To think that Charlie Hebdo...

[CruelButTrue]

...would have been more like this had it been published in Britain rather than France?

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-if-icharlie-hebdo-i-had-been-published-in-britain/16443#.VLLmGXv26Sq

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Kittens? Where? Oh I love kittens

The 'I am Charlie' idea, is about the protection of free speech. It's the opposite of shouting people down. It's the opposite of closing down debate and it's the opposite of demonising opposing ideas but engaging and defeating them with ideas.
It's clear that there are a lot of people who don't like this. In Paris, they used deadly force
on MN , they use bullying, insults and loud voices.

as for me, I want free speech

According to the guardian the precursor of Charlie hebdo got banned.

"In 1970 its precursor, Hara-Kiri Hebdo, was banned for publishing a spoof of the reverent French coverage of the death of the former president Charles de Gaulle. To sidestep the ban, the editors renamed the magazine, choosing Charlie Hebdo because there was a monthly comic book in existence called Charlie Mensuel (named in turn after Charlie Brown) and as an irreverent reference to the recently deceased father of the French fifth republic."

Charlie hebdo was discontinued due to lack of sales in 1981 but relaunched in 1992

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-satire-intimidation-analysis

According to the guardian.

Personally I don't particularly care for the art work of Charlie hebdo as I feel it is offensive. However I want them to have the freedom to publish their magazine without fear of violent reprisals. It is possible to support freedom of speech without liking Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

All of this shit about free speech. Yes, of course, say what you like. But the other side of free speech is that other people also have freedom to object to what you say and to argue with you. Which means it's perfectly fine to say that Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, lampooning the disenfranchised and powerless as they did, were bollocks. Or does free speech only work for as long as you are speaking, DodgedAnAsbo?

I don't think the cartoonist themselves objected to the fact some people did not like their cartoons. They diversely courted controversity.

Part of living in a civilised democratic country is that you don't take the law into your own hands and murder people who have upset you. If the French public wanted to ban Charlie hebdo they could. Hara-kiri hebdo got banned prior to Charlie.

Oh I'm totally against killing people. I'm just a bit suspicious as to how free DodgedAnAsbo wants the speech around her/him to be, particularly given that s/he seems to be equating walking into an office and killing people with someone disagreeing with her/him on mumsnet.

.

I read that article the other day but found it poorly written.

I found that the cartoons were offensive for the sake of it and I don't think they contribute to debate. Of course I don't think anyone should be killed for drawing them, that was appalling.

The OP has a point about context-poking fun at a group perceived as lower down in the pecking order. Something distasteful about that.

edition.cnn.com/2015/01/10/opinions/kohn-free-speech-responsibility/

An article about how it is possible to enjoy free speech but also respect others.

I am not like Cruikshank. I admit it.
I believe that people have the right to speak freely and I believe that others have the right to disagree.
Closing down debate is wrong in my opinion, whether it's through violence, censorship or bullying

sorry cruicky, I refuse to be bullied

In Britain there is Hyde Park Corner. People are free to express themselves there. Others are free to come, stop, listen, laugh, walk away or not. Irrespective of what is said or how anyone feels about what is said, no-one is allowed to resort to violence.

In France there is Charlie Hebdo.
Charlie Hebdo is free to make fun of anyone it chooses. The journalists choose cartoons for the rapidity of their message. Their cartoons provoke anger , whilst others find them really funny. But the work of Charlie Hebdo is to not settle for polite silence. Charlie Hebdo points fingers at the things we need to notice and at issues which shouldn't be silenced.

Yesterday, in France, millions of people walked through the streets with, but mostly without, police protection. All these walks were peaceful.

In very few words , like the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, the walks summed up essentials for the French. They showed that they are not going to accept that terrorists could frighten French society into silence, even if a problem could lead to argument. These walks also said that the French will not allow communities to lay down the law undemocratically. Neither of these concepts are French.

Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity satirist. They refuse to consider anything sacred, as the sacred and taboo has nothing to do within a Democratic Republic. They are a breath of fresh air against the Pensee Unique (the one and only acceptable way of thinking) that is pervasive in current times, and that we see everyday on MN.

Do I like everything they publish? Hell No! But they challenge every week the stupid and self satisfied complacency we live in.
This is for France. But are you telling me the concepts I describe do not exist in the UK?

In that article it says That's why I would not have published cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed

But would the writer say "and that's why I wouldn't wear a burka" because some might find that offensive? I didn't see that in there.

Because all of this "oh but it isn't right to offend" really means "it isn't right to offend 'certain people'.

you see satire is a thing - it has a point to make - it is worth while

doing something to be deliberately offensive - not so much

I think before anyone does something like make a funny cartoon lambasting women raped by Boko haram as only seeking refuge in France for the benefits - they should ask what they hope to achieve

freedom of speech comes with responsibility

interesting that France is a country that curtails women's freedom to wear what they like and Cameron - matching there yesterday is banning Universities from debating with extremists

Two things

1. "Discuss" makes you sound silly.
2. You need to learn how to use "ad hominem" in the correct context as it ups your silliness quotient.

France is a country that curtails women's freedom to wear what they like they can wear whatever they like!
However, men and women have to be able to be recognizable on the public place at all time, for security reason.

Your example of raped women is moot. It would just show that the author is a dick.

banning Universities from debating with extremists

You mean "Banning Muslim students from turning Universities into free platforms for extremism"?

The speakers are free to go to to Hyde Park and say it there, but they'll need to buy their own microphone if they want to reach a lot of people.

no banning debate and the right to challenge and expose ... Which is kind of important

why is it moot it's an example of the stuff they published

Ghosty,
In your opinion, who decides what is the difference between 'satirical' and what is 'deliberately offensive' ? And once you've answered that, please could you suggest how they decide it ?
Thanks

the person drawing the cartoon - as I said above - they need to ask why and what is the point

so the example - of a cartoon depicting pregnant victims of rape holding their hands out and saying 'give us your benefits' - what WAS the aim - what was it satirising - this would provide and answer

Free speech is a 2 way street

Charlie hebdo's satire was chiefly aimed at the far right in France.

It was also a supporter of immigration. Some cartoons have been taken out of the political context in which they were published.

Look at Viz - you could argue that it's images of women are offensive. It's real backyard humour (and very, very funny.)

I'm old enough to remember Dave Allen,
who did nothing but take the piss out of the pope & the Catholic Church - on mainstream TV !

I wonder would something like that be allowed now?

Dave Allen would be banned - how many fags did he get through in an evening, and booze!
I thought he was funny, and usually spot on in his observations on huma behaviour
Charlie Hebdo? I found it offensive tbh.
But no one deserves to die for it.

@ KeemaNaan in reply to my not knowing what an ad hominem is:

“Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).”

Douglas Walton, Ad Hominem Arguments, University of Alabama Press 1998, requoted from Wikipedia - refer back to the way in which some people believe the link in my original post should be viewed differently because it appears in Spiked Online. Oh, careful not to use an ad hominem argument on the grounds that Wikipedia is quoted now…

Secondly, in reply to my coming across as silly on account of using the word “discuss”… it’s free speech innit? I just happen to be that kind of person, you’re free to not like me if you so wish, or just think of me as an old geography teacher.

Myself, I think Joe Sacco has some interesting points to make in this cartoon for The Guardian.

I’m still wondering what the free speech / free expression line is on burning poppy wreaths?

I’m still wondering if there had been a terrorist attack on the BNP’s offices whether the mob would be wearing “I am Nick Griffin” T shirts?

But most of all, it’s good to see that some people, whatever their views, are interested in engaging their minds and communicating with others of differing views rather than simply trying to close down debate while simultaneously claiming to support free speech.