I Am Not Charlie Hebdo

[audidoody]

trashbat said:

an you trouble yourself to articulate a little on why you think it's batst crazy? Ideally the thrust of it rather than the minutiae.

For starters:

"I don’t think the murders of 12 journalists in Paris was an attack on free speech".

and

"Their violent actions were driven by an exaggerated and irrational sense of humiliation and victimhood"

I'm speechless

[pork911]

otolith said:

"Je suis Charie" does not mean "I'm in favour of publishing offensive cartoons of Muhammad". It means "I'm in favour of freedom of expression".

It means various things to various people.

For some it's just 'I'm jumping on a bandwagon I don't really understand' perhaps also combined with some false beliefs about how free they are to express themselves and form for jumping on similar bandwagons such as condemning the burning of a poppy or other things they don't like.

[Wacky Racer]

I don't think anyone should poke fun at anybody else's religion.

Live and let live.

If you are not religious that is your prerogative, fair enough.

Freedom of expression is fine, I'm all for that, but that's no reason for offending others.

By the same token, I don't want anyone pushing their religious beliefs on me, thank you very much.

[anonymous-user]

All this talk about Charlie and we are forgetting many others who paid with their lives.
In the Kosher market,
Yoav Hattab, Phillipe Braham, Yohan Cohen and Francois-Michel Saada. One of those guys took an opportunity to fight back and he was killed for it, I wouldn't be surprised if more of them died while putting up a fight.

Lassana Bathily (didn't die) saved many in the Kosher market.

Ahmed Merabet lost his life attempting to confront the killers.

[Schermerhorn]

turbobloke said:

Probably already posted, but the next publication will re-feature the cartoons.

Staff are expensive.

This is probably a creative way of getting rid of them.

[pork911]

Wacky Racer said:

Freedom of expression is fine, I'm all for that, but that's no reason for offending others.

?

[otolith]

Wacky Racer said:

I don't think anyone should poke fun at anybody else's religion.

And you are entitled to that belief. I don't think anyone who chooses to should be prevented.

What other classes of idea would you specially single out as beyond criticism or ridicule?

[otolith]

pork911 said:

otolith said:

"Je suis Charie" does not mean "I'm in favour of publishing offensive cartoons of Muhammad". It means "I'm in favour of freedom of expression".

It means various things to various people.

For some it's just 'I'm jumping on a bandwagon I don't really understand' perhaps also combined with some false beliefs about how free they are to express themselves and form for jumping on similar bandwagons such as condemning the burning of a poppy or other things they don't like.

I expect so. None of my friends, but, you know...

[Wacky Racer]

otolith said:

Wacky Racer said:

I don't think anyone should poke fun at anybody else's religion.

And you are entitled to that belief. I don't think anyone who chooses to should be prevented.

I fully agree with the general principle that people should have the right to poke fun at somebody else's religion, or anything else for that matter.(within reason)

This does not mean they have to do so, if it offends others.

As I said, live and let live, there would be a lot less wars

But of course it will never happen, it's been going on thousands of years.

Religion? We would be better off without it tbh.

[AJS-]

jurbie said:

If Charlie Hebdo had been published in Britain.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-...

That has an eery ring of truth to it.



We don't all have to be Charlie to support the concept of free speech. In fact Charlie Hebdo's record on this was a bit dubious itself since they campaigned to get the Front National banned in the 1990s.

[audidoody]

I don't think Charlie Hebdo's mission was to attack religion per se I think it's mission was to satirise and ridicule the irrational interpretation and anomalies practiced by its adherents to suit their earthly agendas. Much in the same way that LoB lampooned the blind faith of Christ's followers - not the figure of Christ. (Eg " How should we fk off?"

Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 13th January 00:42

[allnighter]

audidoody said:

I don't think Charlie Hebdo's mission was to attack religion per se I think it's mission was to satirise and ridicule the irrational interpretation and anomalies practiced by its adherents to suit their earthly agendas. Much in the same way that LoB lampooned the blind faith of Christ's followers - not the figure of Christ. (Eg " How should we fk off?"

Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 13th January 00:42

I think you got it spot on there.C.H was just as cutting with politicians. The surviving artists expressed how they found it quite nauseating the people they were attacking became their friends all of a sudden with the "Je suis Charlie" symbolism.

[GavinPearson]

Newspapers - hypocrites - never!

[heebeegeetee]

otolith said:

It has been argued that many people outside France completely fail to understand the context of the "racist" cartoons.

http://67-tardis-street.tumblr.com/post/1075899558...

Very interesting, which just goes to show of course that we don't have free speech "no ifs, no buts", and possibly none of us want it to that level.

We need to remember that CH didn't just mock religion, it also (by default) mocked millions of ordinary people who follow religion. They mocked and deliberately offended them and caused spite.

As much as I am an atheist aand as much as I hate and deplore the levels of mumbo jumbo and the sheer stupidity that comes with it, I also am a person who would not set out to spite and offend, and so therefore I am much more likely to be Ahmed than I am to be Charlie.

Yes, we very much need the freedom to mock religion, but there's a line to be drawn in how far we go (like there is in pretty much everything) but that doesn't mean we need to set out to hurt and spite the followers of religion.

[audidoody]

CH was a magazine you had to seek out and purchase. It was easily avoidable by those who are easily offended. Much in the same way that the hilarious musical Book of Mormon is hugely offensive to people who willingly buy tickets to see it. So far no theatres have been burned down or actors slaughtered by practising ,Mormons .

[crispyshark]

audidoody said:

CH was a magazine you had to seek out and purchase. It was easily avoidable by those who are easily offended. Much in the same way that the hilarious musical Book of Mormon is hugely offensive to people who willingly buy tickets to see it. So far no theatres have been burned down or actors slaughtered by practising ,Mormons .

This. This. This.

The beauty of the society we live in, is that not only is there freedom of expression, religion, speech, but also choice.

A lot of those shouting about how offended they are, just remember that there are many countries in the world where you wouldn't even have access to any publications or media challenging the government or religion of that country QED no freedom to choose. Not great places to live in my opinion.

We must not self-censor, nor place blame at any door apart from that of the people and backers of those that orchestrated these attacks.

Je suis Charlie....and proud.

[Halb]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charl...

I'm Charlie, and so's my wife.

[Clivey]

jesta1865 said:

yet we don't as in the last few days as is regular, anti jewish cartoons appear in the papers in saudi arabia, and i found out today that as an atheist i would automatically be considered a terrorist in that country as well.

yet 12 people lose their lives in paris for anti islamic cartoons

a kid in egypt gets a 3 year prison sentence for saying he is an atheist, his dad was a witness for the prosecution

a hindu is demanding the death penalty for anyone who renounces hinduism and becomes a muslim.

thats bat st crazy ^ all of it, it's bloody religion again.

To clarify, I was talking about the population here & in Europe. I'm also an Atheist and have a "live and let live" attitude...I don't know exactly what each "holy book" says about non-conformers but the trouble occurs when people expect others to live exactly as they want them to. I understand that each religion is open to interpretation and that's where a lot of the problems lie.

[Claudia Skies]

Nutters sometimes need to be told that 90% of other humans recognise them as being nutters.

That is why millions marched in Paris. That is why it's worth publishing this edition of CH.

[trashbat]

audidoody said:

trashbat said:

an you trouble yourself to articulate a little on why you think it's batst crazy? Ideally the thrust of it rather than the minutiae.

For starters:

"I don’t think the murders of 12 journalists in Paris was an attack on free speech".

and

"Their violent actions were driven by an exaggerated and irrational sense of humiliation and victimhood"

I'm speechless

FWIW, I agree mostly with the two earlier responses, and probably should have picked a better article in the first place.

However, I'm inclined to give some time to the two pieces you pick out.

If I take great offence at a particular one of your posts, and end up finding you and murdering you (a fiction, I should add), then it's not primarily an attack on the principle of free speech is it, although it might be one several layers away.

As regards the latter statement, there are at least two possibilities, but in reality many more on this spectrum and others. One, that their understanding of Islam was a sort of cold logic of, 'Islam says we must kill those who depict the Prophet, so that's what we'll do this morning', or two, that they thought something like, 'these fkers are taking the piss out of Islam, and us, and who we are, so let's kill them'. One is primarily religious doctrine and the other is reactionary victimhood.