A Statement from the Government

[Lüc da Schir]

Fellow Talossans,

The Government of Talossa officially condemns the actions of the perpetrators responsible for the murder of 12 Parisians earlier today. Our thoughts go out to the families, friends, and colleagues of those who were attacked.



Even though we might not agree with the message behind the cartoons produced by Charlie Hebdo, we believe that disagreement is something that should be demonstrated peacefully and without depriving anyone of a platform, and certainly not resorting to acts of violence and murder.



Free expression is an issue close to the heart of many of us here in Talossa. It is something we should treasure, and is something we should protect from those who would take it away from us.

Talossa has always been a beacon of diversity, a meeting point of cultures, an example of cohabitation of people who hail from different countries, speak different languages, pray God differently (or don't pray at all). As Talossans, we hold dear these values of diversity, equality and freedom of speech and we will never give them up. We stand united with the French people against terrorism and all kinds of extremism and religious intolerance.

Lüc, on behalf of the Government

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Paris is a place I love. Murder is a thing I hate.
Though we may, as individuals, not agree with some of the views expressed in Charlie Hebdo we all join in these expressions of sympathy. Extremism of all sorts is to be avoided - and most of our devout Muslim brothers and sisters also decry this foul act wrongfully perpetrated in their name. Just as true Christianity is about love and mercy and forgiveness so true Islam is about peace and submission and obedience to the loving will of the Almighty: do not be persuaded otherwise by these unacceptable acts of a tiny minority.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Quite simply: the murderers at Charlie Hebdo and the Islamophobic bigots who laughed at their nastier cartoons both want the same thing - a racial/culture war between "the West" and "the Islamic community". Let's not give it to them.

[Françal Ian Lux]

Jan 9, 2015 2:41:46 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Quite simply: the murderers at Charlie Hebdo and the Islamophobic bigots who laughed at their nastier cartoons both want the same thing - a racial/culture war between "the West" and "the Islamic community". Let's not give it to them.

I'm afraid that's already started. As far as the Muslim world is concerned anyway.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

No, islamists isn't the same as Muslims.

[Françal Ian Lux]

But they live in the Muslim world and/or communities. I'm not condemning the religion, mind you, Islam is a great religion, but many political extremists and religious fanatics have already declare war on the west.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jan 9, 2015 6:40:28 GMT -6 Françal Ian Lux said:

But they live in the Muslim world and/or communities. I'm not condemning the religion, mind you, Islam is a great religion, but many political extremists and religious fanatics have already declare war on the west.

It takes two to tango. It isn't a war just because some terrorists say it is. And I'm not sure Islam is a great religion. The Moslems I know are great people, though.

[Adam da Simeon]

Jan 9, 2015 2:41:46 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Quite simply: the murderers at Charlie Hebdo and the Islamophobic bigots who laughed at their nastier cartoons both want the same thing - a racial/culture war between "the West" and "the Islamic community". Let's not give it to them.

I don't think that it is islamophobic or bigoted to laugh at a comic that mocks an idea. A distinction needs to be made between the ideas and those who hold them.

I do however, in this case, condemn the people who did this act of mass murder.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Yeah... I've argued enough elsewhere that CH cartoons often crossed the line into personal abuse which targeted all people of Islamic faith (as well as Catholics, Jews, trans people, etc etc) that I will not defend them, though I will always defend the right to draw them without being murdered.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It seems pretty irrelevant to me what the content of the cartoons might be. If the Ku Klux Klan headquarters was attacked, I wouldn't spare a word for any "well they were super racist," because nothing less than unmitigated and full-throated condemnation of murder will do. Free speech and a free press demand that we step to the active defense of the right of racists to speak their piece.

I am not much of a journalist when stacked up to people willing to keep speaking their piece and publishing their satire after death threats, but I will unhesitatingly affirm that for today and on Sunday, je suis Charlie.

[Adam da Simeon]

Jan 9, 2015 15:27:57 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Yeah... I've argued enough elsewhere that CH cartoons often crossed the line into personal abuse which targeted all people of Islamic faith (as well as Catholics, Jews, trans people, etc etc) that I will not defend them, though I will always defend the right to draw them without being murdered.

I haven't read the comics, so I don't know if they targeted people of Islam or not, but like I said, there is a difference between being against an ideology and bigoted against the people who hold them. I really can't judge which one from what I have read of it.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jan 9, 2015 6:40:28 GMT -6 Françal Ian Lux said:

But they live in the Muslim world and/or communities. I'm not condemning the religion, mind you, Islam is a great religion, but many political extremists and religious fanatics have already declare war on the west.

It isn't just the Islamists. There are a good bunch of what I term radical Christians that have declared open war on the same things this attack was intended to stop (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.) Look at some parts of the United States for this type of fanaticism. I think it is safest to say simply "murder, in any form, and for any reason, is wrong." Of course, there may be different ideas of what constitutes murder. Oh dear, a Pandora's box!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 9, 2015 15:56:47 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

nothing less than unmitigated and full-throated condemnation of murder will do.

Will do for what?

This is the nonsense that follows any terrorist murder. Some people start hunting for those who don't really condemn terrorist murder, or don't condemn it enough, or won't march on anti-terrorism demonstrations alongside the KKK or French fascists. Policing others' speech in the name of mourning martyrs for... er, free speech.

The insinuation that if we think Charlie Hebdo was and is more problematic than helpful, we must not really condemn the murder of their cartoonists, is bullying McCarthyist crap.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 10, 2015 21:12:33 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jan 9, 2015 15:56:47 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

nothing less than unmitigated and full-throated condemnation of murder will do.

Will do for what?

This is the nonsense that follows any terrorist murder. Some people start hunting for those who don't really condemn terrorist murder, or don't condemn it enough, or won't march on anti-terrorism demonstrations alongside the KKK or French fascists. Policing others' speech in the name of mourning martyrs for... er, free speech.

The insinuation that if we think Charlie Hebdo was and is more problematic than helpful, we must not really condemn the murder of their cartoonists, is bullying McCarthyist crap.

I'm not "hunting," or "policing," or "bullying." I'm saying that if we actually believe in free speech, then it is philosophically insufficient to say that the violence was wrong if we also pair it with any sort of censure of the victims for being "more problematic than helpful." That seems to me to be an insufficient defense of free speech, that is to say, because it implies some level of mitigation of the crime. If the victims were "problematic," then that means they weren't victimized quite as much as someone who published cartoons with which we approve. They were asking for it, or being racist, or otherwise expressing bad opinions, and so this crime wasn't quite as bad.

My point is that it doesn't matter what opinion anyone expresses, pretty much ever, when they're murdered for that opinion by terrorists who are attempting to suppress an idea they dislike. You're intentionally and explicitly limiting your sympathy for the victims or your condemnation of the terrorists by saying that you condemn the violence, but also saying that really these victims were saying the wrong things. To me, that sounds like you're saying that the violence is wrong, but not really the suppression of their opinions.

There's no witch-hunt here to sort out who secretly harbors terrorist sympathies, or any nonsense like that. I'm not exhorting some sort of jingoist condemnation contest, just disagreeing with you to point out that if we fail to defend this specific content, no matter how racist it might be (and I don't even actually know that it is... link?) we're sending an additional message that we won't fight to hard to protect theseopinions.