists is going to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

        1. Yes you are you lying turd.

      2. IN this case I agree with Tony & disagree with you. In another comment thread I asked whether John was the type who’d accuse people of blaming the rape victim, and I see right here there are plenty who make that accus’n.

        1. I quoted what he wrote, Robert. His interpretation wasn’t my first interpretation, that’s for sure.

          And we’re talking about someone who adamantly refuses to admit that Rosa Parks had the right to sit in the front of a public bus and that Jews had a right to their lives during the holocaust.

          …and no, that isn’t something I’m accusing him of–that’s something he actually refuses to do, over and over again, like, for reals. Seeing Tony accuse the victim really shouldn’t be a surprise. He adamantly insists that people do not have rights unless the government says so–for reals.

  33. I say piss on Mohammad! Piss on all the Muslims in General. To hell with them all.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

    1. Piss be upon him?

    2. Skynet is the one true god… Who pisses on all other lesser gods

  34. Bluntly there is a critical difference between the murder victims in this case and people who don’t take precautions to protect themselves against crime.

    These guys didn’t make themselves vulnerable to assault by producing an inflammatory publication. The bakery next door is just as vulnerable to guys with semi-automatic battle rifles coming into murder them.

    Had the cartoonists through preparation ie. acquiring arms and becoming well-drilled, repulsed the assault and killed their attackers, nobody here would be saying “gee, they were stupid to publish that shit”. We’d be saying “Fuck Yes!!!!!”

    If the cartoonists were stupid, it wasn’t being adequately prepared to defend themselves against the likely attack they faced, not in publishing their criticisms.

    1. Fuck!!!! Why don’t I proof read before hitting submit?!?

      First paragraph should have been:
      Bluntly there is a critical difference between the murder victims in this case and people who put themselves in a vulnerable position and become crime victims.

      1. One of the first victims was a police bodyguard. It’s not like they were completely defenseless, but the defense was geared toward a random nutjob with a knife or handgun, not a soldier.

    2. That is what I was trying to say above but you say better here. Publishing a cartoon is not something that should ever make you more vulnerable to being murdered. It is not the same as getting drunk and passing out in a strange place.

      1. Put another way, women who get drunk and pass out in a strange place deserved to be raped some degree more than these cartoonists deserved to be murdered?

        1. Put another way, women who get drunk and pass out in a strange place deserved to be raped some degree more than these cartoonists deserved to be murdered?

          Tony, do you realize you just copped to equating being vulnerable to deserving being harmed?

          1. I thought I accused John of doing that. Otherwise what’s the point of saying “it’s not the same”? Not the same in what way?

            1. Do people who drive a car deserve to be killed in car accidents Tony?

              After all, every time I pull out of my driveway, I am making myself vulnerable to a head on collision.

              Does telling people who speed and drive recklessly to slow down and tone down their maneuvering mean that I am implicitly saying everyone who drives deserves to be in a car crash?

              1. Ask John, I don’t think anyone deserves to die or be raped for any reason.

                1. Neither does John, Tony.

                  Your conclusion that he does speaks volumes about your psychological stance towards other people.

                  1. Fairly sure he believes in the death penalty, but I could be wrong. And he did imply that women who get drunk and pass out in a strange place deserve to get raped to some degree more than cartoonists deserve to be murdered.

                    1. The verb ‘deserve’ appeared nowhere in his statement. He was talking about vulnerability Tony.

                      You are equating vulnerability to harm with deserving it.

                      And the fact you seem incapable of grasping that the two things are very different is pretty stunning to me.

                    2. If we’re not talking about culpability on some level then I fail to see the point in making a distinction, or to the words you both typed at all.

    3. tarran,
      From the accounts I’ve read, the attackers had full auto AKs, load bearing vests, an RPG (allegedly), and used fire and maneuver really well for amateurs. They’re still on the run, IIRC. Few U.S. places wouldn’t be vulnerable to an assault like that, never mind French civilian.

      It sounds like some of the more lurid stories out of narco-Mexico. I hope it isn’t coming here. If Boston lost its shit for a pair of idiots with some improvised pressure-cookers, what’s going to happen (and what freedoms will we lose for the foreseeable future) when, e.g., San Diego has something like this happen?

      1. Well for one the average American – not living in a progressive shit hole – probably has a greater capacity for self defense than most Frenchmen. If these turds wandered into my reasonably affluent neighborhood after this sort of crime, pretty sure that at least 1 house in five would have nearly equivalent fire power at home. So if we were hunkered down in our houses, we would be likely locked and loaded.

  35. In liberal society, when offense is given, the offended must either deal or be dealt with. People like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo do the thankless and dangerous job of helping society separate the latter from the former. People like Barber undermine that critical mission.

    On the plus side, it seems like they are motivated by cowardice rather than naivete, so delivering a few severe, well-publicized beatings to their ilk should end this sort of foolishness.

  36. Hey, remember back a couple of years ago when some dopes actually believed that the “Arab Spring” uprising was the expression of a desire on the part of Muslims to embrace Jeffersonian ideals of freedom, liberty, and democracy?

    Great times. Great times, indeed.

    1. I thought Arab Spring was a brand of deodorant soap.

    2. I don’t remember many such dopes. I do remember many of us saying that it was a prerequisite for them moving away from being totalitarian shitholes even though in the short-term it would bring about newer ghastlier forms of government.

    1. London faces rising tide of Jack the Ripper – o phobia.

  37. Well I won’t be subscribing this year. What a fucking idiotic and cowardly bunch of bullshit.

  38. my best friend’s ex-wife makes $84 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her pay check was $17026 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go Here…..

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  39. “Sensitivity” is the way journalists cringe and bootlick while pretending they are taking a principled stand.

  40. If the people at Charlie Hebdo had a recognized right to armed self defense, this might not have happened.

    1. In France, to buy a firearm, a hunting license or a shooting sport license is necessary. All semi-automatic rifles with a capacity greater than 3 rounds, all handguns and all rifles chambered in ‘military’ calibers, including bolt action, require permits. These are known as B1, B2 and B4 type permits. Firearms are divided into eight categories that determine the regulations that apply to their possession and use. France also sets limits on the number of cartridges that can be kept at home (1000 rounds per gun).

      The total number of firearms owned by an individual is also subject to limits (not possible to have more than 12 authorizations/permits on B1, B2 and B4 type firearms).[27] As of September, 2013, France has a capacity limit of 20 rounds for handguns;[28] one needs a permit for category one[clarification needed] semi-automatics that have a capacity greater than 3 rounds. Fully automatic firearms are illegal for civilian ownership.

      1. You could’ve just said “yep.”

        1. yep

      2. Their firearms laws are still less restrictive than a whole lot of the rest of Europe. Pretty sure RPGs are still illegal though.

        We haven’t seen the last of those guys.

    2. Does an armed bodyguard count?

      1. Apparently not enough. And you probably could have forseen the need for more than just a cop with a handgun, knowing that you are pissing off militant radicals whose weapon of choice is the AK47. Too much reliance on the government and it’s police force compounded by laws that limit their ability to prepare. Very teachable moment.

  41. I’ll admit that if I was an owner of a publishing company in Europe, I may not actively encourage my writers and artists to satirize Mohammed or Islam.

    But massacres like this should be a case for providing more protection for artists who choose to do so, not forcing them to sacrifice their freedom of speech.

    I’m not under any illusion that something like won’t happen in here. The Boston bombing wasn’t that long ago.

    1. It won’t happen here because publishers are too afraid of offending people who don’t take offense too kindly. You can get away with replacing the nativity with zombies because christian americans aren’t all that violent. More likely just to express outrage. What happened in france is evidence of what might happen if you did something similar against Islam.

  42. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  43. You can’t be a “champion” of anything without some conflict. Tony Barber might as well have written, “Just behave and you won’t get hurt.” Now who’s a poor champion of freedom?

  44. “It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims.”

    I’m curious… could someone ask them if “common sense at a publication such as the Financial Times” would include mocking and attacking a group of people on the day they’re murdered by psychotic lunatics?

    Since they’re so concerned about common sense; I have to assume they think this action IS common sense.

    And if true, that means I really need to get a new dictionary; as the definition I have seems wildy inaccurate.

  45. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  46. Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims.

    Sure. It also has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Catholics, and French nationalist politicians. Yet the Catholics and nationalists don’t massacre journalists. Apparently it is stupid to mock Muslims because they will take offense and kill you, but not stupid to mock people who take offense and won’t kill you? I mean, that might be cowardly common sense on some level, but it is the exact opposite of the what “free speech” is supposed to be about.

  47. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for 74 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
    ————— http://www.paygazette.com

  48. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.