Discussion for article #231723
"The blowback angered Charbonnier, who told Reuters at the time âWe have the impression that itâs officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental Islamists.â
Well, that turned out to be dead-on.
"Then in February 2006, Charlie Hebdo reprinted the controversial cartoons in a special issue. That prompted two French Muslim organizations to sue the publication for incitement to racism. "
Hahaha wow, that is absolutely pathetic.
While I am very pro-not going to shooting rampages as revenge for impolite portrayals of Jesus 2, but does it really seem appropriate for a magazine to satire the faith of a minority population in your country? Particularly from a country that fucked up much of the Middle East in 1917 and as colonist of Islamic North Africa?
Also, is this any different than the racist caricatures of Obama?
Anyone who believes in freedom of speech should believe in the right to satirize any and all religion. That Hebdo was a bit tasteless is pretty irrelevant.
3 Likes
Agreed. Is it appropriate? Possibly not. Is it unwise? Considering the reason for the article in the first place, I think the answer has to be âprobablyâ, at least.
But should it be something we defend with every fiber of our being? Hell yes.Anyone who feels the appropriate response to their beliefs being mocked is to take a life clearly has no faith in the ability of those beliefs to stand on their own merits.
3 Likes
I guess someone has to say it. There was never any reason to involve the Prophet in Hebdoâs work. Itâs depictions of Muhammad that incites this stuff not of Muslims and terrorist. That paper had all kinds of room to go after terrorists and Islamists without dragging Muhammad into it. I agree they have a right to do it and they print in France where sentiments are not like those of Muslim nations but they could have got their point across, had their satirical fun and avoided dragging the Prophet into the mess. It may be unpleasant to confront but those 12 folks might be alive today if unnecessary provocation was avoided. Muhammad died before there was a France or Paris.
1 Like
People respond to idiotic caricatures of Obama with words, not by killing.
I recall a while back in a Brooklyn Museum a tasteless and trashy piece of art that I think involved the Virgin Mary and elephant dung. Christianâs were outraged, but no one killed the artist. And the goal of that artist was in fact to enrage Christians, though the goal also was to get some publicity for their no talent art.
4 Likes
You wouldnât have been raped if you hadnât provoked your rapist with that short skirt, you wouldnât have been strangled if you hadnât provoked those cops by selling those cigarettes, you wouldnât have been shot if you hadnât provoked these terrorists by publishing that cartoon.
10 Likes
⌠Fuck the prophet if he canât take a joke.
6 Likes
Except that part of what they were responding to - part of what they were directly attacking with their satire - was the threats made against the Danish newspaper in 2005. Thatâs where their use of Muhammad stems, and that incident, where Islamic nations closed embassies and made threats, are part and parcel of what Charlie Hebdo was calling those nations out over. Not just terrorists.
None of those nations ever closed their embassies w/France. None of them ever threatened boycotts of French products. There were no burnings of the French flag by crowds in the streets. None of them issued any condemnation of France the way they did Denmark and Norway. Why? Because France is a far more important economic partner for them than Denmark or Norway. Because France isnât a nation theyâre willing to risk have tell them, âfine, fuck off, no more economic or technical assistance from usâ.
Because they couldnât bully France, and they knew it, but they were happy to try to bully the little Scandinavian nations. And to do that - and do it under the pretense of religious convictions, no less, that would insist all offenders be met with the same response - that is not only worth mockery, it all but demands it.
2 Likes
This attack has a really different feel to it, because it cuts directly to the heart of what it means to live in a civilized, modern democratic society. I am not going to have much patience with folks saying, âWell, maybe it wasnât the smartest move publishing that sort of thing.â Who cares? Itâs their right in a free society, and dictating or limiting the terms of that freedom is simply allowing these medieval savages to define the boundaries. I refuse to do that. I hope every magazine in the free world republishes the same cartoons that drove these terrorists to kill.
5 Likes
OKâŚbut did you look at you analogy? Itâs not parallelâŚ
The argument about the rapist and the short skirt is not one of provocation ( no one believes the short skirt can provoke a rape ) and is used to excuse rape or blame the victim. Insulting the Prophet ( and I am a Westerner and donât agree with the Muslim point of view ) is GUARANTEED to provoke violence. They said do it and we will kill. And they did not have to drag the entirely irrelevant Mohammad into the bit. If depiction of a nude Mohammad was necessary to get their point across ( and it was not ) I would say do it and take the heat. I think your arguments are childish but understand you think them profound.
If only that were true.
Their satire comes off as rather tasteless and low-brow to me, but the subject of said satire would seem to be quite relevant, given past and current events,
1 Like
Do you think Muslim fanatics work within that value set? For Godâs sake man they will strike anyoneâŚanywhere and always in the most cowardly ways. But they were never afraid of France ( Its not a first in France ) or preferred the Scandinavian countries as they thought them weak. What are you talking about?
Hebdo chose to depict Mohammad in a way that was certain to incite violence. They knew that. They have a right to do it too. I donât think itâs incumbent on the West to cow tow to medieval Muslim traditions but in this case I donât see that the provocation was necessary in getting their point across. They could bash terrorist and Muslim immigrants all they wanted and leave Mohammad out of it. They chose to go with it and thatâs their right. But it was guaranteed at some point to bring about violenceâŚso they had to accept that part of it.
Heâs dead and lame platitudes will not fix any of this or add to the debate.
US free speech rights are not universal.
I agree. The provocation was and is unnecessary. Nothing could justify the murder of 12 people, but why goad religious nuts into acting violently?
Stop thinking so muchâŚit will get you clobbered with tripe platitudes on this thread.
You are thinking above the plane of American thought on this thing so you are not going to get anywhere. There is no excuse for what was done to the folks at that newspaper. I donât give a shit about what Islam callâs for in situations like this. Itâs wrong to kill and the Koran says so. But, arguments about wrong or right, the rights of the French press and all that jazz aside it was certain something like this was going to go down after Hebdo printed that stuff. You print it and folks are going to die. So print itâŚand accept the inevitable.
They did get their NEA grants revoked and the Republicans tried to gut the NEA but I think youâre missing my point. Iâm not justifying their behavior. Iâm merely pointing out that itâs intentionally provoking an extraordinarily marginalized segment of the French population which has become radicalized by many things including their treatment by greater French society.
I stand with Salman Rushdieâs statement:
âReligion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. âRespect for religionâ has become a code phrase meaning âfear of religion.â Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.â
1 Like