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

Yes
Most people just wrote a letter to The Times or have a little protest outside the office: "down with this sort of thing.." Etc

In terms if free speech - we do not have free speech, it is constrained by law.

I don't think it's illegal to burn a poppy wreath. It is illegal to incite racial violence.

We live in a democracy abd the people we elect help make lass which reflect our values and culture.

Therefore the BNP is free to publish within the law. If they were firebombed no I would not wear a t shirt supporting them.

But they are a very different proposition to charlie hebdo.

Ok, so Charlie Hebdo provoked discussion about helping the women who were being raped by Boko Hasam. The cartoon sums up one side of an argument concerning refugees exploiting benefits and a general worry about intervening to help them. It sums up the "Oh no, we mustn't help them, even if they are in dire straits. You never know, they might exploit our system" point of view don't you think ?

If someone didn't like the way the argument was presented at least it meant that these people would talk about it. You know, in a time when it's becoming more and more difficult for democratic countries to offer refugee status, I feel happy that Charlie Hebo remind people that there are refugees who really need defending and really need third party intervention.

For me, that cartoon meant that mediocratic people with middle of the road values needed to speak out and to take sides. If people aren't pushed to talk , perhaps because they're simply busy working, or because they're not sure what and how to say and then finally they don't, then only extremists are heard. I find it frustrating that this imbalance gives a skewed impression of what is public opinion. I even wonder if people become afraid to speak out at all against extremism.

That's how I see that cartoon.

Jonathan Swift wrote " The Modest Proposal"
www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

How about having a little read of it ? Not everyone found his way of arguing ok. But he was not shot. And that was many years ago, before democracy had become as democratic as it is today.

Ghosty, I did a bit pf reading about the cartoon you refer to. It seems to me that it was satirising the idea of welfare recipients being queens of welfare and using the image of the Nigerian women to make their point of the absurdity of that notion. It used two high profile stories to make their point. It seems to me in France that they are used to very free thought and there are no sacred cows when it comes to writing of any kind.

I am dropping out of this thread. The poppy burning, nick Griffin post from the op is making reasoned debate impossible.

I've said this on another thread, but will repeat it in response to this point about Charlie Hebdo satirising everyone and thus treating everyone equally. I think that misses the point. The problem is that everyone they satirised didn't start off as being equal. I think there is a big difference between taking potshots at a rich, powerful organisation like the Catholic church (say) and using images of a dispossessed and disenfranchised group in order to make a political point - the complacency of doing the latter is breathtaking, and not in a good way.

It's also the complacency of a lot of this 'Je Suis Charlie' stuff that is really quite grating. Yes, ok, we've got democracy. But let's not, to quote Quentin Tarantino, start sucking each others' dicks just yet. One of the main things about democracy is that it brings a duty to be vigilant in ensuring it remains so. Swanning around being oh-so-chuffed about how liberal and free your country is does not meet that duty. Take France, for example - democracy it may be, but it still has laws governing what women wear, it has an entire govt department devoted to deciding what words people can use, it has a massive problem with racism and marginalised groups etc. The UK also has the latter, and while yes it's great that we can vote, we went and voted Blair back into power after he killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. And right now we have a Prime Minister who didn't even win the election. Still feeling so smug about how fair and equal we are?

If people are going to take to the streets, I'd rather they did it in order to hold their governments to account, instead of to uncritically and unquestioningly tell us how wonderful their political and social systems are, when they are in fact far from perfect. Don't forget, the 'free press' that we have in this country every day publishes pictures of semi-naked women and calls it news, not to mention conducting smear campaigns against immigrants, the poor, people with disabilities etc. Not looking quite so rosy now, is it? Don't get me wrong, I'd rather live in the UK than quite a lot of other places, but this empty, mawkish posturing is frustrating in the extreme, when there are so many things that could and should be changed.

France has just recognised Palestine. It did not participate in the Iraq war ( "remember the cheese eating surrender monkeys?")

I don't think the demonstrations in France were a show of arrogance. I think they were a necessary affirmation that their society was not broken by this.

The democracy we have is not perfect but it's a damn sight better than the political systems in other parts of the world including the Middle East

using images of a dispossessed and disenfranchised group in order to make a political point

Can i just ask which dispossessed and disenfranchised group that refers to?.

I disagree with Cruik that when Charlie Hebdo publish their cartoons that they do it with complacency. Right now , there are journalists who nearly died last week in the attack at Charlie Hebdo, working to produce this next week's edition on time. I suppose they will produce thought provoking cartoons. I don't see complacency there. I see bravery.

Cruik, you say that the walk was arrogant and that the French should have been protesting in order to change its society. Protesting against the government in the streets is often done in France. But, the walk for Charlie was for something different. It was a gathering of groups of people with differences who wanted to unite and show their like-mindednes.

Through-out the country there were marches and there was no violence at all. They said that after fear there is something stronger and that is the way to go.

It's complacent because it's commenting from an exclusively Western perspective and patting itself on the back for being so daring and outre. Meanwhile, these are people's lived realities - not French lived realities, which I think is important to note.

And I didn't say the walk was arrogant - that was Ubik talking about me and then arguing about something I didn't say (which is why I've ignored them - I don't respond to shit like that).

Well of course its commentating from a western perspective cruik. Why wouldnt it be?
fwiw, the march for me was about people saying: we are a democracy; we have free speech; we will not be dictated to by violent, religious fanatics.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather live in the UK than quite a lot of other places, but this empty, mawkish posturing is frustrating in the extreme,

Sorry you didn't say it was arrogant - you implied it - you described the uk as smug and the French response to events on Paris as 'empty, mawkish posturing'

Not for the ordinary people standing in the streets.

As for 'they tell women what they can wear..' The irony of that comment is laughable.

The idea that a publication is not allowed to satirise religion because it is peoples 'lived experience' is nonsensical. We do not have blasphemy laws. Religion is nt above satire.

This argument is nonsense OP. Yes thee things may well have happened but that's the point. There is freedom.of speech and there is freedom to peacefully object to that speech which you find offensive. To campaign against it and to discourage people from buying it. That is how a democratic society works. We argue our views peacefully.
So even if the proposed time line was followed well that's democracy, peaceful protest in action. In your articles view the consequence of the magazines freedom of speech was a storm of protest and a market place inhospitable to the magazines continued survival. And that's okay.
The scandal with Charlie Hebdo is that is not what happened instead 12 people were murdered for exercising their right to freedom of speech. And that is outrageous and against everything civilised society stands for.
Can you see the difference?

Is the penny ever going to drop? Ever?

"Yes, the cartoons were offensive" "There is a fine line between being satirical and offensive" blah blah.

It does not matter, not one tiny, minuscule amount whether some people chose to find the cartoons "offensive".

If someone finds themselves "offended" by something that someone else says or does, then that's their fucking problem. They have not the slightest right...not should they be tacitly given the right....to demand that other people engage in self-censorship just for them.

You don't like what someone says about your religion, prophet or messiah? Tough shit. That's life. Personally, I don't like the Abrahamic religions one little bit...everything they stand for offends just about every sensibility I have. And I say so. But I don't expect anyone to moderate their speech around me. Far from it.

We all have the right to respond to things that offend us - but the way that some people choose to go about that truly sickens me. Obviously shooting people is the worst....but there are other, more insidious ways that people try to shut others up.

Here's one....they invent a word such as "Islamophobia". They try to pretend that the invented word and the invented "hate crime" it describes is up there with racism or homophobia. And, even better, because most Muslims have brown skin, they tell everyone who will listen (which is an unfortunately large number) that Islamophobia is not only like racism...it IS racism.

The knock on effect of this is that every time anyone sensible tries to discuss the horrors of the Islamic doctrines, they get called racist bigots.

FOR CRITICISING A RELIGION!

A religion, lest we forget, that is directly responsible for the worst human rights atrocities on the planet. Never mind terrorism, do you know how Muslims are expected to live in many countries?

Do you know that, under Sharia Law, a woman is literally worth half the value of her husband? That if she's raped, no action can be taken against the rapist unless there are four male witnesses to the rape? If she can't produce any she's prosecuted and flogged...for committing adultery. Women in Saudi can't drive, must wear tents in public at all times and cannot leave their homes.

A blogger this week has been flogged 50 times for the "crime" of blasphemy. His actual sentence is 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes...so he has 950 to go. And this not in some back water no one has ever heard of...it's Saudi Arabia.

Oh, but wait....that's not their religion, it has nothing to do with religion, it's their culture! Isn't that how it goes?

Well, by the most extraordinary coincidence their "culture" just happens to coincide with black and white instructions from their prophet in their holy book!!!

What's next? Oh, yes...we can't say anything bad about Islam because it upsets & "offends" all the nice and peaceful Muslims we know.

Well, you know what, if any Muslim...moderate or otherwise....responds to concerns about CHILD MARRIAGE AND RAPE, countrywide domestic violence, inhumane sentences for blogging, honour killing and genital mutilation with HURT FEELINGS...then fuck them.

I don't care how offended they are. Their holy book offends me.

Oh, and all those of you who dabbed your eyes over Malala's bravery - I hope she knows how much you "respect" the religion that was directly responsible for what happened to her. The religion that expressly says that she's a second class citizen, subservient to men, on a par with pigs and cattle, the plaything (and punching bag) of her future husband.

Criticising a religion because of what it says within it's own doctrines is not racism and does not make the criticiser a racist bigot. It makes them a decent human being who gives a shit.

.... cannot leave their homes without their husbands permission

What CaffeLatteIceCream just said! Every bit of it.

France tends to be more racist and more islamaphibic than the uk

Our closest equivalant here is private eye who as Far as I am aware don't tend to run cartoons that mock Mohammed

Honestly I am upst to reads that in their next issue they are running another fucking cartoon that mocks him . Stop it now

I am CofE and I think if people ran cartoon mockingly religion I would be pretty upset

Really upset now it's just not a black and white issue

And what caffe said is true

I condone both !!

Absofuckinglutly Caffe every last word.

Honestly I am upset to reads that in their next issue they are running another fucking cartoon that mocks him

You might want to look at it. Apparently it shows Mohammed looking slightly sad at what has happened and not mocking at all.

There was a good article linked to on one of the other threads.

It explains that while France does have laws against racial hatred, the French can tell the difference between a religion and a race. We could learn from them.

I think if people ran cartoon mockingly religion I would be pretty upset

I'm pretty upset that religions exist. Do you plan to stop being religious to make me feel better?

Hear Hear Caffe

........will wait for the inevitable Muslim posters to come along and say that people should't believe Mia's lies.

As if nobody can ever find anything bad about Islam out without me posting it, or that everybody believes me whole heartedly and doesn't do their own research.

Agree with cafe. Surely this also about context. In the west, which is largely secular, mocking religion is no big deal for the majorty of people - and that includes any religion. People poke fun at religion in the west, always have done, always will. Islam needs to get over itself.

I think the good thing about these threads is that on the whole we are discussing this fairly calmly with various views heard and honoured.

Although caffe latte has a different view to me , I can also hear a lot of sense in what she says

And that's the beauty of our society praise be ( not to The Lord obvs!! )

I massively disapprove of much that goes on the Middle East .

I just feel very passionately that I don't want to see the same anti Muslim stance they have in France it really would break my heart ( having lived there and experienced it) and I think some of that racism played I to their journalism

If Islam were a political party (which really is what religions are like, much more so than anything like race), it would be absolutely ripped to shreds here on the basis of its 'manifesto' (the Qur'an in this case).

The word 'Islamophobic' should really be 'Muslimophobic', for yes I would agree it is wrong to target individuals and express hate toward Muslims as human beings, who like all of us, will in the vast majority just be wishing to get on peacefully with their lives.

Targeting an overarching ideology/religion/political party and criticising its own published objectives is completely different, and indeed necessary. We don't have words like 'UKIPophobic' for good reason (and I am entirely against UKIP). Influential ideologies can be massively dangerous if not held in check by public scrutiny.

Oh, and all those of you who dabbed your eyes over Malala's bravery - I hope she knows how much you "respect" the religion that was directly responsible for what happened to her. The religion that expressly says that she's a second class citizen, subservient to men, on a par with pigs and cattle, the plaything (and punching bag) of her future husband

Hard hitting words there Caffe.

• CaffeLatteIceCream Tue 13-Jan-15 09:43:59

Excellent post.