I Am Not Charlie Hebdo
Discussion
AJS- said:
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.
They're a bunch of Trotskyists who have an axe to grind with pretty much everyone.Everyone has an axe to grind and things they disagree with. My wife thinks 'South Park' is disgusting filth. I laugh like a drain at it. In a free society we all have as equal a right to offer equally bats
t crazy ideas and to protest within the law anything we disagree with.
Slaughtering 12 human beings in cold blood cannot be justified or rationalised on any level or in any possible way whatsoever,
It just can't be. .....
t crazy ideas and to protest within the law anything we disagree with.Slaughtering 12 human beings in cold blood cannot be justified or rationalised on any level or in any possible way whatsoever,
It just can't be. .....
crispyshark said:
We must not self-censor
Nothing wrong with self-censorship. I do it all the time - prevents me saying the first thing that comes into my mind and proving beyond all shadow of doubt that I'm an idiot. Being censored by the fear that someone may take offence and take physical retribution is what we must not allow.I'm of the view that all concepts should be able to stand up to free comment. Not just things I think are stupid - anything and everything must be fair game. The difficult balance is protecting the individual from harassment while allowing free comment.
crispyshark said:
nor place blame at any door apart from that of the people and backers of those that orchestrated these attacks.
Absolutely.IainT said:
crispyshark said:
We must not self-censor
Nothing wrong with self-censorship. I do it all the time - prevents me saying the first thing that comes into my mind and proving beyond all shadow of doubt that I'm an idiot. Being censored by the fear that someone may take offence and take physical retribution is what we must not allow.I'm of the view that all concepts should be able to stand up to free comment. Not just things I think are stupid - anything and everything must be fair game. The difficult balance is protecting the individual from harassment while allowing free comment.
quote]
Yes I agreed with this....should've expanded my post a little more as I self-censor everyday as well...probably less now since some of the backlash post last week's events. Having said that, for those calling myself and others 'hypocrites' for supporting 'Je suis Charlie', perhaps bear in mind that as a humanist we feel duty bound to live peacefully alongside others; even those I vehemently disagree with. Do not confuse a dignified silence with fear or tacit agreement.
Yes, it has taken a horrendous set of events to kick start some action, but perhaps now realize the fundamental rights we value dear in the UK/Europe and will continue to uphold.
crispyshark said:
IainT said:
crispyshark said:
We must not self-censor
Nothing wrong with self-censorship. I do it all the time - prevents me saying the first thing that comes into my mind and proving beyond all shadow of doubt that I'm an idiot. Being censored by the fear that someone may take offence and take physical retribution is what we must not allow.I'm of the view that all concepts should be able to stand up to free comment. Not just things I think are stupid - anything and everything must be fair game. The difficult balance is protecting the individual from harassment while allowing free comment.
quote]
Yes I agreed with this....should've expanded my post a little more as I self-censor everyday as well...probably less now since some of the backlash post last week's events. Having said that, for those calling myself and others 'hypocrites' for supporting 'Je suis Charlie', perhaps bear in mind that as a humanist we feel duty bound to live peacefully alongside others; even those I vehemently disagree with. Do not confuse a dignified silence with fear or tacit agreement.
Yes, it has taken a horrendous set of events to kick start some action, but perhaps now realize the fundamental rights we value dear in the UK/Europe and will continue to uphold.
mybrainhurts said:
crispyshark said:
IainT said:
crispyshark said:
We must not self-censor
Nothing wrong with self-censorship. I do it all the time - prevents me saying the first thing that comes into my mind and proving beyond all shadow of doubt that I'm an idiot. Being censored by the fear that someone may take offence and take physical retribution is what we must not allow.I'm of the view that all concepts should be able to stand up to free comment. Not just things I think are stupid - anything and everything must be fair game. The difficult balance is protecting the individual from harassment while allowing free comment.
quote]
Yes I agreed with this....should've expanded my post a little more as I self-censor everyday as well...probably less now since some of the backlash post last week's events. Having said that, for those calling myself and others 'hypocrites' for supporting 'Je suis Charlie', perhaps bear in mind that as a humanist we feel duty bound to live peacefully alongside others; even those I vehemently disagree with. Do not confuse a dignified silence with fear or tacit agreement.
Yes, it has taken a horrendous set of events to kick start some action, but perhaps now realize the fundamental rights we value dear in the UK/Europe and will continue to uphold.
heebeegeetee said:
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.http://67-tardis-street.tumblr.com/post/1075899558...
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.
"Yes, we very much need the freedom to mock religion"....so, how are you going to do that to a religion that gets offended and hurt if you mutter a single word of criticism of its founder or belief and you don't want to hurt them?
If your approach had been adopted long ago, we'd still be suffering torture at the hand of the Roman Catholic Church.
mybrainhurts said:
You've just talked yourself into silence there. And contradicted yourself.
"Yes, we very much need the freedom to mock religion"....so, how are you going to do that to a religion that gets offended and hurt if you mutter a single word of criticism of its founder or belief and you don't want to hurt them?
If your approach had been adopted long ago, we'd still be suffering torture at the hand of the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't agree. "Yes, we very much need the freedom to mock religion"....so, how are you going to do that to a religion that gets offended and hurt if you mutter a single word of criticism of its founder or belief and you don't want to hurt them?
If your approach had been adopted long ago, we'd still be suffering torture at the hand of the Roman Catholic Church.
We have the right to free speech already, there's no need to fight or die for it 'cos we've already got it. It's not necessary to set out to piss a lot of people off just because you can.
Various beliefs, faiths and religions have attacked each other over the centuries so there is nothing new here. Change has come from within, not from attacks by others.
Did see a comment in a paper over the weekend that the cartoons reminded of the cartoons against jews in nazi germany before ww2. We have the right to still produce similar cartoons, but we wouldn't, not least because it would be described as anti-semitism.
heebeegeetee said:
mybrainhurts said:
You've just talked yourself into silence there. And contradicted yourself.
"Yes, we very much need the freedom to mock religion"....so, how are you going to do that to a religion that gets offended and hurt if you mutter a single word of criticism of its founder or belief and you don't want to hurt them?
If your approach had been adopted long ago, we'd still be suffering torture at the hand of the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't agree. "Yes, we very much need the freedom to mock religion"....so, how are you going to do that to a religion that gets offended and hurt if you mutter a single word of criticism of its founder or belief and you don't want to hurt them?
If your approach had been adopted long ago, we'd still be suffering torture at the hand of the Roman Catholic Church.
We have the right to free speech already, there's no need to fight or die for it 'cos we've already got it. It's not necessary to set out to piss a lot of people off just because you can.
Various beliefs, faiths and religions have attacked each other over the centuries so there is nothing new here. Change has come from within, not from attacks by others.
Did see a comment in a paper over the weekend that the cartoons reminded of the cartoons against jews in nazi germany before ww2. We have the right to still produce similar cartoons, but we wouldn't, not least because it would be described as anti-semitism.
Also, why the comparison with anti-Semitic cartoons....they weren't just about Islam, Hebdo commented and cartooned on many different people. I find a comparison to Nazi propaganda as a little bit of a 'leap' too far for me. On that basis was the author of that comment you note trying to compare Muslim's to the Jews of the 1930/40's in Nazi Germany?! That's a brave one!
heebeegeetee said:
Did see a comment in a paper over the weekend that the cartoons reminded of the cartoons against jews in nazi germany before ww2. We have the right to still produce similar cartoons, but we wouldn't, not least because it would be described as anti-semitism.
But CH did draw caricatures of Jews;
(Jewish settler machine gunning Palestinian and saying "Take that, Goliath")
(This is an orthodox Jew pushing a Muslim in a wheelchair. It's a film reference. The film is about a poor black man who helps a quadriplegic rich white man. I don't get the joke)
crispyshark said:
Whoa.....let's just put this in context....the magazine weren't just setting 'out to piss of people of because they can', they were trying to make statements about politics, religion and various other subjects. The cartoons weren't meaningless and should not be treated as such.
I'm surprised at how strong they were, and I think they get very close to inciting hatred because they must have caused great offence and upset, not just to the leaders of the faith who deserve mockery imo, but to the followers of the faith in their millions, who are much less deserving of mockery and upset.I don't think those cartoons would be published in the uk, for no other reason than their offensiveness. And I'm proud of that.
Monty Python, Private Eye etc, I would defend to the end. But CH goes way beyond that imo, and whilst I'd soak Monty Python up I wouldn't buy CH.
There are so many things in life that different people take offence to. But the reality is that 'we' are now scared to draw a cartoon picture that may offend Muslims, because people will get killed. That is what 4 million people in France stood together to protest against, and that is what 'Je suis Charlie' symbolises.
If no offence is intended by publication of an item in terms of satire not being 'group-personal' because it's general and aimed at a wide range of targets, then there's fundamentally no problem in it.
If offence is taken where none was intended, particularly if it reflects a deliberate decision to be offended regardless of the nature or intent of an item, there's a problem.
So, spot where the problem is.
If offence is taken where none was intended, particularly if it reflects a deliberate decision to be offended regardless of the nature or intent of an item, there's a problem.
So, spot where the problem is.
heebeegeetee said:
otolith said:
Would you support something similar to this, but making a similar joke with a similar depiction of Mohammed?
Thats not the same as fking a pigs head whilst saying "It's 'cos I can't afford a nine-year old" though is it?Films,TV,cartoonists etc have been making fun,telling jokes and generally taking the piss out of Christianity for a very long time.Its a big no no to send up Islam though.
Can you imagine what would have happened if that hilarious Top Gear special about the birth of Christ was something about The Prophet Mohammed.
For a start the BBC would not have dared even to consider it.
Those guys at Charlie Hebdo were a pretty brave lot.
Can you imagine what would have happened if that hilarious Top Gear special about the birth of Christ was something about The Prophet Mohammed.
For a start the BBC would not have dared even to consider it.
Those guys at Charlie Hebdo were a pretty brave lot.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff