I Am Not Charlie Hebdo

[Liokault]

Isn't all this "je suis Charlie Hebbdo" hypocritical?

All the newspapers declaring that they are Charlie, where are their illustrations of Mohammed? To be Charlie Hebbdo, surly you need to do more than be vaguely interested in free speech, you need to be able to take the risk.

Which papers/news organizations have reprinted or broadcast the images that so offended the Snack Bars? Wouldn't showing the spark for the current trouble be valid news?

I know that the BBC has a bad on broadcasting anything which might offend our peace loving co-inhabitants on this isle, but what about everyone else?

[Liokault]

Chimune said:

OP. would you display one on your car ?

Funny that, I was thinking on the way into work this morning, how long would it take my windscreen to get smashed if I put a picture from CH on my car.

To answer your question: I haven't joined in the hypocrisy or I'm Charlie. As much as I'm all for freedom of speech and all that, and as much as I believe that there is an Islamic plot to take over the west as is normal here on PH, I find that the original pictures from Hebbdo were a bit far.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the correct response should have been the killing of so many people, or indeed any people, but 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.

I kind of think that this is where I'm going with this. Everyone is talking about freedom of speech, but what Hebbdo printed was pretty low (extreme even) and everyone seems to be glossing over that.

Are we really making a "freedom of speech" hero out of the guy who shouted "fire" is a crowded theater, only to be killed in a stampede?

[Liokault]

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".

I take it as "I endorse the publications of Charlie".

It's all very well standing by someone, but why with all this out pouring of angst, is everyone standing by "Charlie" with is the bounds acceptable to his attackers. Seems odd to me.

Didn't Charlie Hebbdo publish way back that there was only risk in offending Muslims if only CH offended them and that what should happen to make all press safe is for all print media to stick their heads over the top of the trench.

Well, it didn't happen and Charlie got singled out and shot.

My guess is that there will soon be a rule within main stream media not to publish images offensive to Islam.

[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".

[Liokault]

missingbadly999 said:

B

XJ Flyer said:

Getting back to....

Charlie Hebdo.......

So, out of interest, which news orgs did and did not publish the front cover?

I did find it funny watching the BBC coverage that basically said at length how great the CH bounce back was and how measured their response was, with reference to the front cover, without actually showing it.

I did manage to find it on the Guardian website, but I had to go through lots of links and it certainly wasn't on every page that discussed it.

[Liokault]

missingbadly999 said:

Countdown said:

So how many countries have been invaded in the cause of spreading Islam?

Yep a very big part of Europe, sweeping right round into Spain and Gibraltar. Many areas of Spain have Mosques from then. The Muslims annihilated everyone in their path that didn't conform. One of the biggest loss of life in Medieval times.
Mmmm......

Well no, in Spain at least they tended to leg you have what ever religion you liked as long as you didn't resist the occupation.......in general.

not that I'm saying they didn't do really crap things, but this was a time of really really crap things being done, but the Muslims in Spain were not that bad.