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.

Really? I deeply resent the idea that I should apologise for my job - journalist - because they're all bastards, aren't they?

@limitedperiodonly you said the above in response to a statement that muslims need to acknowledge that islam itself is the problem. so, your journalist job analogy isn't apt; your statement says that you should not be responsible for the actions of other journalists, but the correct analogy would be if journalism itself was inherently corrupting.

that crazy nut anjem choudhury (who is obviously just out there in space somewhere) said that muslims do not believe in freedom of speech when it comes to the prophet. Is he wrong? he was able to back up his beliefs with the Koran itself.

The thing is that the byproduct of offending all Muslims and stirring up more discontent amonst Isamic zealots they also fed the fire of Islamaphobia amongst non- Muslims.

one thing that these cartoons highlight is that it seems islam and freedom of speech aren't compatible. while you may not think these cartoons are note worthy, theo van gogh was killed for making a movie that criticized the treatment of women in islam. his partner in making that movie, Hirsi Ali, needs 24 hour body guards. This isn't solely about cartoons.

I'm not talking about anything other than the Mohammed cartoons. Making films criticizing aspects of Islam or any other religion that people find abhorrent seems to me to be an entirely worthy enterprise.
Drawing cartoons that bring attention to these aspects of religion are also really important. However just drawing cartoons depicting Mohammed in order to shock people seems a bit 'meh' to me. None of the ones I've seen are funny. The recent one showing him snogging a cartoonist would've offended my fairly atheist Muslim friends. It wasn't funny or clever it was a sort of 'Look at us poking the big bad Islamic bear with a big stick'.

None of which has any bearing on the fact that the attacks on these people are insupportable and obscene.

the correct analogy would be if journalism itself was inherently corrupting.

Exactly.

A friend of mine from the Muslim world (though probably not a believer) says that one of the issues is that the Koran is the word of the prophet in a recognisable language, direct from his mouth which in turn came direct from God. So it's not open to interpretation. It just is.

Whereas the Bible was written by various random others, attempting to capture what they thought Jesus was getting at, in a language we no longer speak. Therefore it is open to interpretation. Plus it's older so there's been more time to flex it a bit.

His argument is that this room for interpretation is what allowed for argument and dissent within the churches - all of which has been very painful but also in his view, helpful in the long run. You couldn't have had an enlightenment without this looseness.

I have no idea how valid this is but I thought it was an interesting proposition.

Muhammad is no longer alive and I fail to understand how a man who has been dead since the 6th century can be offended by a drawing. If God is angry by a cartoon of Muhammad then surely he can reap his vengence without help from terrorists.

In the UK we already have laws against inciting relgious hatred or racism. If a cartoon incites religous hatred in the UK then there are means to challenge. I am sure the same exists in France. There is no excuse for murder.

I feel that people who do not respect free speech should have no place in the european union.

Mohammed in order to shock people seems a bit 'meh' to me. None of the ones I've seen are funny. The recent one showing him snogging a cartoonist would've offended my fairly atheist Muslim friends. It wasn't funny or clever it was a sort of 'Look at us poking the big bad Islamic bear with a big stick'.

I have seen the cartoons too, and they are a bit 'meh' to me as well. but that's not the point. poking the big bad islamic bear is only important or noteworthy if the big islamic bear reacts violently.

Writtenguarantee I don’t find what I said at all strange. Why should I take responsibility for the actions of people who share my label? Do you?

Why should Muslims have to constantly apologise for extremists? Why do you think Anjem Choudhary is at all representative of a religion shared by millions who just want to get on with their lives?

Maybe you and BackOnlyBriefly should stop taking so seriously the newspapers who occasionally pay my wages.

Given that you’re so sophisticated and all.

Why should I take responsibility for the actions of people who share my label? Do you?

You didn't read what I said. I in fact said the exact opposite. However, I said that you possibly should take responsibility for other journalists if journalism itself is inherently flawed.

Generalizing about a group from the properties of a few doesn't make sense unless there is something inherently bad about the defining feature of the group. Thus, while some tennis players are bad people, there is nothing inherent in tennis itself that makes someone bad. Those tennis players that are bad people are simply bad people who happen to be tennis players. However, I can say all racists are bad people, because there is something inherently wrong with racism.

If you read carefully my mentioning of choudhury, it should be clear that I DON'T think he speaks for muslims in this country. It's clear that many muslims think he is crazy. My question about him, however, is he wrong about the teachings of islam?

Drawing Mohammed snogging a cartoonist is understandly offensive and would be considered blaspheous in many muslim countries. In the past blasphamy recieved the death penalty in France, but France is no longer a medievil country.

In the EU people are allowed to insult any historial figure they like. There is no law against drawing cartoons of Muhammad, Jesus or any other historial figure. In fact cartoonists can draw living people, but they can expect to be sued if the cartoons are liablous.

I did try to read what you said writtenguarantee, lots, but I was baffled.

My brain hurts.

Can I go now?

Why should I take responsibility for the actions of people who share my label?

If the label was arbitrary/random then you shouldn't.

If you support a religion by word or deed and help it grow. If you suggest that the holy book that comes with it is written by a god who can do no wrong, then you have made it your responsibility.

You may be a really decent person - a pillar of the community, but that just means that people will think that a religion you follow must be good and peaceful.

Then when someone picks up that book and kills someone because it says that is what Allah wants you have in a very small way contributed to that death.

This is true of all the religions and holy books.

The way to avoid that is never to say that religions are completely good and peaceful. To say that holy books sometimes contain vile things that no decent person would do.

Eh?

but I was baffled.

I reread what I wrote and it's pretty clear.

Can I go now?

yes, of course.

I'm not sure whether writtenguarantee and backonbriefly are a double act like the Chuckle Brothers or a serendipitous collision on Mumsnet.

But whatever: they have a good future together and I wish them well on the comedy circuit .

But whatever: they have a good future together and I wish them well on the comedy circuit

can we ban this piece of mockery? I find it offensive.

I don't agree nancy. pictures of mohhamed are considered sacred, and as such not allowed in the muslim faith (sorry not quite sure of the details). it was absolutely wrong of the magazine to publish those images. even more so due to it being a cartoon and obviously derisive.

Lemisscared You do know that these religious texts are just fiction and characters such as Mohammed and Moses are just fiction? How can the picture of a fictional character be sacred?!? In this day and age, people should know that! You might as well go and worship the altar of James Bond which would likely be a lot more entertaining.

www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

This I agree with. also found myself agreeing with Will Self for the first time ever, when he and Martin Rowson who were on Channel 4 news last night discussing Charlie Hebdo .They both agreed that freedom of expression has to be used responsibly otherwise it threatens the whole concept.

"I think we can all agree that the cartoonists were very brave men."

I don't agree that they were brave men at all. I live in Paris - I have lived here for well over two decades - and am fully integrated into French society where I have lived several lives. Charlie Hebdo is a revolting magazine that is emblematic of a particularly low-brow form of cultural arrogance.

But you know that using 'freedom of expression responsibly' is code for not upsetting anyone important.

Pooh Bear, Allah, Santa, Jehovah and Jesus. fictional stories for children and immature adults.

Though very few use Pooh bear as justification for sick behaviour like murder and cutting bits off of children.

If Allah, Jehovah or Jesus existed then they'd be put on the sexual offenders register and probably sectioned. I have no intention of treating belief in them with respect.

But you know that using 'freedom of expression responsibly' is code for not upsetting anyone important

Mmm. No it's not. Going back to the discussion on Ch 4 news last night - Martin Rowson the cartoonist agreed with this and he is always upsetting important people. Will Self said that satire should be aimed at upsetting the powerful and the important people not just being offensive for the sake of it.

Obviously not everyone agrees with this. There are some people who think it's fine to say whatever the fuck they want because they can and damn the consequences.

Religious figures are powerful though.

Charlie Hebdo is basically a bunch of anti-culture post-1968 old white men and their cronies who have no power other than throwing endless cheap shots. They are emblematic of a very depressing and unconstructive constituency in modern France.

How do you feel about people joking about Lizards and Scientology?