这是什么节奏？

[reine02]

Satirical depictions of religious leaders should be illegal, says Ottawa imam
January 9, 2015 9:07 AM ET

Pat McGrath, Ottawa CitizenImam Imtiaz Ahmed says he believes in free speech, but adds that it should be limited when religion is involved.

An Ottawa imam has denounced the terrorist attack on a Paris weekly newspaper that killed 12 people, but he says satirical cartoons of religious leaders should be illegal.

Imtiaz Ahmed, an imam with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, said it should be against the law to publish cartoons that depict religious figures in a derogatory way.

“Of course we defend freedom of speech, but it has to be balanced. There has to be a limit. There has to be a code of conduct,” Ahmed said.

“We believe that any kind of vulgar expression about any sacred person of any religion does not constitute the freedom of speech in any way at all.”

Ahmed said there should be limits placed on freedom of speech to prevent the publication of offensive material. He says that seems to be the case for events such as the Holocaust. Members of the public denounce those who say the Holocaust never happened.

“We don’t want the Jewish community to be hurt by these sentiments,” Ahmed says.

Ahmed said the work of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which has been threatened for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, is offensive and based on lies that have “hijacked the religion of Islam.”

Instead of looking at the few “disturbed individuals” who have committed terrorist attacks, the focus should remain on Muslims who are peaceful, Ahmed said.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has opposed such illustrations in the past in a peaceful manner. Ahmed said members of the community have gone to universities to educate students about Prophet Muhammad. He has also become involved in a campaign called Stop the Crisis to tackle the radicalization of Muslim youth.

“They are very offensive, but one thing I must say: there’s not a single verse of the Prophet that allows a Muslim to take the law in his own hand and commit horrific crimes against humanity,” Ahmed said. “We denounce that.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...s-leaders-should-be-illegal-says-ottawa-imam/

 

[reine02]

《查理周刊》的员工在一栋大楼上下放一块巨大黑布，上面写着“我是查理”。

《纽约时报》：I Am Not Charlie Hebdo
JAN. 8, 2015

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.

The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.

We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.

But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.

Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.

Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.

In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.

If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.

Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.

In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.

Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html

 

[一亩三分地]

Je Suis Charlie!

 

[reine02]

请问：谁知道“穆罕默德”是谁啊？

----------------------------
英国广播公司(BBC)称，法国新闻的讽刺传统，可追溯到法国大革命时期。但《查理周刊》的手法“被认为既粗俗又无情，还往往带有恶意攻击性”。该杂志刊登过的一些漫画包括拿着滴血移民头颅的警察、自慰的尼姑、戴安全套的教皇等。

《查理周刊》刊登描绘先知穆罕默德生活的漫画

杂志出版商史蒂芬·查波涅尔称漫画中没有讽刺内容

2011年10月，《查理周刊》曾刊发大量讽刺性的默罕默德漫画

2011年10月刊登的漫画内容

2011年10月刊登的漫画内容

2012年9月，《查理周刊》再次刊出穆罕默德的裸体漫画

2011年底，查理周报因为讽刺穆罕默德而遭到了燃烧弹的袭击，所幸无人员伤亡，之后的一周封面，索性让穆斯林和周报作者搅起了基、深情激吻，并配上标题“L'Amour plus fort que la haine”（爱比恨更强大）。

 

[ichingtrader]

言论问题要用言论解决，即使是明显错误的言论也只能用对言论的批评来纠正。不让人说话或者对批评讽刺采取肉体消灭的极端不宽容，绝对是逆时代潮流，也不符合宗教精神。温和穆斯林自己要改造排他性过强的部分，否则失去的就不只是人心和时代。

 

[Icare]

《查理周刊》的员工在一栋大楼上下放一块巨大黑布，上面写着“我是查理”。

《纽约时报》：I Am Not Charlie Hebdo
JAN. 8, 2015

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.

The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.

We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.

But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.

Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.

Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.

In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.

If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.

Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.

In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.

Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html

It seems that these Muslims are getting ground due to cowardice and betrayal of some liberal western media. NYT is a private news agent but we are paying for CBC. Let's have a look at what the lefty CBC has to say on this issue:

Charlie Hebdo attacks: Why hasn't CBC shown Prophet Muhammad caricatures?

 

[shadows]

Bill Maher on Paris massacre: ‘There are no great religions — they’re all stupid and dangerous’

TRAVIS GETTYS
08 JAN 2015 AT 07:49 ET

 

[一心无住]

Satirical depictions of religious leaders should be illegal, says Ottawa imam
January 9, 2015 9:07 AM ET

Pat McGrath, Ottawa CitizenImam Imtiaz Ahmed says he believes in free speech, but adds that it should be limited when religion is involved.

An Ottawa imam has denounced the terrorist attack on a Paris weekly newspaper that killed 12 people, but he says satirical cartoons of religious leaders should be illegal.

Imtiaz Ahmed, an imam with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, said it should be against the law to publish cartoons that depict religious figures in a derogatory way.

“Of course we defend freedom of speech, but it has to be balanced. There has to be a limit. There has to be a code of conduct,” Ahmed said.

“We believe that any kind of vulgar expression about any sacred person of any religion does not constitute the freedom of speech in any way at all.”

Ahmed said there should be limits placed on freedom of speech to prevent the publication of offensive material. He says that seems to be the case for events such as the Holocaust. Members of the public denounce those who say the Holocaust never happened.

“We don’t want the Jewish community to be hurt by these sentiments,” Ahmed says.

Ahmed said the work of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which has been threatened for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, is offensive and based on lies that have “hijacked the religion of Islam.”

Instead of looking at the few “disturbed individuals” who have committed terrorist attacks, the focus should remain on Muslims who are peaceful, Ahmed said.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has opposed such illustrations in the past in a peaceful manner. Ahmed said members of the community have gone to universities to educate students about Prophet Muhammad. He has also become involved in a campaign called Stop the Crisis to tackle the radicalization of Muslim youth.

“They are very offensive, but one thing I must say: there’s not a single verse of the Prophet that allows a Muslim to take the law in his own hand and commit horrific crimes against humanity,” Ahmed said. “We denounce that.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...s-leaders-should-be-illegal-says-ottawa-imam/

这是要剥夺加拿大人的言论自由啊。
这好像是，恐怖分子正面攻击，这位阿訇桌面谈判。配合得好啊。

 

[shadows]

只要宗教有机会有这个权力，他们都会去伤害非教徒。毫无疑问

 

[patyang]

一看那阿訇就是恐怖份子的帮凶和支持者，这种人要安全部门监管起来。

 

[ichingtrader]

不服就打，打服为止。必有一场终结性的战争。时代潮流是宽容，对不宽容的不断挑衅是否也应该宽容？这是个问题。

 

[salas88]

Satirical depictions of religious leaders should be illegal, says Ottawa imam
January 9, 2015 9:07 AM ET

Pat McGrath, Ottawa CitizenImam Imtiaz Ahmed says he believes in free speech, but adds that it should be limited when religion is involved.

An Ottawa imam has denounced the terrorist attack on a Paris weekly newspaper that killed 12 people, but he says satirical cartoons of religious leaders should be illegal.

Imtiaz Ahmed, an imam with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, said it should be against the law to publish cartoons that depict religious figures in a derogatory way.

“Of course we defend freedom of speech, but it has to be balanced. There has to be a limit. There has to be a code of conduct,” Ahmed said.

“We believe that any kind of vulgar expression about any sacred person of any religion does not constitute the freedom of speech in any way at all.”

Ahmed said there should be limits placed on freedom of speech to prevent the publication of offensive material. He says that seems to be the case for events such as the Holocaust. Members of the public denounce those who say the Holocaust never happened.

“We don’t want the Jewish community to be hurt by these sentiments,” Ahmed says.

Ahmed said the work of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which has been threatened for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, is offensive and based on lies that have “hijacked the religion of Islam.”

Instead of looking at the few “disturbed individuals” who have committed terrorist attacks, the focus should remain on Muslims who are peaceful, Ahmed said.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has opposed such illustrations in the past in a peaceful manner. Ahmed said members of the community have gone to universities to educate students about Prophet Muhammad. He has also become involved in a campaign called Stop the Crisis to tackle the radicalization of Muslim youth.

“They are very offensive, but one thing I must say: there’s not a single verse of the Prophet that allows a Muslim to take the law in his own hand and commit horrific crimes against humanity,” Ahmed said. “We denounce that.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...s-leaders-should-be-illegal-says-ottawa-imam/

什么节奏，民主国家自作自受的节奏

 

[salas88]

请问：谁知道“穆罕默德”是谁啊？

----------------------------
英国广播公司(BBC)称，法国新闻的讽刺传统，可追溯到法国大革命时期。但《查理周刊》的手法“被认为既粗俗又无情，还往往带有恶意攻击性”。该杂志刊登过的一些漫画包括拿着滴血移民头颅的警察、自慰的尼姑、戴安全套的教皇等。

《查理周刊》刊登描绘先知穆罕默德生活的漫画

杂志出版商史蒂芬·查波涅尔称漫画中没有讽刺内容

2011年10月，《查理周刊》曾刊发大量讽刺性的默罕默德漫画

2011年10月刊登的漫画内容

2011年10月刊登的漫画内容

2012年9月，《查理周刊》再次刊出穆罕默德的裸体漫画

2011年底，查理周报因为讽刺穆罕默德而遭到了燃烧弹的袭击，所幸无人员伤亡，之后的一周封面，索性让穆斯林和周报作者搅起了基、深情激吻，并配上标题“L'Amour plus fort que la haine”（爱比恨更强大）。

你在这里贴这些图，小心CFC办公室被扫射

 

[Icare]

How about this?

Harper boldly names real threat

 

[一心无住]

How about this?

Harper boldly names real threat

不错。