Charlie Hebdo

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Charlie Hebdo publishes satirical cartoons

No-one catch this little gem? The mag in question has a long track record for publishing offensive satirical cartoons featuring religious and other figures and decided to give the prophet Mohammed the same treatment this week, depicting him in the buff. On the one hand they're showing no fear or favour and it's a noble stand for free speech, on the other you can't help wondering if they haven't just poked an already angry dog with a very big stick.

I don-t think what I said enters in contradiction with LaChatte

LaChatte says all symbols, ostentatious or not, are banned. She/he apparently has direct experience. From what I have read (newspapers, etc) all confirm that only ostentatious symbols are banned. In any case, it doesn't matter.

not bad, eh, for a supposedly intolerant secular country? ;-)

I never said the french were intolerant. Also, I am not sure why faith schools were inserted into the conversation. My point is that the french inhibit freedom of expression at state non-religious schools in a way that is not done in Canada, US and the UK, the former two being secular countries as well. I am saying muslims have a case when they say freedom of expression is not equally applied in France. And they are not alone. Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch also call the school headscarf law discriminatory.

writtenguarantee Tell me, what is the difference between an F-16 slamming surface to air missiles into a civilian occupied building, and walking into a room and pulling a trigger (several times)? Taking away the face to face aspect of the act, allows the perpetrator to impersonalise their culpability, is one difference. Another difference is that: one is a murderous individual, the other is state sponsored. They are both still, acts of appalling barbarism.

I know it's hard to stomach as we're the 'good guys' and would never do something like commit mass murder. Sorry, but we do and all too often.

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not in anyway critical of those people out in mourning for those murdered in Paris. What troubles me is the blinkered and one-sided understanding of the entire situation that the media promotes...

Tell me, what is the difference between an F-16 slamming surface to air missiles into a civilian occupied building, and walking into a room and pulling a trigger (several times)? Taking away the face to face aspect of the act, allows the perpetrator to impersonalise their culpability, is one difference. Another difference is that: one is a murderous individual, the other is state sponsored. They are both still, acts of appalling barbarism.

I'll tell you the difference: intention. In one case, the target is the facility, in the other case the targets are humans. As I said, that doesn't make one right and one wrong (they are both likely wrong, but I don't know the specific incident you are talking about), but it definitely makes one much worse than the other.

I know it's hard to stomach as we're the 'good guys' and would never do something like commit mass murder. Sorry, but we do and all too often.

it's not hard to stomach it. I know that. But you have to make the moral distinction between targeting people and targeting a building.

A moral difference... Are you serious??? A bomb is indiscriminate and blows whoever is in the vicinity to pieces. The rationale of the trigger puller/bomb dropper is : "tough shit for being there, anyway, it was the building I was firing at !!!! Serbian TV was broadcasting at the time... Nato KNEW people would be killed. But that's not as murderous (presumably for you because there is some concrete between the missile and them), as a lone murderer who pulls a trigger in someones direction?

As meditrina put it earlier in this thread : the intent is inherent in the act.

PS. The fact that you don't know of this incident is one of my points. I suggest you Google it up . It is the bloodiest attack on journalism in living memory, at least in Europe. Amnesty International said of it:

'The bombing of the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime.'

A moral difference... Are you serious??? A bomb is indiscriminate and blows whoever is in the vicinity to pieces.

if you can't see it, I can't explain. if your targets are human, that's much worse than if your target is a building. You can, I don't know if it happened this way in the incident you are talking about, destroy the building when no one is in it. You can't do that if the target is the people.

The fact that you don't know of this incident is one of my points.

really?!? you expect someone, on recall, to know of an incident that happened 16 years ago? that's a pretty easy game to play.

'The bombing of the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime.'

did I say it was good? No. Do I say it is bad? Yes. Further, even amnesty makes clear the target was not the people.

As meditrina put it earlier in this thread : the intent is inherent in the act.

no it's not. the intent is the intent. Full stop. if your intention is to destroy a building, that's different than if your intention is to kill people. Why is that hard?

So someone who throws a bomb at a house they know is full of people and kills many is guilty at best of manslaughter?

no, that's not what I said.

I said someone who throws a bomb at a house with intent to kill everyone inside is worse than someone who throws a bomb at a house with intent to destroy the house.

And yes it is what you said Intent is Intent and nothing else! So how about the intent of the 9/11 attackers? On that day the world saw a series of attacks against buildings did they? And by your 'logic', less of an atrocity than some targeted bullets fired elsewhere in NYC? (Apart from the incidental fact that the highjackers knew said buildings were full of innocent civilians and a great many would die).

This is getting boring now. Over to you for the last word..

BTW I wasn't attacking you personally for being ignorant of the Nato attack on Serbian TV in 1999. I didn't either 'till much after. My point was that the world knows all about some terrible violent events and not others. We all know about 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Charlie H, etc and rightly so, but the crimes and atrocities we in the West commit/sponsor in predominantly Muslim countries goes unreported.

Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch also call the school headscarf law discriminatory.

It's ironic really. In a muslim country girls would be able to wear the headscarf but probably wouldn't be allowed to go to school.

And yes it is what you said Intent is Intent and nothing else! So how about the intent of the 9/11 attackers?

there intent was to cause as much death and destruction as possible, their target wasn't just the buildings, it was the people inside too.

My point was that the world knows all about some terrible violent events and not others.

who's disputing that? Of course the media reports what's close to home.

but I don't know what part of targeting people is worse than targeting property. do you disagree? I of course understand the west does a lot of bad stuff. Obviously, we the BBC and Al Jazeera emphasise very different things.

Charlie Hebdo satirized and were critical of religion. That is religion in general. They didn't target one group. The Catholic church, has in the past, lodged complaints, as have Muslim groups - both lost their case. The magazine continued to operate within the law and satirize organised religious, extremism (political and religious), racism, and in particular the French National Front.

One can make the argument that the magazine shouldn't have been allowed to satirize any of the above, but to try to argue that they can satirize all of the above, with the exception of Islam, is hypocritical.

What makes Islam special? Why can it not be satirized and yet other faiths, power structures, institutions and political edifices can?

Islam may be sacred and holy to those who practice it but it isn't to the rest of the world. There is an interesting article in the BBC news website about how young Muslims are using Twitter and the internet in general in which to contravene Islamic law - a law which forbids them from questioning a religion which they will be killed or ostracized for leaving.

You know, I think one of the problems with Islam is that for many people, and certainly for those that have power within it, it is not simply a religion, it is a way of life. And therefore it spills over into every aspect of how (many) Muslim people live. At this point, it ceases to be simply a religion and becomes a system of control and a political regime. IMO, the argument that one shouldn't criticise Islam because it is a faith and people will be offended, has the side effect of meaning that a political regime is sheltered from criticism. The above, plus oil, means that religious-politico extremism and barbarism is protected and will continue and will escalate.

Organised religion

Beachcomber Makes Islam special or makes Muslim peoples special? There is a difference!

No one says, including Muslims, that you can't take the piss out of them. Their lifestyle, treatment of women etc. We can even allege that they have a sexual fondness for Camels if we want. However there is a line over which they do not accept anyone crossing and that is, specifically, (though not exclusively), making images of Mohammed.

If we and Charlie H respect that line when it comes to the Jews and the Holocaust. Victims of 9/11, rape and or sexual abuse victims, aborted foetuses, aids and ebola sufferers etc. Or portraying the mentally handicapped as inferior. Then why not can the same not be done for aspects of the Islamic faith? I believe the answer is, Muslim-baiting racism makes us feel good! As it puts 'them' in their place.

Sourdrawers, you are making it sound as though the only thing that is out of bounds as far as Islam goes is depicting Muhammad. If only...!

Salman Rushdie had a fatwa issued on him for writing a book that was considered blasphemous.

There is a Saudi blogger currently imprisoned and who has been sentenced to 1000 lashes and 10 years because he blogs about secularism.

In many Muslim societies there is no room to question or criticise Islam and in those societies the state and religion are intertwined, ergo there is no room to question or criticise the state. And this is what Charlie Hebdo is against - extreme, totalitarian, religious regimes which kill or torture those who question them. They also had plenty to say about other religions including Judaism and Catholicism and were harsh critics of racism, colonialism and were consistently pro Gaza. To describe what they do as "Muslim baiting" suggests to me that you aren't actually familiar with the magazine.

And the point of published satire is political. It isn't about mocking the weak, the marginalised or the victimized. It is about criticizing the powerful and their ideologies.

Mocking a power structure or an institution such as a religion is totally different to mocking victims of sexual abuse or any of the other ghastly comparisons that I can't quite believe you made above.

First off - I did say (Not exclusively) images of Mohammed, i am well aware of the Rushdie fatwa. But that's another discussion. As for the Saudi blogger, you may have noticed the absence of media outrage over his predicament. As we are hand in glove with the Saudis.

Tell me has Charlie H published cartoons of 9/11 victims falling to their deaths? Or ones that mock holocaust victims? Within those subject areas there are lines that must not be crossed right? So why not draw that line (pun intended) when it comes to Islam? Answer that point please!!! After all didn't C Hebdo sack veteran cartoonist Maurice Sinetin in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark? Even one of their retired founding cartoonists, Henri Roussel (DelFeil), believed the publication had gone off the rails. He also said it had turned into a "Zionist and Islamophobic organ."

It isn't about mocking the weak, the marginalised or the victimized No offence but I think you've got it completely arse about face Beachcomber. IMO that is exactly what it has done and that is what I am upset about. I believe Satire (if that is what this publication is meant to be) is most effective when it's aimed at the hypocrisies, the behaviour and actions of the rich and powerful, not the stupidities and intolerances of the poor and oppressed, their quaint beliefs and religious fervour that, far from showing their strength does the opposite. For Muslims religion is both a comfort in their daily lives and desire for justice and truth in a world that's mostly grossly unfair. In a society (in this case French society) where they are blatantly discriminated against in education, employment and public life in general.

Internationally, It's not enough that we send our legions out to destroy their countries, not enough that we rape their culture and smash decades of development to pieces, on top of it all we now mock and take the piss out of what they've got left, their religious beliefs, and this is after we've systematically undermined their secular attempts at reforms by attacking the secular Muslim states and leaders and supporting the most backward and reactionary forces across the Muslim world. Like the Saudis who you mentioned!

I am, sort of familiar with this mag', an ex BF of mine who was French used to bring it back from Paris. I found it about as funny as toothache personally, but my French isn't great. For me it was at best toilet graffiti but now deified as something sacred.

If only the 'satire' in Charlie Hedbo was sharper and stronger and attacked western conceit, narcissism and hypocrisy that characterises us. Problem is they pick easy targets. (I would love to get metrics on the number of racist cartoons against Muslims that they did compared to those against Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and intolerant Secularism - come to that).

This is not about confronting Islam, this is about the French putting Muslims in their place. As is the headscarf ban. Yes of course they have the RIGHT to offend, here in the west we all do.. But that doesn’t mean we have the DUTY to offend.

As for the Saudi blogger, you may have noticed the absence of media outrage over his predicament. As we are hand in glove with the Saudis.

there is plenty of media outrage. it's all over the place.

Tell me has Charlie H published cartoons of 9/11 victims falling to their deaths? Or ones that mock holocaust victims? Within those subject areas there are lines that must not be crossed right?

There's a distinction between anti-semitic cartoons (against the jewish people) and anti-judaism cartoons (against the jewish religion). My impression is that CH would routinely do the latter, but not the former. The mohammed cartoons fall into the latter category. that's part of the religion. it's not making fun of muslims, but making fun of islam.

That's a hugely important distinction that really everyone is talking about. islam is fair game. Muslims are not. Of course, sometimes the line is somewhat blurred; cartoons, after all, are much less precise than prose so in some cases the message may be unclear.

The reason why CH doesn't make fun of 9/11 victims is because it isn't funny. Most of their readers wouldn't think it is funny. People wouldn't buy their magazine, and it may in fact be illegal. But the analogy is not apt. CH did not publish cartoons mocking the deaths of muslims in, say, Syria. I would hope that would be met with the same disgust as cartoons mocking the victims of 9/11.

By the way, I don't think muslims ought to be described as "weak". Hardly. They are the majority in some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

I will also add that while I understand why in France and Germany holocaust denial is against the law, in many countries it is not, and that's a good thing in my opinion. Denying the holocaust happened is one thing; thinking it happened and mocking it's victims is another.

As we are hand in glove with the Saudis.

I do, however, agree with this. Our criticism of SA is rather muted. for a serial human rights abuser, we hear a lot less about them than we should.

If only the 'satire' in Charlie Hedbo was sharper and stronger and attacked western conceit, narcissism and hypocrisy that characterises us.

Charlie Hebdo does exactly that. You seem to think that it is a magazine devoted to mocking Muslims.

Why on earth do you think a political satirical magazine would make jokes about people falling to their death on 9/11?? No, they don't mock people being killed in terrorist attacks or in concentration camps. Sorry. They mock regimes, power structures, extremists, religious fanatics, racists, governments, etc - yunno, in the satirical tradition.

the stupidities and intolerances of the poor and oppressed, their quaint beliefs and religious fervour - nice steroetype you got going there of Muslims.

This is not about confronting Islam, this is about the French putting Muslims in their place.

I have lived in France for nearly 20 years and regularly read Charlie Hebdo - the authors would find what you say here funny IMO. In an ironic, satirical kind of way. But then you would know that what with being so familiar with the magazine.

In France, (again, not exclusively France. Have you visited Germany lately)? Arabs most certainly are discriminated against, beachcomber they are weak, under educated, underemployed and powerless. That is my point.

RE: the Saudi blogger. Terrible as that is - let's not forget Barack Obama, has demanded that Yemen keep the anti-drone journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye behind bars, after he was convicted on “terrorism-related charges” in a kangaroo court. Obama has shamelessly jumped on the free speech ban wagon also. Aren’t you sickened to see Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of a country that was responsible for the killing of seven journalists in Gaza in 2014, attend the “unity rally” in Paris as well?

So 9/11, / holocaust victims aren't funny? But according to you CH are equal opportunities offenders - so why not? There is a line about issues of taste and propriety, no? Why not the Islamic faith?

stupidities and intolerances of the poor and oppressed This is where the C Hebdo bullets are aimed at as far as I can tell. If not, tell me what is this all about ?

www.quora.com/What-was-the-context-of-Charlie-Hebdos-cartoon-depicting-Boko-Haram-sex-slaves-as-welfare-queens

I'm guessing you'd say - it's a satirical representation of the far right's idea of asylum seekers and aimed at racists, (and that couldn't have been satirised in any other way?). I disagree with that totally. Lampooning racism by reproducing brazenly racist imagery is a pretty dubious satirical tactic as far as I can see. Also, as the former Charlie Hebdo journalist Olivier Cyran argued in 2013, an “Islamophobic neurosis gradually took over” the magazine after 9/11, which then effectively endorsed attacks on "members of a minority religion with no influence in the corridors of power". So it's not just me saying it....

For me, C Hebdo's punch everywhere' editorial policy is disingenuous, I distrust this libertarian defence (The makers of South Park justify themselves the same way). A kind of shield used to shut down conversation about the intent of the joke and who is necessarily being 'satirised' before it can even begin. It also ignores the possibility that as much as one might think they are 'even handed', one's own (editorial) prejudices might actually be focusing on a particular religion or race more often than others.

Maybe Charlie Hebdo is an extremely left-wing, liberal magazine that has been misunderstood and there may not be racist intent behind a lot of the cartoons they publish, but I think it's worth, at the very least, considering and listening to those who find these drawings troubling and hurtful. Simply being left-wing does not give one carte blanche when it comes to perpetuating crude racial stereotypes that people of colour, who deal with racism on a regular basis, consider to be offensive.

I loathed and distrusted deeply George W Bush's puerile declaration after 9/11 that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”? Yet now, in the wake of another horrific terrorist attack, many people seem to be saying either you are with free speech . . . or you are against it. Bollocks!

what about this -

ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/625/media/images/80155000/png/_80155413_twittermaxblumenthal.png

I guess you're going to tell me I don't get it? Well this for me is 'satire' at it's cheapest and laziest. Imagine some radical black power group (if one existed) committed acts of mass murder as retaliation to this? Would there be well meaning crowds as big as last week's on the streets of Paris with their banners? My point is - we cannot have untrammelled free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn.

I say - leave Islam alone. You recognise the 'line in the sand' in other subject areas and I'm glad you do. There's a line between witty dissent from religion and a bullying racist agenda.

Islam is a belief statement that is voluntarily followed.
Islam is not a race.
Those who criticise Islam are therefore not racists.