Mohammed cartoons

[Lemmytheseal2]

@Miller

I think you’re confusing the concept of free speech with the First Amendment. In the US, only the government can violate the First Amendment, because the First is specifically a check on what the government is allowed to do. When the Klan was running wild, and any black person who spoke up about it got killed, it was not a violation of the First Amendment. It was, however, an attack on the concept of free speech.

I realize the specifics of the First Amendment in the US, but I suppose I was under the impression that the term “free speech” implies something legal. I think that makes more sense, actually, because I for one don’t have any respect for the “concept of free speech” as conveyed here. I completely endorse the actions of, say, Anti-Racist Action/Antifa/other leftists when they physically attack Nazis and other reactionaries. I’ve mentioned before that I was briefly involved in such an incident in front of the White House, and of course the Secret Service (SS) defended the Nazis and arrested one of our relatively few members of color.

The difference, in cases like this, is that religion is not race. It’s a choice, which brings me to…

@Miller

*Does *the situation call for it, though? There are over a billion Muslims in the world. 99% of them have never killed anyone. Is it justifiable to insult them, because of the actions of a tiny handful of people who happen to share one characteristic with them? The terrorists were also black - would you publish a cartoon calling them niggers? If not, why not? Why is being a dick to millions of innocent Muslims more acceptable than being a dick to millions of innocent blacks?

Yes, the situation calls for it, for completely different reasons. The Abrahamic religions are Bronze-Age fairy tales, and deserve nothing but mockery. I don’t have to respect your taste in music, so why do I have to respect your taste in superstition, especially when it leads to misogyny, sexual repression/frustration, homophobia, anti-science, and so much else?

Do you see the difference between being black (which of course is not a choice, and hurts no one) and being a believer in a talking snake and a big floating zoo and a pedophile prophet and an invisible man in the sky who hits poor people with earthquakes and gives cancer to little kids?

[Kobal2]

@StJoan

I think you have misunderstood the “Je suis Charlie” + “tout est pardonne” cartoon. In English, it translates to Mohammad holding up the “I am (with) Charlie” (i.e. “I support Charlie”) placard, while the caption reads “all is forgiven”.

In English, it translates as I’m actually French and well acquainted with its language. And its usage. And the culture of a newspaper I’ve read for over a decade, then quit reading but still distantly followed out of some kind of fucked up masochistic schadenfreude over how far it had done fell.

Finally, they have avoided any suggestion of a retaliation on the local Muslim population.

“All is forgiven” is quite evidently sarcastic.

Our message is one of peace and reconciliation – like you keep preaching. Try beating us on that!

… have you even *met *Charlie Hebdo ? :dubious:

[Kobal2]

@Stringbean

Because they have been doing it for a decade, and have been equal toward all religions in their ridicule.

No, they haven’t. You have been misinformed. See the GD “Charlie Hebdo, racist ?” thread for details. Or this guardian article.

[StJoan]

@Kobal2

In English, it translates as I’m actually French and well acquainted with its language. And its usage. And the culture of a newspaper I’ve read for over a decade, then quit reading but still distantly followed out of some kind of fucked up masochistic schadenfreude over how far it had done fell.

I think you’ve missed out something in the first sentence. I am not French, though I have been studying the language on and off (more off than on these days) since 2008. I admit that I had not encountered this weekly publication before this attack, but I have seen some of its (remarkably vulgar) cartoons online since then. No, I am not bothered by them.

@Kobal2

“All is forgiven” is quite evidently sarcastic.

That may well depend on the reader’s perspective. Satire, like humour, is pointless if lost (but you still have the RIGHT to be satiric – have no fear of that!).

One might argue that Christ on the cross, calling upon his heavenly father to forgive his enemies “because they know not what they do” was also being sarcastic, but where would Christianity be then? Btw, this is merely to show how a change of perspective can change the attitude, and NOT to sing platitudes of Christianity, so please do not side track.

Finally, even if the “tout est pardonne” is satiric in intent, the message still remains powerful, if somewhat different. It is still saying " I will say what I want, when I want and where I want, so do your worst.", and it is saying that in the face of all odds, which is, IMO, pretty gut wrenching in its sheer defiance.

@Kobal2

… have you even *met *Charlie Hebdo ? :dubious:

It is, far as I know, a publication, not a person, and is a hebdomadaire, which means a weekly publication. If you can shed some light on why the “Charlie” part of the name, please do. It would be most interesting.

[Miller]

@Lemmytheseal2

I realize the specifics of the First Amendment in the US, but I suppose I was under the impression that the term “free speech” implies something legal. I think that makes more sense, actually, because I for one don’t have any respect for the “concept of free speech” as conveyed here. I completely endorse the actions of, say, Anti-Racist Action/Antifa/other leftists when they physically attack Nazis and other reactionaries. I’ve mentioned before that I was briefly involved in such an incident in front of the White House, and of course the Secret Service (SS) defended the Nazis and arrested one of our relatively few members of color.

Great. You and the guys who shot up Charlie Hebdo appear to have some common ground.

Yes, the situation calls for it, for completely different reasons. The Abrahamic religions are Bronze-Age fairy tales, and deserve nothing but mockery. I don’t have to respect your taste in music, so why do I have to respect your taste in superstition, especially when it leads to misogyny, sexual repression/frustration, homophobia, anti-science, and so much else?

I don’t much like people who are misogynistic, homophobic, or anti-science. And while there are certainly a lot of religious people in the world who meet those criteria, all the religious people I’ve actually met have been none of those things. My mother goes to Catholic mass two to three times a week. My first boyfriend was Baptist. I’ve marched in gay rights parades next to Dominican monks. These, and dozens more like them, have all been kind, intelligent, and compassionate people. As much as douchebag as Fred Phelps was, there’s no reason for me to insult my mom just because she and him both happened to be Christians.

There’s no reason for you to do it, either, as far as I can see.

Do you see the difference between being black (which of course is not a choice, and hurts no one) and being a believer in a talking snake and a big floating zoo and a pedophile prophet and an invisible man in the sky who hits poor people with earthquakes and gives cancer to little kids?

I don’t see a difference that excuses being an asshole to them.

[StJoan]

@Miller

*Does *the situation call for it, though? There are over a billion Muslims in the world. 99% of them have never killed anyone. Is it justifiable to insult them, because of the actions of a tiny handful of people who happen to share one characteristic with them?

I would like see where the 99% of them stood up in unison, and chanted out publicly “Not in my name”. Hell, even 50% of them doing that would convince me that they actively oppose terrorism. But they have never done that, have they? Perhaps they have reasons that are benign (occupation of Palestine, crippling sanctions and the unjustified war on Iraq, whatever). But whatever the reason, they have actively kept their collective mouths shut. The terrorism is in their name, even if they do not actively participate in it.

@Miller

The terrorists were also black - would you publish a cartoon calling them niggers? If not, why not? Why is being a dick to millions of innocent Muslims more acceptable than being a dick to millions of innocent blacks?

One cannot help being born black, but one can consciously choose to adopt or ignore a certain philosophy, action, lifestyle etc… The fault is not they were born black, but that they chose to murder someone over a rather silly, vulgar, but nevertheless physically harmless, set of drawings. The only response to Charlie Hebdo’s brand of “humour” would have been to poke fun at them in the same way, but somehow there are no Muslim cartoonists who are willing to do that. I do genuinely wonder why that was the case.

[Kobal2]

@StJoan

That may well depend on the reader’s perspective. Satire, like humour, is pointless if lost (but you still have the RIGHT to be satiric – have no fear of that!).

No I can pretty much guarantee you that’s what they’re going for, because that’s how *Charlie *covers work (much like I can vouch for the fact that Muhammad’s expression in the cartoon is one of fake, insincere or exaggerated contrition, in case caricature shorthands and cues don’t translate 1:1 across the world)

One might argue that Christ on the cross, calling upon his heavenly father to forgive his enemies “because they know not what they do” was also being sarcastic, but where would Christianity be then? Btw, this is merely to show how a change of perspective can change the attitude, and NOT to sing platitudes of Christianity, so please do not side track.

Yes, but Christ is not a weekly publication that deals almost exclusively in dark, bitter sarcasm (at least when it comes to the cartoons), nor did the man have a history of passive-aggressive cracks that could lead one to this reading of “forgive them because they know not what they do”. In narrative terms it’d be out-of-character of Jesus.

Finally, even if the “tout est pardonne” is satiric in intent, the message still remains powerful, if somewhat different. It is still saying " I will say what I want, when I want and where I want, so do your worst.", and it is saying that in the face of all odds, which is, IMO, pretty gut wrenching in its sheer defiance.

And there would have been a million ways to say that without being a dick to Muslims in general, and the very French Muslims who’ve been publicly showing them support in particular.

It is, far as I know, a publication, not a person

Yes, but that’s the… nevermind.

, and is a hebdomadaire, which means a weekly publication. If you can shed some light on why the “Charlie” part of the name, please do. It would be most interesting.

“Charlie” is/was ostensibly Charlie Brown, as the *Peanuts *strips were reprinted in its pages way back when ; but it really stands for Charles de Gaulle whose government had censored CH’s predecessor *Hara-Kiri *in 1970 for obscenity and having made fun of the man’s death (or rather, every other paper gushing over his corpse and what a great man he’d been, yadda yadda).
So the Hara Kiri team immediately founded another paper and called it Charlie Hebdo, to thumb their noses at them while keeping the thinnest of veneers of plausible deniability thanks to the Charlie Brown thing.

[Kobal2]

@StJoan

I would like see where the 99% of them stood up in unison, and chanted out publicly “Not in my name”. Hell, even 50% of them doing that would convince me that they actively oppose terrorism. But they have never done that, have they? Perhaps they have reasons that are benign (occupation of Palestine, crippling sanctions and the unjustified war on Iraq, whatever). But whatever the reason, they have actively kept their collective mouths shut. The terrorism is in their name, even if they do not actively participate in it.

I’ll say it again : thousands upon thousands of Muslims joined the Charlie demonstration last Sunday, hundreds also came to pay their respects at the kosher market where a different gunman shot 4 Jews and a cop (as Jon Stewart cracked, many even wore signs saying “I am Jewish” and you *know *that had to sting :p), and condemnation of the attacks are coming from Muslims all over the world, be they simple peons like you and I or high profile clerics, scholars or heads of state.

Just because you’re not listening doesn’t mean they’re not chanting.

(For that matter, it’s also not true that terrorists wage violence in the name of moderate or secularized Muslims - quite the contrary in fact, they seem to consider anyone who’s not as gung-ho and fundie as them to be No True Muslims and fit for blowing up. Which they happen to do with great frequency, such as the day 8 cartoonists died in Paris… and 37 Muslim cop trainees were scattered over a large area in Yemen)

[Alessan]

@Kobal2

And there would have been a million ways to say that without being a dick to Muslims in general, and the very French Muslims who’ve been publicly showing them support in particular.
.

But they *are *dicks - being a dick is their entire raison d’etre, and they have a right to celebrate it, especially after what happened. Their only legitimate reaction is to insult as many people as possible. It’s the only way they can be true to themselves.

[Kobal2]

@Alessan

But they *are *dicks - being a dick is their entire raison d’etre, and they have a right to celebrate it, especially after what happened. Their only legitimate reaction is to insult as many people as possible. It’s the only way they can be true to themselves.

No, that’s not quite right, though I appreciate the fact that it’s kind of difficult to grok (or express) the nuances there :). But as a comparison, here’s the cover they’d ran the last time they got firebombed by angry Muslims - the caption reads “Love triumphs over hatred”.
It’s cheeky as hell, it still says “yeah, no, sorry guys, we’re not going to stop”, it’s still a resounding fuck you to those among Muslims who really hate Charlie and supported the incident (or hate gays with a fiery passion) while the ironic caption can also be taken literally by Muslims who don’t fume at either and get the joke, it doesn’t take gratuitous shots at the religion in passing, and above all it’s funny. And that’s a lot closer to what the original, 70s-80s “Charlie spirit” was about.

But anyway, to get back to the OP, regardless of what they’re *really *about, in a final analysis, when you get right down to it ; and even if Charlie’s mission statement really *was *to indiscriminately generate a maximum of spiteful RAEEEG in a maximum of people and pointlessly disrespect the entire human race one chunk of thrown feces at a time - like a non-partisan Rush Limbaugh or something… that’s not my paper’s raison d’être, is it ?
So that rationale doesn’t apply to my republishing of today’s cover or not, when doing so is not necessary to report “Charlie still defiant, still opting to be pus-oozing dicks about it”. The only way I’d republish it would be along with an editorial piece on, well, why I feel it’s a terrible cover with a horrible, tone deaf and unfair message. So you know, all the pretentious rambling blogg-y shit y’all just had to sit through. And no one wants to read *that *

[crowmanyclouds]

@Leaffan

I’m all for free speech, but I wouldn’t publish them. I have a lot of mixed feelings about all of this.

On the one hand I get freedom of the press. On the other hand, why publish something that’s going to be obviously offensive to a large group of people?

There’s probably nothing that gets published that I would be personally offended by, but I just don’t get the constant “poking of the bear” just because it’s there.

It makes little sense to me to go out of your way to offend a large group of people. {…}

Mostly this, mostly.

I get “poking the bear” just because it’s there. Being offensive just to offend is a declaration of “You have no power here! Be gone, before someone drops something else on you too!”, and it’s a great thing to remind folks of that from time to time. That short, sharp, shock might even get folks to start thinking about exactly what it is that they really believe.

But after you’ve done it for a while what exactly are you trying to, and actually, accomplishing? And if you’re not seeing that what you’re doing is having the effect you want, why continue to do it? Isn’t that the time you rethink your strategy?

One of the beauties of both Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary is being able to turn to the sputtering offenderatti and say “You don’t even have a clue about what this is trying to say.”
(I dare anyone to read that link and still think that that painting was made with the intent to offend and only offend.)
I’m not certain I could do that with every Charlie Hebdo cartoon or every thing that Muslims (et al.) find offensive.

No small part of the problem is it’s much easier to poke at extremest Muslim terrorists by making fun of Islam in general. Using a hammer when the problem requires a scalpel ain’t that smart. The hammer might get you what you want but you make a hell of a mess in the process.

In the end the only choices I can’t make are,
No - because I am a Muslim and my faith forbids it.
Yes - because it would sell more of my paper.
'Cause I just don’t think this is a simple as folks want it to be.

CMC fnord!

[Freudian_Slit]

There was no option for my answer. I’d publish them to put the news story in context and because they’re relevant to what’s going on, not so much because of free speech or to send a message.

[QuickSilver]

@Mr.Kobayashi

They’re French and trying to make a point, probably best not to think about it too much.

[Peremensoe]

@Freudian_Slit

There was no option for my answer. I’d publish them to put the news story in context and because they’re relevant to what’s going on, not so much because of free speech or to send a message.

“Yes - for another reason.”

[Shodan]

Maybe I am completely missing the point, and, as mentioned, my French is rudimentary at best. I interpreted the “Je suis Charlie” and “all is forgiven” cartoon as sort of implying that the Muslims (and others) who expressed their solidarity with Hebdo were forgiven. The satire part continued, since what pissed off the Islamo-fascists was that Muhammed the prophet was depicted in a picture, which is a No-no, but the Muslims who didn’t shoot anybody and who recognized the right to satire some aspects of Islam were “all forgiven”. Conciliatory and assholish at the same time, IOW.

Maybe I was whooshed.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lemmytheseal2]

@Miller

Great. You and the guys who shot up Charlie Hebdo appear to have some common ground.

Well no, I don’t advocate using guns and going on killing sprees as such. Chasing off neo-nazis by any means necessary is different. There are so many videos like this, and it’s so gratifying to see the fascists getting pounded. Naturally, the cops protect the fascists.

I don’t much like people who are misogynistic, homophobic, or anti-science. And while there are certainly a lot of religious people in the world who meet those criteria, all the religious people I’ve actually met have been none of those things. My mother goes to Catholic mass two to three times a week. My first boyfriend was Baptist. I’ve marched in gay rights parades next to Dominican monks. These, and dozens more like them, have all been kind, intelligent, and compassionate people. As much as douchebag as Fred Phelps was, there’s no reason for me to insult my mom just because she and him both happened to be Christians.

There’s no reason for you to do it, either, as far as I can see.

I don’t see a difference that excuses being an asshole to them.

If religious groups do something positive, then I’m all for it; in fact, that describes my present employer. Religious hang-ups, however, are silly at best, and there is no reason to kowtow to them. Do you think it’s OK to indulge all those Orthodox Jews who cause problems and massive delays on flights because they won’t sit next to women? I don’t, for the same reason that pictures of Muhammad should be everywhere. It demonstrates the absolutely ludicrous nature of their hang-ups, it shows that they have no right to not be offended, and they really ought to ditch the religion and live in the modern age.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I would, but only because it’s newsworthy.

[Malthus]

@Lemmytheseal2

If religious groups do something positive, then I’m all for it; in fact, that describes my present employer. Religious hang-ups, however, are silly at best, and there is no reason to kowtow to them. Do you think it’s OK to indulge all those Orthodox Jews who cause problems and massive delays on flights because they won’t sit next to women? I don’t, for the same reason that pictures of Muhammad should be everywhere. It demonstrates the absolutely ludicrous nature of their hang-ups, it shows that they have no right to not be offended, and they really ought to ditch the religion and live in the modern age.

I’m perfectly willing to indulge the hang-ups of anyone, if they are polite about requesting that I do so. To me, that’s just part of the give and take of everyday life. No doubt I have hang-ups that others may find silly.

I will not, though, give indugence to those who are rude (or worse, violent) in demanding some indulgence.

In this case, the issue is complicated by the fact that the vast majority of Muslims haven’t been rude or violent, and so are presumably entitled to a degree of politeness. As for whether they should all give up religion, that’s not my business. Part of politeness, to me, is minding my own.

[Shodan]

@Lemmytheseal2

Well no, I don’t advocate using guns and going on killing sprees as such. Chasing off neo-nazis by any means necessary is different.

No, it isn’t any different. “I don’t like your ideas and so I will use violence against you” is the same in English, German, or Arabic.

There are so many videos like this, and it’s so gratifying to see the fascists getting pounded. Naturally, the cops protect the fascists.

Yes, protecting people who are exercising their rights under the Constitution is the job of the police.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lemmytheseal2]

@Malthus

I’m perfectly willing to indulge the hang-ups of anyone, if they are polite about requesting that I do so. To me, that’s just part of the give and take of everyday life. No doubt I have hang-ups that others may find silly.

I will not, though, give indugence to those who are rude (or worse, violent) in demanding some indulgence.

In this case, the issue is complicated by the fact that the vast majority of Muslims haven’t been rude or violent, and so are presumably entitled to a degree of politeness. As for whether they should all give up religion, that’s not my business. Part of politeness, to me, is minding my own.

Your hang-ups may seem silly to others, but I imagine they are at least benign. That’s not true for religious hang-ups, which usually have serious real-world consequences as they hold back progress. Also, it’s the principle of the thing! Kowtowing to superstition and arbitrary rules gives them legitimacy that they don’t deserve.

I’m effectively vegetarian, and I’m also straight-edge. There are logical, rational, empirical, scientific reasons for these stances, so I expect a certain amount of accommodation, but I understand that might not always be possible. Even so, that’s a much different thing than arbitrary rules from some old book.

@Shodan

No, it isn’t any different. “I don’t like your ideas and so I will use violence against you” is the same in English, German, or Arabic.

When you leave fascists alone, they gain strength. Should the British Jews and leftist allies who fought the Battle of Cable Street have ignored Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists? Shouldn’t similar activity have gone further in Germany and other places?

Yes, protecting people who are exercising their rights under the Constitution is the job of the police.

Police defend power and privilege. They always have. If they protect fascists, they are part of the problem. They aren’t necessarily hopeless, as the Berlin PD was involved in the 20 July 1944 Plot to Kill Hitler, but let’s not pretend that police departments are anything but the army of the wealthy.

Incidentally, fascists in Europe and elsewhere often have a problem with Muslims for reasons that have nothing to do with Islam’s backward hang-ups, and have much to do with right-wing chauvinism. Antifa defend Muslim communities in those cases, and I endorse that. Problematically, when those same Muslims try to do reactionary, sexist/homophobic etc. stuff, they need not be violently confronted, but they should be defied and mocked.

The Klan once tried to rally in NYC and got pounded (partially by a couple of antifa who went undercover). When NYC’s beardy-weirdy Haredi Jews try to tell shorts-wearing women not to bicycle through “their” neighborhoods, well, it’s time for a skin-bearing Bike Bloc, among other things!