He makes a good point. You can go too far in mocking and provoking people. It doesn’t justify what happened. But common sense tells me its not wise to poke a tiger with a stick.
The Pope has expressed similar views. The horrific attack can’t be justified. At the same time, responsible editors & journalists need to carefully consider whether to publish deliberately racist and offensive articles. I’ve seen some of the Charlie cartoons on Google Image. They are repugnant to say the least. They didn’t just draw images of Mohammad. The acts being depicted in those cartoons is way out of line.
These cartoons remind me of the horrific American cartoons with huge liver lipped blacks, bones in their noses, eating watermelons. Mainstream journalists stopped publishing garbage like that a 100 years ago. It would be unthinkable today to publish that stuff.
sure, how about those rape victims and their short skirts eh? just asking for it.
And he can fuck right off.
The ancient, celibate, infallible virgin in a dress is of course free to flap his jaws as much as he likes but one can’t help but think he has a vested interested in limiting freedom of speech and freedom of action in very many areas.
and yet…and yet…
whoops, yes, there we go. Do you mean either racist or offensive? is one fine and other not? Or is it just when they are both? And what careful consideration would you think should be taken? The flavours of religion are an ideology, as are political views and yet I’d be pushed to find anyone that thought ridiculing Stalin or the communist manifesto shouldn’t be done.
A bad idea is a fucking bad idea. Hateful views and actions should be called out and ridiculed at every opportunity and the nominated wellspring of those views and actions
should absolutely be fair game. “religion” can’t be used as defence against objectionable views.
So link to the cartoons and tell us what you find repugnant. Tell us which ones you’d allow and which you’d ban.
The one published this week was certainly not racist and yet by itself would be offensive enough to earn the cartoonist a bullet in the head.
You lost me. Which of the two linked cartoons are racist? Which incites hatred or otherwise targets the innocents? They both seem to be aiming at the most powerful figures in the respective religions plus one arsehole film director. Poor examples that do nothing for your point.
I’m not suggesting anything be banned. I believe in a free press. It’s the Editors job to *responsibly *decide what to publish. That in fact is his most important duty as editor. Is the story true, unbiased, fair?
We already do that for race. Religions and religious leaders deserve the same level of respect by the press. Editors should treat religion exactly like they would a racial topic. Report the story, but don’t mock the subject.
Well, you do have to recognize that right there in the cover under the “CHARLIE HEBDO” title, the tagline reads “Journal Irresponsable”. Does what it says on the tin, should shock nobody.
But at the same time as we defend Charlie’s right to give the world in-your-face, suck-on-it shock-satire, we should as well take care to not go all reverse-PC on it and acknowledge that it is an observation of fact that it IS at times crass and rude and meant to piss people off and show they do not in the least respect the idea being portrayed. That is entirely separate from how we believe that among civilized men when someone does that you should object nonviolently and seek nonviolent remedies, and if there are none, just plain DNFTT if that’s how you feel.
And why do I get the feeling there’s going to be a disparaging cartoon of Francis’ mom coming up in the near future?
They may not be racist in the most traditional sense. But Muslims represent over a billion people. Why is mocking them ok and mocking blacks is not? You can’t mock Asian or Jewish stereotypical features either. Why are Muslims fair game?
I think Henri Roussell’s point is valid. As cofounder of Charlie he understands the right to publish satire. He’s written it much of his life. He’s reminding everyone that there’s always a line that shouldn’t be crossed.
Reading between the lines. Do you get the impression Henri Roussell had this discussion with editor Stéphane Charbonnier? He probably warned Charbonnier to be more responsible after the bombing. It was clear even then that innocent lives were being put in danger.
Attacking the beliefs of over a billion Muslim people is racist. They are a group just like Asians, Blacks, Catholics or any other group. What is being mocked or denigrated is the group as a whole. Assumptions are being made because someone is part of that group.
There is an ideal world and there is the one in which we live. In the world we live in, if you mock certain kinds of people enough, they will eventually react with violence. It’s not nice or right, but it is a fact. There are no easy solutions.
Race is more than skin color or what part of the world your ancestors came from. Culture and religion are a factor too. Racism can extend across any large group of people that are mocked or persecuted.
Race is also a term science uses to categorize people by ancestry. I’m not using it in that limited scientific definition…
If you prefer then lets just call the Charlie cartoons deeply offensive to many people.
Slightly Offensive pictures of Jesus don’t upset people the same way. I guess if mocking drawings were repeatedly published, for years that it could become a big issue. Any joke can be taken so far that people get angry.
There are persecuted Christian groups in some Muslim countries. Iraq had a Christian minority that had lived there for hundreds of years. They’ve been killed, churches burned and the survivors are fleeing if they can. Yeah, thats because of racist views. Radical Muslim fundamentalists consider Christians infidels.
