To conflate/confuse Page 3 and Charlie Hebdo?

[Babycham1979]

AIBU to think that there's a major irony in that many of the people vocally celebrating the end of Page 3 are the same that were cynically claiming 'Je suis Charlie' last week?

Surely it's the height of hypocrisy to claim in one breath that Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to publish Mo cartoons, but that the Sun shouldn't be allowed to publish Page 3? What about freedom of speech; the right to offend; pluralism; Enlightenment values and everything else the same people were banging on about last week?

For what it's worth I support Charlie Hebdo's stance, and I think Page 3 is a tawdry, mildly-sexist anachronism. However, I see a logical inconsistency here!

Is it (yet another) case of the likes of Harman only representing the views and interests of bourgeois European women?

Much of the animus against the Sun has little to do with Page 3 or Hillsborough and everything to do with Wapping and RM taking on the dinosaur print unions and winning.

And if he and Eddie Shah had not done that the Guardian would have folded and the Indie would never have seen the light of day, and if you loathe RM and read either of those don't you forget it.

Lots of people like to make judgements about Charlie Hebdo without actually knowing much about it.

I suggest reading THIS.

The comparison with the Sun begs belief.

The Sun: A lot of people didn't like page three as it was considered derogatory, so they peacefully campaigned and signed petitions. The paper then made a business decision to stop doing page 3.

Charlie Hebdo - A group of people didn't like the cartoons as it was considered derogatory. A sub group of people then issued death threats against the people doing the cartoons. When that didn't work, they then broke into the building and killed the staff. Oh, and then one of them went off on a killing spree in a Jewish supermarket.

What exactly aren't you understanding between these two differences?

Andrew, is it ok if I don't like page 3 because I think it represents and promotes the objectification of women?

And to not like oversimplified sensationalist journalism, no matter who publishes it?

Jassy I share your views on both points.
I have never bought the Sun and I haven't bought a girlie mag since I was a schoolboy (45 years ago, alas) - but just as RM has ended Page 3 for his own reasons so for his own reasons he rescued the dead-tree press from the unions who would have destroyed it and that fact must appear in the ledger.

Not arguing with you on that point - but I get a bit uncomfortable with statements that say that people's problem with page 3 is based on motives linked to the printworkers dispute and inherent issues with Murdoch, rather than the fact that it's misogynistic crap.

Just like I don't like the Mail because it's full of lies and made-up clickbait nonsense designed to make people feel victimised and afraid.

I don't think putting a bra on the model makes it an awful lot better, tbh. It's just showing us the other ways in which women can be objectified for male titillation.

Page 3 has not been banned, curbed, closed down or silenced. It was a business decision.
The people who objected to page 3 have done so peacefully and legally.

Nobody suggested that page 3 had been banned or made illegal.
Nobody has suggested that P3 protests were not peaceful, or that the CH shootings were justified. Anyone who has drawn the conclusion that people pointing out hypocrisy are some how terrorist sympathisers is just ridiculous, and yes, is most likely calling people a terrorist sympathiser as a way of silencing a point of view. it is a form of shutting down a debate, not a way of putting across a serious viewpoint.

There is hypocrisy in saying that the Sun should not publish certain offensive content, whilst at the same time saying it is good that CH is able to continue to publish offensive content, and that they should continue to do so.

But it's not hypocritical to say that anyone should be allowed to publish what they want, but be pleased when they don't.
It is good that we live in a world where publishers are able to publish potentially hateful things.
It is good that we live in a world where by and large they don't.
It's good to live in a world where the Sun can put boobies inside their paper.
It's good to live in a world where they don't.

Islamaphobic is a real world, just as anti-Semitic is a real word.
Both can be used wrongly to silence criticism of a religion but shouldn't be.

Jassy It's a fact that the Left became more vocal about P3 when RM took on the unions and even more so when he won!

But the Wapping dispute ended twenty-seven years ago. Hardly anyone one under, say, thirty-five is going to be secretly carrying a torch for Tony Dubbins while pretending that it's the objectification of women that they object to (I'm comfortably into my forties and I only have a very hazy memory of the whole thing).

I just don't think it's true any more (assuming that it ever was, on which I bow to your greater age and experience ) that a large proportion of anti-Sun feeling has "little to do with Page 3 or Hillsborough and everything to do with Wapping".

There is hypocrisy in saying that the Sun should not publish certain offensive content, whilst at the same time saying it is good that CH is able to continue to publish offensive content, and that they should continue to do so.

That's bullshit. There's no hypocrisy in saying some types of speech should be published and some other types should not.

Printing images of Mohammed may be blasphemous and offend muslims but it is not Islamaphobia. Judaism also prohibits the presentation of images of God but Jews have not destroyed the Sistine Chapel etc. nor claimed it is a demonstration of anti-Semitism.

Deriding a religion is not the same as hating people of that religion.

not really, Charlie Hebdo publishes racist material, and misogynistic material as well as silly cartoons about Mohammed.

I didn't qualify that the Suns only objectionable material was page 3, I also did not only qualify CH content as cartoons of Mohammed. as they post much more objectionable/offensive content.

Of course there is not hypocrisy in qualifying a set of circumstances in which you feel free speech is permissible, (like you can't go into a crowded theatre and shout fire, you also can't incite racial hatred.) -which in some circumstances is what Charlie Hebdo has done.

There is hypocrisy in saying "je suis Charlie", which is saying that you are Charlie, that you align with it's values and stand for all that it stands for. (including publishing misogynistic pictures) AND saying that you wanted the Sun to stop publishing misogynistic pictures, and are glad that it has.

I didn't see any signs or statuses saying:
"je Suis Charlie, cependant, je ne pas suis Charlie sur la misogynie"

I also didn't say that creating pictures of Mohamed was islamaphibic, I merely said that the phenomenon does exist. I.e people discriminate based on that particular religion.