I Am Not Charlie Hebdo

[Liokault]

Countdown said:

IainT said:

Liokault said:

I do think that if I put a picture of Mohammed naked and bent over, with a star over his anus and the caption "another star is born" on a car, a broken windscreen wouldn't be a surprising response. frankly, I would expect a similar response if it was a bent over Jesus.

Yes, I too have a low expectation for the religious to act in a civilized manner.

It's not just the religious. Try parking a car with a Man Utd scarf in the window outside the Etihad......

Indeed. I have (had) a friend who took a contract in Cologne. He took his English registered car with him. Apparently, it was made worthless over a period of very few weeks with minor vandalism, generally minor dents and people scratching anti English slogans into the paint. My favorite was "go home island Monkey".

[Eclassy]

s1962a said:

I don't know much about this guy, but didn't he have to sack one of his employees a few years ago for being anti semetic?

Correct. He was one of their cartoonists. He made a joke about Sarkozy's son getting far in life only because he married a Jewish woman. After pressure from above, He was asked to apologise to which he replied 'I'd rather cut of my balls'.

Too many hypocrites in France and the world. I cant remember many on here getting upset when the French government took out court orders banning the comedian, Dieudonne's shows claiming they were anti-semetic because he lampooned Jews.

He made a joke albeit a tasteless one after the Paris march saying 'as far as I am concerned I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly'. The Independent interpreted it as him praising the terrorist killer, Amedy Coulibaly.

Double standards all the way. Outpouring of grief for 17 killed in France but barely a mention of the 2000 killed in Baga, Nigeria. In France I am allowed to depict Mohammed and poke fun at him but I can not say the holocaust never happened.

1. IamNotCharlie

[The Don of Croy]

trashbat said:

tanding up for free speech and free press, thus 'being Charlie Hebdo', doesn't require you to republish the particular content, which you may disagree with. It only requires that you stand up for the ability to do so.

On the other hand, many find the 'Je Suis Charlie' identifier personally disagreeable, because CH has often done things that many would consider racist, and others that people would consider poor taste at best.

Edit: regarding the latter, this is one argument put forward. For avoidance of doubt, I don't hold up Labour List as something I'm aligned with, and nor do I necessarily agree with the thrust or particulars of their argument, but it makes some interesting points.

Edited by trashbat on Monday 12th January 10:22

Thanks for the Labour List link - it is batsh*t crazy and a welcome reminder of the kind of thinking prevalent in some quarters (regrettably).

Perhaps it would have been better if various publications took it upon themselves to print a selection of 'Danish' cartoons, Hebdo features, etc etc now and again just to re-iterate a message that killing will only make the problem (for the haters) worse ie. they now have all the outlets blaspheming their deity.

Or maybe that would lead to worldwide conflagration? Who knows?

I don't expect any change in 'western' sensibilities anytime soon. Dissing the prophet is still off limits and his followers (or some radical subset) will still be aggrieved.

[andoverben]

carinaman said:

From stuff in the media yesterday they said that Charlie Hebdo was on the cutting edge of nastiness and provocation.

They also said that the largest part of France that's embraced different religions and difference is the French Military. They said the French military has more Imams than French civil society. That's a throw back to the French foreign legion? It's a bit American? Serve with the US Marines and get US citizenship?

But on Any Questions on Friday night someone made the point that it's someone's right to take offence. That doesn't extend as far as to prevent someone from offending you. Perhaps that's where we've gone wrong with political correctness.

Where does that sit with the police and the Fools and Horses tribute Reliant with the inflated Blow Up doll in the back window getting done under Section 5 Public Order Act. That Blow Up doll could have offended someone?

'Someone could take offence'? Better not do anything then. And anyway won't some always find an excuse or reason to take offence? 'Excuse Culture'? 'Blame Culture'? And how much taxpayer's money is wasted in the public sector and charity 'partners' sector, having policies and training on that stuff that's ignored?

Charlie Hebdo prints some nasty stuff that pokes fun at my religion? Don't buy it then. Do public libraries in France carry Charlie Hebdo?

Charlie Hebdo sold 45,000 copies a week. Pretty easy to avoid then. You'd have to make an effort to get your hands on a copy.

'Someone could take offence if I overtake, so I better not overtake.....

Edited by carinaman on Monday 12th January 12:28

I agree with everything you have said, it is all of our right to be as offensive as we like (within reason - which does kind of undermine that point I accept)

It is my right to say carinaman has a big nose and smells funny (I am not by the way) but to do so would make me a Bully.

Clearly if Carinaman came round and shot me as a result that would make him a Murderer, but it wouldn't stop me from being a Bully - although I am sure they would say nice things about me after I was dead.

To take your Overtake analogy, it is my right if I was been held up by a Funeral Procession to pull out and overtake while beeping my horn and gesticulating out the window for dawdling along so slowly, but I might choose not to because I know it would (not might) be offensive to those in the Funeral Party.

Not been allowed to do something and choosing not to do it are not the same thing.

Would I buy the Next Charlie Hebdo issue when it comes out? Possibly, if only out of a 2 fingered salute to the Terrorists. Would i have bought one 2 weeks ago? Absolutely not.

[Rovinghawk]

Countdown said:

Rovinghawk said:

Je suis Charlie- et aussi ma femme.

You're also your wife? How does that work......

I am Charlie- and so is my wife. It's a Monty Python thing. If you watch the second half of Life of Brian you'll see........ oh, forget it.

[Andy Zarse]

Countdown said:

IainT said:

Liokault said:

I do think that if I put a picture of Mohammed naked and bent over, with a star over his anus and the caption "another star is born" on a car, a broken windscreen wouldn't be a surprising response. frankly, I would expect a similar response if it was a bent over Jesus.

Yes, I too have a low expectation for the religious to act in a civilized manner.

It's not just the religious. Try parking a car with a Man Utd scarf in the window outside the Etihad......

I would hope they'd leave it alone simply for the novelty of seeing a Manchester United supporter's car anywhere in Manchester, let alone outside the Etihad. Most of their plastic fans live in North London I thought?

[paranoid airbag]

Troubleatmill said:

Whatever you do. Don't watch "The life of Brian".

Thanks, I'll play it safe with Team America. (Durka durka durka, mohammed jihad)

Maybe chase it up with Blazing Saddles

[otolith]

Eclassy said:

In France I am allowed to depict Mohammed and poke fun at him but I can not say the holocaust never happened.

In the UK, I am allowed to depict you and poke fun at you, but I cannot tell libellous lies about you.

If there is to be any restriction of free expression (and I tend to thing there shouldn't be) the model of the libel laws is a good starting point. It should be a defence that the statement is true (a test Holocaust denial fails).

Of course, it gets tricky when the truth is debatable - there have been some crackpots agitating to make climate change denial a crime.

[FredClogs]

It's all very confusing isn't it? I can only imagine how hard it must be for stupid people are able to cope with all the contradiction, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

Someone has hung a St Georges flag from a bridge over the M6 near Wigan with "Je Suis Charlie" written on it, I wonder just quite what the meant to say, why they felt the need to say it and to whom they thought they were appealing.

[trashbat]

The Don of Croy said:

Thanks for the Labour List link - it is batsh*t crazy and a welcome reminder of the kind of thinking prevalent in some quarters (regrettably).

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

[Mojocvh]

jogon said:

Dog Star said:

jurbie said:

If Charlie Hebdo had been published in Britain.

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

I can't really disagree with any of the points made but maybe this is a turning point for us and the next time someone is shouted down for speaking their mind they can just retort with 'Je Suis Charlie'.

That'd be funny if it weren't so true.

I know, the NUS already try and get UKIP banned from student campuses up and down the country and also refuses to condemn ISIS as its islamiphobic.

How about homophobic then?

[turbobloke]

trashbat said:

The Don of Croy said:

Thanks for the Labour List link - it is batsh*t crazy and a welcome reminder of the kind of thinking prevalent in some quarters (regrettably).

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

TDoC may well be along to explain, but surely it's a matter of degree since you already said "For avoidance of doubt, I don't hold up Labour List as something I'm aligned with, and nor do I necessarily agree with the thrust or particulars of their argument."

Personally the relatively batst crazy elements include the following, as a non-exhaustive list:

"it assumes that ‘our’ civilization is a good thing which must be defended at all costs"
(compared to what...the forced adoption of the medieval alternative on offer, yes, talk about bleedin' obvious)

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

"We should be non-judgemental about what harm is"
(ha ha, did some sane individual actually write that when 12 people have been 'harmed', typically bizarre and indefensible leftybks)

"Despite occasional moments of terror, we – unlike the people of Syria or Afghanistan – should stop pretending we are under attack."
(for those attached and yet to be, where is the pretending...and if we listen to preachers, note the UK alert state and apply common sense, more attacks are on the way and this is known as being under attack)

"Here, the danger is not Islam or Islamism, but the assumption that people who are different from us cannot be our friends."
(no it isn't, the msm and social media are awash with sentiment towards peaceful muslims)

Where there is agreement:

"The murder of 12 journalists in Paris was a disgusting crime"

[Clivey]

dandarez said:

Top post!

All that will happen after the tragic events in France is that yours and my 'freedoms' will be restricted more, not less.

It will be put to you that it/they are insignificant restrictions and worthwhile in order to prevent another atrocity.

Remember, 'they' know 'those' who are a threat. Tells you everything.

Quite frankly, the future looks terrifying if you value personal freedoms.

Personally, I believe that we have the right to take the mick out of anyone we choose...and I do find it strange that some are willing to accept the CH cartoons, yet would accuse anyone mocking extremist Jewish views the same way as displaying anti semitism.

[John145]

You can go to jail for offending people of Facebook. It's rather ironic that the witch hunts are usually led by the press.

Until we have US style freedom of speech here we are oxymorons, supporting freedom of speech on one hand and being apologists for these terrorists on the other.

When did it become so important that people must not be offended? Rhetorical question, it started in '97 and "you're a racist if you disagree".

[The Don of Croy]

trashbat said:

The Don of Croy said:

Thanks for the Labour List link - it is batsh*t crazy and a welcome reminder of the kind of thinking prevalent in some quarters (regrettably).

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

I think TB nails it - the article treads over tired ground highlighting the (dreadfully put upon) background of these murderous types, as if they really have no choice but to should a Kalashnikov and practice grouping on live targets, there being no other way of making their voice heard.

Also the dismissal of 'our civilazation' as if we should be apologising. Perhaps, once upon a time, but not now (notwithstanding the policies of one A. Blair).

As I said, batsh*t crazy.

I've had to trawl a bit to find confirmation of a firebombing on a German regional newspaper, yesterday, a publication that re-printed some Hebdot stuff. Apparently other German papers did the same according to Al Jazeera. Sound plan.

[Jasandjules]

Tango13 said:

Troubleatmill said:

Whatever you do. Don't watch "The life of Brian".

Is that the one with the Messiah in it?

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.



Well, someone had to say it....

[heebeegeetee]

Baryonyx said:

Indeed, but collectively the British are cowards, unable and unwilling to say what they want. At least in France they take freedom of speech quite seriously.

Thats not what I've seen reported in the media over the weekend. You might want to ask muslims and jews in France whether they think they have the freedoms to express their religion in the same way they can in the UK.

I think it is worth saying that the Charlie cartoons were/are very offensive, if there is any accuracy in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U56q428amN0

I don't think anyone would choose to publish such material in the UK - out of choice, not law. Monty Python or Private Eye it ain't.

Charlie Hebdo seem to have waged a battle it cannot win, because what are they going to do now? Continue to publish and put the lives of their staff at risk, or give in to terrorism?

[RobGT81]

heebeegeetee said:

what are they going to do now? Continue to publish and put the lives of their staff at risk, or give in to terrorism?

Continue to publish! The terrorists died for nothing, bless.

http://news.sky.com/story/1406541/new-charlie-hebd...

[otolith]

turbobloke said:

Personally the relatively batst crazy elements include the following, as a non-exhaustive list:

"it assumes that ‘our’ civilization is a good thing which must be defended at all costs"
(compared to what...the forced adoption of the medieval alternative on offer, yes, talk about bleedin' obvious)

Quite.

Which bits of "their" civilisation would he like "ours" to adopt? Inequality for women? Persecution of homosexuals? Suppression of freedom of religion? Mutilation and execution as parts of our justice system?

[jesta1865]

Clivey said:

Personally, I believe that we have the right to take the mick out of anyone we choose...and I do find it strange that some are willing to accept the CH cartoons, yet would accuse anyone mocking extremist Jewish views the same way as displaying anti semitism.

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.