http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-prophet-muhammad

Personally I'm behind this 100%. Free speech should not be compromised because some people may get angry over "blasphemy"

Poll question: Charlie Hebdo to have the prophet Muhammad as their next front cover - should they or shouldn't they?

Poll result (51 votes) They should (24 votes) Vote They shouldn't (27 votes) Vote

That being said, when Hezbollah says the killing of the Charlie staff was over the line, you know you're f--king up!



Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg


Get 25% off www.karmaloop.com w/ rep code JR9103 |
Nike, G-Star, Herschel, Adidas (Men's & Women's clothing)

terrorize us into getting what you want.

Yeah maybe there was an argument before about it being disrespectful prior to the shooting, but once, you know, you kill people then the discourse about respect kind of goes out the window.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

I can understand theology opposed to worldliness. I can't understand a theology opposed to civilization. No different than zombieism I suppose with that us or them.

This is literally one of those "If they don't do it, the terrorists have won" situations that people always want everything else to be.

by punching you in the face. Then next encounter u don't even say anything to them, do you lose? And what is it that you lose when you are the one that started the exchange?

This ain't one of those "the terrorists wins" situations because you would have to have SOMETHING taken away from you that is fundamental to who you are. Freedom of speech WOULD be that thing, if this was about that issue (which you already agreed that it isn't the issue). Its really simple guys. Respect. I don't see how people are that fucking stupid to see it for what it is. Thats it.



____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

The person saying "Shut the fuck up" was the one doing the punching.

Freedom of Speech exists or it doesn't. If we believe in Freedom of Speech, we believe in it for those who we disagree with.

I disagree with a lot of what I've seen Charlie Hebdo have published, but that doesn't mean I want them silenced any more than I think the Tea Party, the British National Party or the Westboro Baptist Church should be silenced. Freedom of speech means they all get to say whatever they want, and we get to *say* (not shoot) whatever we want about them.

People who respond to pictures, however "offensive", with guns are worse than anyone brandishing a crayon and we, as a society, need to have the guts to stick up for our core beliefs. As I mentioned in another post - the Muslim cop shot whilst defending the offices of a publication that mocked his religion understood this as innately as Voltaire.

#jesuisahmed

why is it okay to voice opposition to the KKK's speech but not to Charlie Hebdo's?

why is it okay to voice opposition to Fox News's speech but not to Charlie Hebdo's?

is it okay to disagree w/Charlie's speech while understanding that CH has the absolute right to publish any filth it wants? and that the right shouldn't trampled by any government or terror?

is it okay to defend free speech w/o identifying w/Charlie?

b/c i don't see ppl wearing "I Am Westboro" shirts. i don't see any "I Am KKK" signs. where are those?

It's absolutely fine to say you disagree with Charlie Hebdo just as it's absolutely fine to say you disagree with the KKK, Westboro, me or Barack Obama.

That's Freedom of Speech. The Freedom to say what the fuck you want and the freedom for anyone that hears to rip you to shreds.

Reacting with weaponry is not part of this arrangement.

I think a lot of the "#JeSuisCharlie" momentum comes from the fact that most of us foreigners have no idea what Charlie Hebdo really stands for. Obviously it'd be harder for us to defend something most people knew they disagreed with... but that doesn't mean that, in principal, we probably shouldn't.

The biggest man in this entire story is the Muslim cop who laid his life down to defend a publication that mocked his religion. There's a man that believed in Western values.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

>It's absolutely fine to say you disagree with Charlie Hebdo
>just as it's absolutely fine to say you disagree with the KKK,
>Westboro, me or Barack Obama.

gee, thanks!

>That's Freedom of Speech. The Freedom to say what the fuck you
>want and the freedom for anyone that hears to rip you to
>shreds.


thanks for the whitesplanation.

>Reacting with weaponry is not part of this arrangement.

duh.

>I think a lot of the "#JeSuisCharlie" momentum comes from the
>fact that most of us foreigners have no idea what Charlie
>Hebdo really stands for.

i'm quite sure of that.


>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
>your right to say it."

that's cute.

no one has ever said that it's not okay to disagree with the magazine.

Also im not saying silence anyone. I'm saying be smarter at your satire. Theres a line between freedom and speech and trolling that is constantly being blurred because its so easy to hide behind freedom of speech. You have that freedom nobody wants to take that away from you. But to hide behind it when you are being disrespectful is pretty ridiculous to me. There are other political satire shows or comedic pieces that are saying the same things but in respectful ways where you can politely and respectfully make fun. *shrugs*
____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

That seems like an incredibly difficult judgement to enforce societywide... the answers to both of the above would be different for everyone in any given society.

Either people can say whatever they like or they can't. Anything else is borderline impossible to implement.

Do you think Team America: World Police or South Park's weekly output are "respectful" enough? Should we turn our backs on Comedy Central if they get attacked?


>Also im not saying silence anyone. I'm saying be smarter at
>your satire. Theres a line between freedom and speech and
>trolling that is constantly being blurred because its so easy
>to hide behind freedom of speech. You have that freedom nobody
>wants to take that away from you. But to hide behind it when
>you are being disrespectful is pretty ridiculous to me. There
>are other political satire shows or comedic pieces that are
>saying the same things but in respectful ways where you can
>politely and respectfully make fun. *shrugs*
>____
>
>TWITTER : Heinz21st
>
>IG : H_N_Z

And people take them as fart jokes lol

But when they did cross the line and if someone did something harmful to them would i have much empathy for them? Not really. I mean i wouldnt want them to die i'd really only feel bad that they died over a joke.

Thats the risk u take for being disrespectful tho. You risk that someone is gonna take it to that level. *shrugs*


____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

Where you from that's not the case?


>by punching you in the face. Then next encounter u don't even
>say anything to them, do you lose? And what is it that you
>lose when you are the one that started the exchange?
>
>This ain't one of those "the terrorists wins" situations
>because you would have to have SOMETHING taken away from you
>that is fundamental to who you are. Freedom of speech WOULD be
>that thing, if this was about that issue (which you already
>agreed that it isn't the issue). Its really simple guys.
>Respect. I don't see how people are that fucking stupid to see
>it for what it is. Thats it.
>
>
>
>____
>
>TWITTER : Heinz21st
>
>IG : H_N_Z


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

b/c they have stopped doing it in polite company. and they've stopped doing it to our face.

they lost when they stopped calling us 'colored' too.

and 'Negro'.

and even 'Black' b/c they seem reticent to use that one too.

they lost.

do they know?

and wait...shouldn't we be defending their RIGHT to call us 'nigger'?

do we not believe in freedom of expression?

shouldn't women stand up for our right to call them 'bitch'?

freedom!

to use the word Nigger. White people who wanted to continue to use the word definitely "lost" something.

I would like to think a lot of people didn't "lose" anything but rather became more enlightened and chose to no longer use the word.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

we need to correct this wrong.

They might get socially shunned, lose their job but they probably won't be murdered from using the word.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

it would be wrong for white ppl to be killed for saying 'nigger' just like it was wrong for the cartoonists to be killed for publishing cartoon depictions of Muhammad.

it was wrong.
it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.it was wrong.

Charlie's failure to censor itself and its cartoonists to avoid heaping on to the oppression Muslims face in France and throughout Europe.

my point is (AGAIN) that Charlie should've censored itself WAY before the attacks. and not b/c of any threats and not b/c Islam or Muhammad are sacred and beyond reproach or ridicule or satire but out of concern and respect for ppl who are trampled.

when i say 'censor itself' i don't necessarily mean it shouldn't have published any cartoon drawings of Islam or even Muhammad. but that it could've been more thoughtful and less puerile and more funny and less hateful and racist and xenophobic. again, not b/c of threats from a few radical Muslims who don't represent the majority and who have been soundly condemned by the majority of Muslims, but for the reason i stated above.

JOn Stewart, Chris Rock, Richard Pryor, George Carlin and many many more people who offend have an important place in our society (even when it is not exactly clear what their message is) and shouldn't be silenced by the people they offend.

In a pluralistic relatively free society you have to learn to ignore those people.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

cartoons.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Watching you in these threads is like watching season 5 of the wire.

Just stop.

i might.

but since i don't, i won't based on this.

so go ahead and update my entry in your database, player.

^^^^^^^^^^

either everything's allowed to be made fun of or nothing is

except stuff that's racist or could be classed as hate-speech, of course

You don't have to agree with any ideology. But you have to respect it and the people to some degree.

At some point freedom of speech just becomes trolling.

____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

There isnt an ideology on earth that deserves respect just because it exists as an ideology

to have a level or respect for it and its people. Im not religious i think religion is toxic as a whole and has done more harm than it has done good. BUT. im not gonna go around disrespecting peoples God's whether I believe in them or not.


____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

>You don't have to agree with any ideology. But you have to
>respect it and the people to some degree.
>
>At some point freedom of speech just becomes trolling.
>

Other faiths get trolled regularly. Are people bemoaning a lack of respect extended to Scientologists or Christians by certain commentators?

I'm done w/y'all and this.

YOUR rules is not a disrespect to you.

Are gay people being affectionate in front of Christian Fundamentalist disrespecting the Christian Fundamentalist?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Btw comparing Christians and a rule that has no fundamental purpose to their ideology to Muslim's and their God is fucking laughable. I don't know what's funnier the fact that was an actual thought from your stupid brain that came out of your stupid mouth or the fact you typed that and probably had all this pride hitting the "send" button like you actually had a decent point. It was cute how extremely of a dumb fuck of a fuck you are..like when a child does something its supposed to do but you congratulate them anyways because you forgot they are 3 and stupid lol

Dont take offence to any of this tho...u know. Freedom of speech and all.


____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

In societies with free speech, people will offend each other. People will disagree publicly. People will protest. People will campaign against opposing ideologies. People will make fun of each other.

For free speech to survive, easily offended people have to be able to deal with offense without resorting to *mass murder*.

The Muslim cop shot in the Charlie Hebdo offices clearly understood this.

There is absolutely no basis for drawing a distinction between the Fundamental Christians outrage against Homosexuality and the Islamic prohibition against depict the prophet, especially as you try to apply it to people who don't practice your faith.

You know it's true which is why you didn't respond with a logic thoughtful argument but instead went into name calling.

The fact that you responded so angrily is proof enough of the indefensible of your position.


And yes you can call me names and I think you were trying to offend me but it really just makes my point because of all the possible reactions I could have, Killing you is not one of them. For "civilized" (for lack of a better word) people it never is.


RE: Lol if you wanna keep thinking like an idiot ok.
>Btw comparing Christians and a rule that has no fundamental
>purpose to their ideology to Muslim's and their God is fucking
>laughable. I don't know what's funnier the fact that was an
>actual thought from your stupid brain that came out of your
>stupid mouth or the fact you typed that and probably had all
>this pride hitting the "send" button like you actually had a
>decent point. It was cute how extremely of a dumb fuck of a
>fuck you are..like when a child does something its supposed to
>do but you congratulate them anyways because you forgot they
>are 3 and stupid lol
>
>Dont take offence to any of this tho...u know. Freedom of
>speech and all.
>
>
>____
>
>TWITTER : Heinz21st
>
>IG : H_N_Z


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

it was a good point you made and he sounds like a dickhead with that reply.

where do we draw the line at what "offends" people? especially to do with religions and all the crazy, demented rules they have?

plus, if it offends you, nobody is forcing you to read it or look at it. we're offended by these islamic murderers who'll kill because of a cartoon.

If anything, this is more an example of trolling with terrorism than the freedom of speech side.

I noticed that too. Wondered if it was just me.

But if I wear that red shirt while going thru a known Crip neighborhood
should I be considered brave & courageous?
or should I be considered stupid & naive?
or should I take off the red shirt & assure I live to see another day?

want to live in?

If you want to live in a world where you can get killed for wearing red then you support bloods who kill people for wearing red.

If you want to live in a world where people can wear whatever color they want then you support those people who try to change the rules regarding what color you can wear in the blood hood.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

If you decided to wear the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood, then you better be willing to die for that shit. And you better hope your sacrifice inspires others to fight for it. I don't know much about them Charlie cats, but from what I've seen from them (not much admittedly) I really don't think they were about this "freedom of speech" fight and were just trying to sell magazines instead.

It ain't that much different from white people pulling pranks in the hood that'll intentionally get them beat the fuck up for views.I hope people didn't die for some bullshit like that.

a silly cartoon?

nope

Victim blaming is not the answer here. If you got killed for wearing a red shirt in a gang neighbourhood, you may well be 'guilty' of naivety, but naivety isn't a crime.

MURDER is a crime in all senses of the word. The people who made a conscious decision to murder would clearly be the ones in the wrong.

If you think long and hard enough about anything moral you can make it confusing enough to produce any result... but the common sense answers to all this are pretty obvious. Storming ANY civilian building and opening fire is wrong and the fault lies with the gunmen. Period. I don't give a fuck if they ran cartoons of Mohammed assfucking your Dad.

not sure why they don't just leave that shit alone. I'm not seeing what anyone gains from this.

You dont see the PR/propaganda implications of the appearance of CH having been intimidated?

Honestly?

>You dont see the PR/propaganda implications of the appearance
>of CH having been intimidated?
>
>Honestly?

I sure don't.

So they print the magazine and everyone feels like they've accomplished something. Now what?

And the flip-side to this move is, what if it triggers yet another attack and more people are killed? Again, is this shit worth it in the end?

If a publication backs down after suffering an attack like this, the only message sent is that these sort of attacks can be successful in the future.

Running a cover featuring Mohammed shows that the terrorists have achieved nothing and shouldn't bother trying this sort of approach again.

It all seems pretty simple.

>Running a cover featuring Mohammed shows that the terrorists
>have achieved nothing and shouldn't bother trying this sort of
>approach again.
>
>It all seems pretty simple

I'm obviously missing something, because it seems simple from here. You don't change your behaviour due to bullying or the bullies win... isn't that taught in every playground?

>
>>Running a cover featuring Mohammed shows that the terrorists
>>have achieved nothing and shouldn't bother trying this sort
>of
>>approach again.
>>
>>It all seems pretty simple
>

>
>>Running a cover featuring Mohammed shows that the terrorists
>>have achieved nothing and shouldn't bother trying this sort
>of
>>approach again.
>>
>>It all seems pretty simple
>

I have no idea why/how this will "teach" the terorists that they have achieved nothing and shouldn't bother trying again, as if this REALLY is some conspiracy to silence free speech, as if that is the core issue. If anything, the terrorists are trolling the satirists to publish more stuff like this so that they can show their power. Meanwhile, more showcases of terorist strength will lead to more racism, "us vs. them" and finger-pointing towards Islam which in turn will lead to more radicalized muslims capable of doing stuff like this.

Again, why *consciously* feed the cycle when you have the choice *and* power not to? I could care less about the free speech aspect and principles and rights... This is reality

That's the only real reason to keep it going. Rich Europeans and Arabs will make huge money off the media attention, weapons sold (on both sides), and even increased readership of CH. Most of us loose in this, but a very very small percentage of us actually have something to gain.

to put the whole situation into context. If it wasn't so sad it would definitely be laughable.

>If a publication backs down after suffering an attack like
>this, the only message sent is that these sort of attacks can
>be successful in the future.
>
>Running a cover featuring Mohammed shows that the terrorists
>have achieved nothing and shouldn't bother trying this sort of
>approach again.
>
>It all seems pretty simple.

Yeah, because I'm sure their end game was ONLY to stop them from printing that one publication. It has nothing to do with the overall climate in the country.

This is why this whole situation is stupid as fuck. People can't even put shit into context. It's boiling down to free speech, taking a stand, not being a coward and all this other nonsense.

laws. france has laws against hate speech. these cartoons challenge the establishments laws. they've been sued several times. so they continue to do these dumb cartoons to challenge those laws. in the U.S. where you can say whatever you want, we don't have anyone that feels it's important to push limits like this.

and Charles is my middle name

.

illiuminati sacraficial conspiracy theorists?

I'm on the side of free speech but you must understand that closed minds could give a fuck about free speech. They will MURDER you...
I don't see that changing as a reaction by the "extremist"!












You don't impress me!!




RIP Reggie...I love you!! http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb449/Mynewstuff2011/RegLover.jpg



http://penilegenius.tumblr.com/

I don't support the publication's content, but I do support their universal right of freedom of expression.

It's interesting --- the "Je ne suis pas Charlie" camp who blames the victim here are similar to those who donned their "I can breathe" shirts and annoyingly hash tagged the #AllLivesMatter motto in refusal to acknowledge the fact that police brutality is a reality that disproportionately affects young black men.

You did not need to approve of the way Mike Brown robbed and physically assaulted a store owner to defend his right to live. You did not need to condone Eric Garner’s sale of loosie cigarettes to rally against the atrocity that resulted in his life being taken. Alike, it is not a requirement that you endorse Charlie Abdo’s mockery of religion in order to support its right to unabridged, open expression without the threat of being assassinated for it.

People tend to stand firm a principle - as long as it's about their 'team.'

-->

in france. so the analogies don't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France#Freedom_of_the_press

Freedom of the press
The Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several prohibitions. Article 24 prohibits anyone from publicly inciting another to discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for violating this prohibition is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those, as well as the suspension of some civil rights in some cases.
Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for defamation is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those punishments. The penalty for insult is up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to €22,500, or either one of those punishments.
La loi du 29 juillet 1881 allows the public prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against a violator of the law either upon the complaint of a victim or upon his own initiative. A victim may choose to undertake a civil action against a violator. Such a civil action must obey rules prescribed for a criminal proceeding, and a court may assess both civil damages and criminal penalties at the same time. Article 48-1 permits civil-rights organizations to seek damages for violations of the law.

-->

right.

-->

>right.
>
>-->

Article 19 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

-----

Also - France isn't stopping their freedom of expression. It's true that there is no carte-blanche freedom of speech in France (nor is there in America) - as it is illegal to deny the holocaust in France. That said - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights encompasses an over-arching principle - which is why I specifically cited it - and not French law.

-->

Hopefully they can protect their staff and offices better in the day/years to come. That's my only concern-- being responsible for your employees.

>Hopefully they can protect their staff and offices better in
>the day/years to come. That's my only concern-- being
>responsible for your employees.

They are knowingly taking a risk by continuing w/ their expression, but they
are of course now bolstered by massive security forces.

-->

Thats not what is under attack lol Universal respect is. As much as they have the freedom to express themselves their content is a reason to be punched in the face lol It goes hand in hand when being disrespectful to people. Let's not act like there arent comedians who know how to offend in a smart and respectful way. It's done all the time. My suggestion is if they wanna keep doing the content they do....be funnier and smarter. You can only tell someone to fuck off so many times.

*shrugs*


____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

That's the most fucked up half-brained ass analogy possible.

There is no deep sentiment in saying your shouldn't get killed for what you write. That's obvious.

I ain't charlie because I ain't part of an oppressor class that only defends my right to offend and bully the oppressed.

To try and draw a parallel between those saying "I don't ride for racism and xenophobia" (which is the crux of most of the fuck Charlie crew) and those who blindly support the state sponsored murders of black people is lazy as fuck, offensive as hell, and mighty white of you.

i'm glad you got upset --- it was addressed to those who only see
through racial lenses.


-->

-->

nm

by the people using it, be they police, religious extremists, etc when what they really mean is "fear".

You better respect us = You bette fear us

I'm tired of idiots being fearful of showing a little respect to other human beings because you dont agree with their ideology lol You afraid of being a nice person? *shrugs*


____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

those are not nice images and they are pretty blatant ethnic caricatures. I'm offended by them and I'm not even Muslim or Semitic/Arab.

So that fear of being "nice" statement is kinda horseshit.

respect the concerns/feelings of non-white ppl who happen to comprise disenfranchised minority populations in Europe and North America.

i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey conflating this request w/the terror threats levied by an overwhelmingly minority of the minority populations of Europe and North America.

i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey acting like they've never heard the phrase 'w/great power comes great responsibility'.

i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey going on and on about 'rights' and 'freedom of expression' as if any of the rest of us disagree about that shit.

i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey acting brand new as if the 'right' to 'freedom of expression' means ppl NEVER self-censor when we all know that shit ain't true b/c if it were then whitey would call me 'nigger' and 'faggot' much more often.

i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey acting like some freedom is compromised if whitey self-censors not in response to threats but out of respect for the feelings of ppl who whitey steps on day in and day out and has for decades if not centuries w/no sign of easing the fuck up.

i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey.

I'm really shocked at the # of minorities that think this is ok.

Like I said on fb. Their issue isn't with Muslims it's with a very specific group of people. How that in turn makes it ok to offend all Muslims idk

It totally makes whatever point they're trying to make worthless and brings them to the level of the same terrorists that think they are one upping (which is just stupid as hell. talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight...or in this case a sheet of paper)

Imo it's not about them not wanting to let the terrorists win as it is them just being entitled and ignorant as all hell

>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey.

and that's fine. Now we're getting somewhere w/ the open honesty.

but lol @ trying to couch it in a long-winded analysis.

You really just don't fuck w/ whitey. Bet.


-->

Which I guess you're supposed to do to help maintain the status quo...


It wasn't like, "I don't fuck with white people" as much as "I sick & tired of this white surpmacist culture" but go head

we can get this race war on and popping. Bc that's what Charlie's Muhammad cartoons are really about. Yeah yeah, they go @ xtians too. But the Muhammad cartoons happened within the context of larger anti-Arab and anti-African sentiment generally and help to feed it. Charlie is clearly not concerned with that or supports it. And plenty of the Je Suis crowd does too. But right now they lack the courage of their conviction. They won't just come out and say they want Europe for the Europeans (aka white ppl) so instead they resort to throwing passive aggressive bullshit stones and hide their hands behind freedom of expression. They want to drive the Arabs and Africans out while still being the Good Guys. When they're ready to be real it'll be on and popping.

The other side of this, of course, is that the radical Arabs and Africans love this cartoon foolishness. That new Charlie mag is like the greatest ISIS and Al Qaeda recruitment pamphlet ever. Publishing it in the name of freedom plays right into their hands - as does the general anti-Arab and African sentiment. The harder whitey steps on the neck of Arabs and Africans in the name of freedom, the more radicals will be born. It's a perfect storm.

It's high time for the race war. It's coming.

there is no monolithic french "white" viewpoint. You have hard line right xenophobia,
you have hard line left socialists - and a wide spectrum of political theory in between
and beyond those paradigms. Alike, there is no monolithic french-muslim view - there
have been well documented responses that span the gamut in terms of perspective on this issue.

I mean - i get it. It's fun to placate generalizations around and get rowdy for the low-hanging fruit - but this debate is begging for nuance that you could give it.

But as it pertains to the hard-line Le Pen xenophobe faction -- yes, I agree. What they - and all French white nationalists don't understand - is that you can't just engage in colonial projects and then expect not to deal with the emergence of multiculturalism at your own doorstep - and the manner in which they are flunking on integrating a respectful culture is disastrous - but that's just one faction in France - and you know it.


-->

there are tons of white people out there who aren't about the bullshit.

But "whitey" aka "whiteness" aka "the abstract White European power structure" is largely about the bullshit and hides behind easily digestible bullshit to justify the bullshit so they sound reasonable.

really, what kind of "tyranny" are Muslims in France or elsewhere where Muslims are not the majority imposing to receive this kind of satire?

*taps foot like Sonic The Hedgehog*

CMON

You nailed it.

>*taps foot like Sonic The Hedgehog*

i'm using this
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

>really, what kind of "tyranny" are Muslims in France or
>elsewhere where Muslims are not the majority imposing to
>receive this kind of satire?
>
>*taps foot like Sonic The Hedgehog*
>
>CMON

I don't think anyone is hiding that. I dare say the average black person-- if given the means, would take themselves and their family out of here faster than you could say "middle passage".

It's about violence being a trump card and I'd feel EXACTLY the same if the shoe were on the other foot. I got into this one day with a professor (also Jewish) who was presenting white supremacist rallies in Chicago as an example of speech that should be chilled, essentially, and later debating whether or not Al Qaeda and the like should have their messages broadcast on U.S. TV.

The bottom line to me is that there should be a very free exchange of ideas and that goes to the ideas I don't agree with. To be honest I haven't even seen the majority of the Charlie cartoons. I don't have to. They could be totally reprehensible. They have a right to exist and so do the people who made them, and I'm certainly not sympathizing with murderers (and their sympathizers) over someone who's simply an asshole or a bigot.

>It's about violence being a trump card and I'd feel EXACTLY
>the same if the shoe were on the other foot. I got into this
>one day with a professor (also Jewish) who was presenting
>white supremacist rallies in Chicago as an example of speech
>that should be chilled, essentially, and later debating
>whether or not Al Qaeda and the like should have their
>messages broadcast on U.S. TV.
>
>The bottom line to me is that there should be a very free
>exchange of ideas and that goes to the ideas I don't agree
>with. To be honest I haven't even seen the majority of the
>Charlie cartoons. I don't have to. They could be totally
>reprehensible. They have a right to exist and so do the people
>who made them, and I'm certainly not sympathizing with
>murderers (and their sympathizers) over someone who's simply
>an asshole or a bigot.

seriously though i would not personally antagonize someone or make light of their beliefs but then again i am not a satirist and my decisions don't go for everyone.

overall i am glad you are coming to terms with the driving force at the center of your anger. being sick of whitey. a rather understandable position.

your cause.

if they stormed French Government buildings and started shooting people up, this would be an entirely different conversation.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

though i have said **********************REPEATEDLY*************************** that i find the attacks on the magazine to be vile, abhorrent, reprehensible, ill-advised, awful, bad, wrong, et al i guess i still need to issue that disclaimer every time i say anything even remotely critical of whitey or Charlie during these discussions b/c ppl like you will try me w/this kind of bullshit.

i get it. you're dense. i know.

Like how after offering many similar disclaimers about rape being vile, abhorrent, reprehensible, ill-advised, awful, bad, wrong, et al but then brings up the notion that women shouldn't drink too much around dudes they don't know or the fact that false rape accusations do occur, the conversation quickly becomes emotionally heated and folks get call rape apologists, charged with victim blaming and people often argue that it is inappropriate to bring up those ancillary issues.

The parallels are interesting. Not sure why I brought it up because I definitely don't want the conversation to veer into that but it is interesting to be on the other side of that argument.

That's all.

I think we've hit a wall.

I would say that from my experience probably the most effective way to address the topic of the plight of oppressed Muslims in france would be to start another post.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

>I think we've hit a wall.

so, let's not.

.

http://images.cpcache.com/merchandise/514_400x400_NoPeel.jpg?region=name:FrontCenter,id:27721588,w:16

How are they a reaction to Whitey?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

and no media outlet gives a shit.
12 white people died and world leaders come together to hold a bullshit ass march.

That's how Boko Haram is tied to white supremacy.

All of this.

>respect the concerns/feelings of non-white ppl who happen to
>comprise disenfranchised minority populations in Europe and
>North America.
>
>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey conflating this request
>w/the terror threats levied by an overwhelmingly minority of
>the minority populations of Europe and North America.
>
>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey acting like they've never
>heard the phrase 'w/great power comes great responsibility'.
>
>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey going on and on about
>'rights' and 'freedom of expression' as if any of the rest of
>us disagree about that shit.
>
>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey acting brand new as if
>the 'right' to 'freedom of expression' means ppl NEVER
>self-censor when we all know that shit ain't true b/c if it
>were then whitey would call me 'nigger' and 'faggot' much more
>often.
>
>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey acting like some freedom
>is compromised if whitey self-censors not in response to
>threats but out of respect for the feelings of ppl who whitey
>steps on day in and day out and has for decades if not
>centuries w/no sign of easing the fuck up.
>
>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey.

Agreed

And the only thing worse than all that is black folks swooping in cosigning it, like we always seem to do.

>so pretty much fuck anyone who disagrees with you. got it.<

Correct!

>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey acting like some freedom
>is compromised if whitey self-censors not in response to
>threats but out of respect for the feelings of ppl who whitey
>steps on day in and day out and has for decades if not
>centuries w/no sign of easing the fuck up.
>
>i'm fucking sick and tired of whitey.

I've seen many more images of Muhammad that don't look like that depiction. Interesting what they chose

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France


Those are just off the top of my head. I don't know if calling this a freedom of speech issue is the right thing. More like not giving into terrorists, like Buddy_Gilapagos said in post #5.




R.I.P. to the shooting victims. Hope violence doesn't spread over there.

Not all speech is unprotected unequivocally anywhere.

And again this goes beyond free speech into personal security.

Off the top of my head.

There was a french blogger sued because her restaurant review was showing up to high in google and they made her pay damages and alter the review.

They've straight up banned pro Palestinian protests in Paris.

They're on a completely different level.

It really is the best counter-argument.

I think the short answer is yes they do, but it isn't the exact same as American Freedom of Speech. In fact, no other country in the world has the robust laws protecting speech the way the US does. That doesn't mean that they don't have a similar concept of "free speech".

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

If I went down to Mississippi and shot up the office of a stormfront, Klan or Neo-Nazi publication that had a circulation of 60,000 y'all would all agree that I was crazy.

Yet when these cats shoot up Charlie Hebdo which only has a 60k yall want to depict them as freedom fighters.

Again, if this is about a oppressed minority fighting back then I would say if they shot up government buildings or whoever was more directly involved with oppressing them then we would be having an entirely different conversation.

But they shot up some cartoonists yo.


At this point I am less interest in hearing what the libtards have to say on this and really want to hear from an honest to god OKP Muslim speak on this and hear if they think the gunman's reaction was a good ideal or even understandable.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

LOL

Most people aren't defending the shooters (who btw are dead). If this were just about them then it should be over all things considered right?

You shooting up a kkk office and them then turning around and taking it out on ALL Black people would be an issue for most which is exactly what is happening here.


>If I went down to Mississippi and shot up the office of a
>stormfront, Klan or Neo-Nazi publication that had a
>circulation of 60,000 y'all would all agree that I was crazy.
>
>
>Yet when these cats shoot up Charlie Hebdo which only has a
>60k yall want to depict them as freedom fighters.
>
>Again, if this is about a oppressed minority fighting back
>then I would say if they shot up government buildings or
>whoever was more directly involved with oppressing them then
>we would be having an entirely different conversation.
>
>But they shot up some cartoonists yo.
>
>
>At this point I am less interest in hearing what the libtards
>have to say on this and really want to hear from an honest to
>god OKP Muslim speak on this and hear if they think the
>gunman's reaction was a good ideal or even understandable.
>
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

to what I said.

RE: those shooters don't represent all muslims

I agree. Don't think I said otherwise.


>Most people aren't defending the shooters (who btw are dead).

Some people seem to be saying they "understand" the response.


>If this were just about them then it should be over all things
>considered right?

I don't know.

>
>You shooting up a kkk office and them then turning around and
>taking it out on ALL Black people would be an issue for most
>which is exactly what is happening here.

Yep. that's a reason why it's a bad idea.


>
>>If I went down to Mississippi and shot up the office of a
>>stormfront, Klan or Neo-Nazi publication that had a
>>circulation of 60,000 y'all would all agree that I was
>crazy.
>>
>>
>>Yet when these cats shoot up Charlie Hebdo which only has a
>>60k yall want to depict them as freedom fighters.
>>
>>Again, if this is about a oppressed minority fighting back
>>then I would say if they shot up government buildings or
>>whoever was more directly involved with oppressing them then
>>we would be having an entirely different conversation.
>>
>>But they shot up some cartoonists yo.
>>
>>
>>At this point I am less interest in hearing what the
>libtards
>>have to say on this and really want to hear from an honest
>to
>>god OKP Muslim speak on this and hear if they think the
>>gunman's reaction was a good ideal or even understandable.
>>
>>
>>
>>**********
>>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>>
>>http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

>If I went down to Mississippi and shot up the office of a
>stormfront, Klan or Neo-Nazi publication that had a
>circulation of 60,000 y'all would all agree that I was crazy.
>
I would have your picture on my wall

Assuming you survived I would find any and every opportunity to say "Free Buddy"

I would maybe say you were crazy, but your heart was in the right place

I would at worse say "he should have been smarter about how he carried out his actions"

but that's just me

The rest of you point is quite valid. As far as we know they weren't freedom fighters and they shot up some racist cartoonists. If they were aligned with a resistance effort we could argue on the validity of going after soft targets, guerrilla tactics vs conventional, etc., but that isn't the case.

Because they went after the power structure.

But going after people who ultimately don't have any power over you is a waste of time tactically and bad strategy.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

A number of police were and I'd assume still are in some way members. So much so that a law had to be passed "preventing" police from being active members. David Duke is a great example of the ties to the power structure in that respect. Also it was started by former Confederate soldiers. They use(d) violence in the form of what we now call terrorist tactics to carry out their agenda. So they are certainly worthy of an entirely equal response even to this day if you ask me.

Maybe they aren't the best example in this case. Going after say Walt Disney, Warner Brothers, or better yet Robert Crumb or Will Eisner would be more appropriate comparisons.

with no real power.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

They could be a bunch of grandmas knitting swastikas and confederate flags for all I care. They still carry the weight of their wrongs IMO and deserve to have their actions repaid with interest. No organization like that should be above the law. Meanwhile most of the Black Panther Party leadership is dead, exiled, or in jail right?

The people who sign my checks, hire me, decide what schools I can go to. They have power over me. If they are being racists they should be called out and dealt with.

I can't be concerned that two randys sitting on the back of truck want to call me the n word.

If anyone of those losers can send me into a murderous rage then they would have significant power over me.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Especially when the so called "law" is implicit in said scales being unbalanced.

I'm not saying your view is wrong-- I'm just more Daniel Day Lewis while you're a little more Tim Robbins on the subject. Both are great actors with different approaches to the craft.

>At this point I am less interest in hearing what the libtards
>have to say on this and really want to hear from an honest to
>god OKP Muslim speak on this and hear if they think the
>gunman's reaction was a good ideal or even understandable.

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/charlie-hebdo-france-satire-terrorism-understanding/Grantland logo

CHARLIE HEBDO

‘Je Suis Charlie’ and Where We Go From Here

We all know how it goes with modern atrocities. Every blood puddle gets turned into a Rorschach blot. The way it’s interpreted is guaranteed to expose unconscious (or even conscious) special pleading at best, and an agenda in search of opportunities at worst. Last week, all that happened like clockwork.

BY TOM CARSON ON JANUARY 13, 2015
Tribute To Charlie Hebdo At French Embassy In Buenos Aires
In photographs, the staff of Charlie Hebdo who got massacred in Paris last Wednesday looks like a happy crew. The atmosphere of exhilarated, jauntily scruffy mischief-making is familiar to me from my own alt-weekly days, and the feeling of intimacy was unsettling.

Outright identification would have been asinine, of course. No publication I worked for ever got firebombed, as Charlie Hebdo’s office was in 2011 for the effrontery of depicting the Prophet Muhammad while making him a guest editor — let alone carried on undeterred afterward, with results that we all now know. All the same, it was easy for me to imagine — or think I could imagine, anyhow — what editor-in-chief Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier and his colleagues who were also killed might have been like as individuals: their mannerisms, their jokes. I got upset at how quickly their deaths were depersonalized in the worldwide media scrum.

And so what? I might as well have kicked off a take on the 2005 London subway bombings by saying, “My god, I’ve ridden subways!” Or in this case, gone on about my incredulity at such a thing happening in Paris and not some other world capital whose history, language, and other tourist attractions I’m less smitten with.

But we all know how it goes with modern atrocities. Every blood puddle gets turned into a Rorschach blot. The way it’s interpreted is guaranteed to expose unconscious (or even conscious) special pleading at best, and an agenda in search of opportunities at worst. Last week, all of that happened like clockwork.

For starters: Yes, media outlets in Western democracies do react differently to horrors like this when members of our own guild are the targets. Also when they happen in France and not, say, Somalia — where a dozen journalists were killed in 2012 alone — and involve Caucasians. Boko Haram, a Muslim militant group, butchered 2,000 people in Nigeria last week — men, women, and children — and it goes without saying that the coverage wasn’t remotely comparable. Because the shock wasn’t comparable. I wouldn’t have insisted on the Nigerian body count’s greater newsworthiness myself. Never mind what that may say about double standards, parochial priorities, or simply being inured to the idea that hell is the norm in some parts of the world. Just not Paris, at least not yet.

♦♦♦

All the same, most Americans aren’t a lot more familiar with French social and cultural constructs than they are with Nigeria’s. (It’s not a sin, just a fact.) Until last week, precious few of us had ever heard of Charlie Hebdo, much less had any notion of the crass and impious journalistic tradition it belongs to. Anticlericalism is virtually France’s other religion — and has been since the Enlightenment, thanks to the Catholic Church’s once state-sanctioned leverage in public life — and the rude mockery known as gouaille, which exults in obscene caricature and take-no-prisoners toilet humor, is to French political and religious satire what guacamole is to the Super Bowl. It doesn’t affect the game’s outcome, but at least you won’t starve.

Indeed, one French blogger made the point that — First Amendment or no First Amendment — a publication like Charlie Hebdo would never be tolerated in the U.S. Not only would Fox News burst a gasket at its blasphemous takes on Christianity, but liberals ready to defend kicking Mike Huckabee in the teeth would change their tune as soon as Judaism or Islam came in for the same treatment. Just imagine the reaction on Stateside college campuses, which can be as hostile to free speech that trespasses on anyone’s sensibilities as any fundamentalist backwater.

(Another measure of the cultural gulf between Paris and New York is a quote from the martyred Charbonnier about Charlie Hebdo’s ambitions as an equal-opportunity offender: “We have to carry on until Islam has been rendered as banal as Catholicism.” Whatever you think of that goal, just try to imagine any U.S. editor choosing that particular adjective to define it. Do you feel uncivilized yet?)

Mass Unity Rally Held In Paris Following Recent Terrorist AttacksChristopher Furlong/Getty Images

The paradox is that, like other European countries, France does have laws against “hate speech” more stringent than anything in place on this side of the Atlantic — and their applicability keeps getting broadened, too. An American version of Charlie Hebdo would likely fold in the face of cultural opprobrium, sure. But it wouldn’t risk being charged with a crime, which the French one not infrequently did.

Among the other ominous absurdities noted in an op-ed piece by law professor Jonathan Turley in last Friday’s Washington Post, actress (and octogenarian head case) Brigitte Bardot has been convicted and fined several times for making anti-Muslim remarks — once in a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, who later became the French president. Imagining something similar happening to Rush Limbaugh may be fun, but we’re lucky it can’t and won’t. Loathing hate speech is one thing, but any time criminalizing it starts sounding like a dandy idea to you, remember — among other things — that you won’t be the one to define what it is.

Because the possible murder of 17 people, including the hostages killed in later standoffs, wasn’t on anyone’s radar, politicians and professional bloviators across the spectrum both here and in Europe became free-speech champions overnight. But that didn’t stop plenty of them from hastening to put daylight between the principle they were defending and Charlie Hebdo’s gleefully scurrilous demonstration of how it works in practice. It was an unfortunate side effect: advertising their discomfort with or outright dislike of unfettered speech.

Whenever I caught a gurgle of Olympian throat-clearing in somebody’s condemnation of the killings, I’d brace myself for the first “However,” which usually didn’t take long to show up. Attempts to distinguish between “good” free speech — judicious, responsible free speech that takes care not to insult or abuse anybody, which could make the NyQuil of Obama’s rhetoric seem dangerously exciting — and “bad” free speech are pretty fatuous under any circumstances. But wishing Charlie Hebdo had been a more commendable, less snotty sort of publication brutally misses the point.

Then again, thinking that freedom of speech was what Charb and his colleagues died for could just be the West’s latest romantic fallacy. The day of the attacks, Informed Comment blogger Juan Cole sharply debunked the idea that jihadis really are goaded to murder by offensive cartoons. (In accepting that as their motive, we do give them credit for sincerity, after all.) Cole sees the Charlie Hebdo massacre instead as a bid by Al Qaeda to provoke a crackdown on French Muslims that will escalate their alienation and radicalize them in turn, inflaming the conflict that radical Islamists and anti-Islam jingoes — unlike most of the rest of us, Muslim or not — both want. I’m not sure he’s right, but his analysis is a useful warning against getting misled by sentimentality.

In the meantime, we do have a cause to rally around, no matter how unclear it is what else we’re supposed to do besides rally. The enormous, grieving demonstrations in Paris and other Western capitals were moving and cathartic, but beyond expressing solidarity, what does saying “I am Charlie” mean? It’s not a program, although “What would Charlie do?” might be. The audience that bought tickets on Christmas for The Interview — a movie whose troubles now seem downright larky by comparison — had good reasons to feel proud of itself, and so do the millions who turned out to memorialize the Charlie Hebdo victims. What the effect will be on the policies of Western governments, let alone jihadis, is awfully nebulous.

On the other hand, the practical consequences of the attack itself aren’t hard to predict at all. Media outlets will be even more jittery about producing or even reproducing content that could make them the next target — an anxiety already evident from the many venues that either censored or just refused to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that allegedly provoked the killers, despite their obvious news value. The same politicians now voicing brave boilerplate about our freedoms will go right back to citing “irresponsibility” and “poor judgment” the next time some publication that hasn’t gotten the memo actually does something brave.

The lives of France’s Muslims will get crappier and riskier, and as for France’s Jews, they’re already reportedly emigrating in droves. As for the rest of us, all we’ve learned for sure is the same thing the world’s been teaching us since 9/11: no shelter anywhere.

Tom Carson (@TomCarsonWriter) is the author of Gilligan’s Wake and Daisy Buchanan’s Daughter.

This is a huge take away. Folks don't realize that when they go after Arabs even more so than Blacks-- Jews are next and we know where that can lead.

http://commondreams.org/views/2015/01/13/i-will-grieve-i-will-laugh-i-am-not-charlie

I am a satirical writer. On my good days, I find comedy in the contradictions of daily life, using humor to illuminate larger points about race, class, and the undeniable musical genius of Justin Bieber.

So when I heard about last week’s tragic murders at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, my first reaction was: Oh God, don't let this be real. 



Don't let this disgusting, heartbreaking thing be real. And please don't let this inevitable tragic backlash to Charlie Hebdo be real either.

Which led to my second reaction: Wait. Who the hell is Charlie Hebdo?

As I saw many of my Facebook friends (and even more of my Facebook enemies) taking up the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, I wondered, Do we really know who we’re claiming solidarity with? Is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend? Or is this a situation not of righteous heroes and evil enemies, but bad jokes and even worse policies?

Murder is murder. That line is clear. The attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris were murder. We should all grieve the twelve people whose lives were stolen, as well as the four people who were taken hostage and killed at the kosher market. We should also stand against the Islamophobic reaction from Western governments and media, from old douchebags like Rupert Murdoch to young douchebags like Don Lemon.

The definition of murder is clear (to everyone outside of NYPD internal affairs, that is), but other terms are more malleable to political calculations. According to mainstream media, the mass killers in France are “Islamic terrorists,” while the American generals who order drone strikes on children in Pakistan are “heroes of war.” Printing anti-Muslim cartoons is “freedom of speech,” while Holocaust jokes are “unacceptable” to a civilized society.

To which I say, as a Jew: it just depends on the Holocaust joke.

And that gets to the heart of what makes Charlie Hebdo such a problematic hero. Since the attacks, the American media has taken to calling the French publication a “satirical” magazine. To Americans, satire is something that is fun and harmless that you watch at night on Comedy Central. Here’s the thing, though: Charlie Hebdo isn’t the French version of Jon Stewart. It is closer to the bastard lovechild of Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, with all of their nastiness and even worse jokes.

In a country (France) and an era (post-9/11) where Muslims face rampant discrimination and often violent exclusion, Charlie Hebdo's cheap shots at Islam added fuel to the racist fire. I understand the desire to make fun of organized religion in all its absurdities, but it's possible to do that without graphic cartoons of Muhammad being sodomized. That's not brilliant satire, that's pornographic hate speech. And I don't know about you, but I prefer my porn without violent hatred.

Of course, the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve to be killed for their drawings. Not in a million years. But that doesn't mean that what they drew or published was worth defending in its own right. I love free speech as much as anyone, but I can separate the right of people to have free speech with my support for their actual speech. When the ACLU supported the right of neo-Nazis to march through the suburban shtetl of Skokie, IL, they didn't go around saying #IAmHitler.

Let's be fair: Charlie Hebdo isn't the graphic novel version of Mein Kampf. In fact, as much as some of my progressive friends don't want to admit it, it often leans politically more to the left than the right. The magazine ridicules fundamentalism in all forms, from the Pope to ultra-orthodox Jews. It was against the bombing of Gaza. This doesn't mean they're not bigots, it just means they're liberal bigots. (Something that we never have a problem with here in America. Right, Hollywood?)



While Charlie Hebdo mercilessly mocks others, it practices its own religion, a kind of "ultra-secularism" that I sometimes believe in myself. But as we’ve seen with Bill Maher, the problem with ultra-secularism, especially the so-called colorblind version, is that it believes that all targets are equally worthy of derision. And as Saladin Ahmed pointed out, "In a brutally unequal world, satire that mocks everyone equally ends up serving the powerful." (Note the countless presidents and dictators all rushing to march for free speech in Paris, then going home to suppress their own dissidents.)

From Lenny Bruce to Aaron McGruder, the number one rule of political comedy is to punch up. Make fun of the corporate billionaire who owns a golf course on each Hawaiian island -- not the chubby guy who has to work as a caddie just to pay the rent. That doesn’t mean that certain topics are off limits. It means that while in search of that big laugh, we should expose social divisions with the goal of empathy and solidarity -- not further division.

As the late great Molly Ivins said, “Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar.” 



Charlie Hebdo is cruel, vulgar, and what in their eyes would be the harshest criticism possible, just not funny. 

And as my uncle Jerry once told me: if it’s racist and it’s not funny, then it’s just racist.

So I will grieve. I will condemn the violence. I will push against the backlash. And I will fight and write and laugh in the hope that we can create a political world, an artistic world that is both principled and nuanced. And it precisely because of these principles and nuance that at the same time that I stand against the violence and the backlash, I also make it clear: 



I am not #Charlie. 


rape is bad and disgusting. BUT...........

Here's why it doesn't work.
People who are raped are victims.
The people killed in these attacks are victims.


Charlie Hebdo IS NOT a victim.


Your rape analogy, to be correct would go something like this.
A group of men rapes women. Over and over again. Some of them are more/less brutal than others.
A woman who wasn't raped kills one of the "gentler" rapist men. We'll say for reasons only marginally connected to the rapes.
Everyone blames the original rape victim women.
You get upset when we say "wait though, let's think about this group of men real quick." And then you complain that we're blaming the victim.


It's not a perfect analogy. But much closer to the truth than your lazy ass thinking.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

>
>Charlie Hebdo IS NOT a victim.

the girl who got raped is NOT a victim. she obviously wanted - and maybe even enjoyed - what she got

it might be best to ignore them.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

*tuts*

sowhat is using those goalposts somewhere else now, silly. and you're just gonna have to accept that he doesn't want to discuss this anymore, as was stated in his first reply to this thread

you and i vehemently disagree about this subject and that's fine. we will not ever agree. no amount of snarky replies between us is going to convince the other. so let's not.

we can disagree. we don't even have to agree to disagree. we are not friends, acquaintances, colleagues. i have not ever paid attention to your username before these CH threads. i don't give a damn what you think about this and you surely don't or shouldn't care what i think.

so let's just fuck off.

I don't know enough either way to say whether it is or is not racist but I can say I have not scene solid evidence that it is racist. I've heard a couple of people who have read it more frequently who says that it is not racist and that the people are taking jokes out of context (even the cover with the black person depicted as a monkey which was suppose to the POV of the right wing party).

I also disagree with the notion that satire should be "fun and harmless". I actually think there is a place for satire that gets people worked up and ruffle feathers. I didn't see the value of Chris Ofili's Dung Virgin Mary until I saw that it sent Rudy Giuliani into conniption fits.

I also generally get the idea of "punch up" but I think the intended target isn't the oppressed minority muslims but rather those who are intent on imposing their worldview and religion on others. At least thats the value I get out of it.

I can't think of any other time most of you would be sympathetic to a religious person/group trying to do that but some of y'all are making an exception because it involves oppressed minorities.

Seems like an odd exception to me to make. I guess that's why I bring up boko haram which involves black oppressed imposing their POV on more black oppressed I wonder how that fits into y'alls matrix of how to feel about it.

But I think we've had this argument already so I am ready to give up if y'all willing to admit we won't see eye to eye.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

i'm with you 100%

charlie hebdo is not attacking all muslims, nor contributing to their oppression. they're using satire to poke fun at the extremists who want to spread their fascist ideology and impose sharia on everybody. no racism, no hate speech.

it's funny that we're even having to defend this, because even if it is racist - which it isn't - it still wouldn't be alright to go and murder people because of it.

this is why it sounds like "she shouldn't get raped, BUT..."

http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/charliehebdo/Charlie_Hebdo_article%2011.htm

A former employee feels it might be racist.

there were no examples of racism in that article at all

a lot of opinions on the writers' supposed "islamophobia" and their comments on the ideology of islam, but no racism.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/271737960646?nav=SEARCH


dam

Charlie Hebdo should do a cartoon about blacks saluting a confederate flag
with big watermelon grins dancing to Iggy Azalea and caption it with "These niggas love us"

the negroes in this post defending these offensive cartoons is the real comedy

Had Josephine Baker dancing around wearing a bunch of banana's and everything.

everyone wants to be super progressive and post racial.

for all those who don't condone but "understand" why extremist muslims may be offended by these cartoons and who equate this struggle to black people's struggle in america, can you please provide some evidence of charlie hebdo being racist or hateful.

French Muslims - 10% of FRA Population/60% of FRA Prison Population

the analogy is not that far of a reach

I think it's just that we aren't aware of the issue in FRA.

In the I am not Charlie swipe posted above

it feels more like punching down than punching up

if something is racist and not funny, then it's just racist.

????

i asked for evidence of charlie hebdo being racist or hateful towards muslims, not how the two struggles are alike. lol

https://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+hebdo+racist+muslim+cartoons&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS555US555&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=tMu2VNqFKcLLmAXf7YLoAQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgdii=_

long beard
long nose
dick on his head (turban, I'm guessing)

the analogy to AA is a way for us to understand

if that was a caricature of a black man

it wouldn't be printed in the US.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/01/07/france-screaming-allau-akbarz-and-we-have-avenged-the-prophet-muslim-terrorists-attack-charlie-hebdo-satire-magazine-murdering-at-least-12-people/

what other conclusion would you arrive

considering muslims in FRA are an oppressed people?

>
>what other conclusion would you arrive
>
>considering muslims in FRA are an oppressed people?
>
>
>

not racist. "insulting" a prophet of their religion isn't racist.

i've yet to see anything that could qualify as racism

http://www.islamproject.org/education/Image9.jpg

looks like a high concentration of muslims in north africa and the middle east

if you can't equate that to race, call it what you want.

"hide behind" lol. hiding behind the fact that it's not racist, yeah i guess i am doing that.

still no evidence of racism as of yet

you'd do your own research instead of asking for examples
Google isnt difficult to use

Youre clearly out to disprove & ignore that the cartoons are racist

i've already done my research, player, and found no evidence of racism. i've got a website that might help you out though, it sure helped me:

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

https://artandhistory.wordpress.com/tag/charlie-hebdo/

http://anonhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/antimuslimattacks1.jpg

you're saying it's not racist

I asked what other conclusion would you arrive at?

you still haven't answered

so I guess this is a game of semantics

i already answered your question. the conclusion i arrived at is that it is not racist.

it's taking a shit on someone's beliefs and ideology, sure. but it's not racist

they are clearly grotesque ethnic caricatures/stereotypes of Semites/Muslims and Jews.

I have no doubt that if the target group were Africans or even African Americans they would be drawing minstrel-like black faced caricatures.

Also if it's true that this is Al Queda supported then we are talking about an act of war in which case-- as they say "all is fair".

as monkeys

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

"The cartoon was published after a National Front politician Facebook-shared a photoshop of Justice Taubira, drawn as a monkey, and then said on French television the she should be “in a tree swinging from the branches rather than in government” (she was later sentenced to 9 months of prison). The cartoon is styled as a political poster, calling on all far-right “Marine” racists to unify, under this racist imagery they have chosen. Ultimately, the cartoon is criticising the far-right's appeal to racism to gain supporters.

The cartoon was drawn by Charb. He participated in anti-racism activities, and notably illustrated the poster (below) for MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples), an anti-racist NGO."

no racism

The way they choose to portray Mohamed however is seemingly offensive (IMO) and I can see why radicals would use it as a vehicle to incite violence. The overall style of the mag is certainly grotesque and I can get with that as an art style since it seems equally applied. I think what Charlie was trying to convey though may have been actually more anti radical Islam than anti Muslim. I'm only speculating based off what I read.

I get the satire in what was presented via the link and if that's truly the gist of their Mohammed works then I can only wish them the best of luck in their war against radicals. I still think there is a way to honor that particular belief of Islam and still satirize Radical Islam though.

i can't say jesuischarlie but i'm not about censorship, especially when it is to appease murderous extremists and the idea people shouldn't do anything to upset them is stupid and really protects no one. because if we allow this, then there will be other innocuous things we'll have to stop doing because 'they may kill us' which is insanity

These are actually prime examples of the beef Suey Park had with Colbert.
Using racist images no matter your aim or intention still uses them and the people they represent for some privledged battle in ideals and still has the effect of cutting both ways, sometimes reinforcing the imagery.

The killing were atrocious, I still like Colbert but yes those images are still harmful because of their lazy and clumsy aim.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

so using satire to poke fun at a right-wing, racist party who used these images to disparage a black politican is racist.

ok

Lliana Bird

Charlie Hebdo: They're Not Racist Just Because You're Offended


Over the past few days I, along with the rest of the world, have been horrified by the terrible atrocities committed in France last week, beginning with the massacre at the Charlie Hedbo offices, and continuing through the streets of Paris and into the supermarket of a jewish community.

I was equally moved by the outpouring of love and solidarity which followed. No, it doesn't help bring back the deceased, but it demonstrated the unbreakability of the human spirit, and it highlighted the similarities of our humanity amongst men and women in a society so often fractured by our differences.

But one thing I've found difficult to ignore is the growing voices of those who knew little of the cartoonists and journalists saying terrible things about them, which are quite frankly unsettling.

"Racist", "Islamophobic" and "hypocritical" have been the most common accusations. Many seemingly educated friends and social media buddies seemed to be merely glancing at a few cherry-picked Charlie Hebdo covers without making any effort in understanding their true meaning or impetus (or often even of the French translation of the accompanying captions).

So to those smearing the names and reputations of men and women who are no longer here to defend themselves a few things that I thought it might be good to know....

Charlie Hedbo were leftists, some may even anarchists and punks. They printed numerous cartoons which were anti racism/xenophobia; that mocked and satirised the far right as bigots and racists. As long time reader and Frenchman, Olivier Tonneau pointed out in his excellent article, The National Front and the Le Pen family were in fact their primary targets above all others. Next came bosses, politicians and the corrupt. Finally they opposed organised religion. ALL organised religion. They didn't hate or abuse or target any one group or religion. They did however mock ALL systems and organisations and individuals of power - from political to religious to everything in between. They were satirists, and all people, systems and organisations should be open to criticism and mockery (so long as it sticks within the laws of the land). They were democratic in their ridicule and satirisation. No one was exempt. To do otherwise would have been the hypocritical. Equal rights also means equal treatment.

Accusations of Islamophobia alone seem to ignore the fact that the Pope, Jesus, Orthodox Jews (amongst many others) were targeted in equal measure. As the publication's lawyer Richard Malka said this week "In each edition for the past 22 years there has not been one where there have not been caricatures of the pope, jesus, priests, rabbis, immans or Mohammed." Although of course... perhaps you still believe they were Islamophobic, Christian-phobic, and anti-Semitic... but it seems it was not the every day believer they were intentionally targeting.

"We want to laugh at extremists - every extremist," surviving staff member Laurent Leger stated. "They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept".

Much has been made of the fact (and accusations of hypocrisy bandied around) over the fact that a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was sacked in 2009 over an alleged anti-Semitic cartoon (although its rarely noted this decision was taken by a long-since departed editor; that the sacked journalist ultimately won his unfair dismissal suit; and that this cartoon targeted a specific individual as opposed to an entire religion or idea), and many have asked why Muslims should expect to put up with things that Jews don't. Which would be a fair point, if it was true.

Judaism was frequently lampooned (a simple Google search will verify that). The Charlie Hebdo team were also very much pro-Gaza, and often fiercely critical of Israel's actions in the Israel-Palestine conflict. One series entitled 'One Commandment A Day: The Torah Illustrated by Charb' coarsely depicts Jews as contradicting their religious values in their interactions with Palestinians."Ne pas opprimer les faibles" ("Don't oppress the weak") is the title of a cartoon of a Jewish man firing an assault weapon into the back of a Palestinian woman. "Here, take that Goliath!," he shouts.

More in-depth research and conversations with those who were regular readers of the magazine reveal that Charlie Hebdo also strongly and regularly denounced the plight of minorities, they wrote in support of the Kurds, and they campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. One of Cabu's most famous creations was Mon Beauf, which caricaturised an ignorant, racist and bigoted Frenchman, and Bernard Velhac, also known as Tignous (and a member of Cartoonists for Peace) once said, "I would love to think that every time I make a drawing it prevents a kidnapping, a murder, or removes a land mine. What joy it would be! If I had that power I would stop sleeping and would make drawings non-stop."

As Oliver Tonneau so beautifully writes: "Two young French Muslims of Arab descent have not assaulted the numerous extreme-right wing newspapers that exist in France (Minute, Valeurs Actuelles) who ceaselessly amalgamate Arabs, Muslims and fundamentalists, but the very newspaper that did the most to fight racism... I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, then you lost precious friends and allies last week."

The comments section underneath this article will no doubt be full of remarks and examples of cartoons which appear to defy this and which seem to to scream "racism!" and honestly, it would take a far longer article than I could write here (or you would care to read of mine) to go through every single cartoon, analyse it, explain the context, the news item behind it, the cultural context, the nuances and history of French humour, satire and cartoons (which were used up to 400 years ago to mock religion, royalty and other powerful and oppressive institutions in a time when many people couldn't read and cartoons were essential in the fight against monarchy and the church).

Only then after all that might we appreciate that the cartoon depicting France's black Justice minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey was actually lampooning the blatant racism of a far right wing paper's front cover and thus exposing the thinly veiled racism of that publication (note that Taubira sued the paper Charlie Hebdo were parodying, and not Charlie Hebdo). By depicting the world through the lens of the extreme right's gaze they were attacking the racists, not the race.

We might also understand that the now widely shared front cover titled "Boko Haram Sex Slaves are angry" with the women shouting "don't touch our welfare" says the exact opposite of what it first appears at first glance. As Max Fisher explains in Vox this week far better than I could, "Charie Hebdo is a leftist magazine that supports welfare programs, but the French political right tends to oppose welfare programs... what this cover actually says is that the French political right is so monstrous when it comes to welfare for immigrants that they would have you believe that even Nigerian migrants escaping from Boko Haram sexual slavery are just here to steal welfare."

And we may appreciate that the very controversial cartoon of Mohammed being filmed naked titled "The film that embraces the Muslim world:" wasn't merely for the sake of putting him in a lewd position - it is a parody of a Brigitte Bardot scene in Jean-Luc Goddard's film Contempt thus satirising the outrage following the release of a controversial film about Islam.

Perhaps knowing all this and more you (or even I) may still find these and other cartoons extremely offensive (or worse) .

It's your right to feel that way, and to say as much as loudly as you like (and in doing so even to offend others). Freedom of speech means that some things people say and do are bound to offend you and vice versa. That's ok. As (a personal hero of mine) Majid Nawaz says you have every right to be offended, you do not have the right to not be offended.

Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute, no one sane would suggest it is. The laws of the land lay out what is and is not permissible. Defamation, incitement of violence and hate speech are just a few examples of where what you say crosses a line. But in France, religion is fair game.

Incitement of violence against Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc is not ok (or legal). But criticism and mockery of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or atheism and the ideas they represent is. People have rights. Ideas do not. And the law is there to punish those who cross that line.

If anyone genuinely felt that the Charlie Hebdo crossed that very line then they had the option to start legal proceedings (as the Catholic church did many times). Fear of being prosecuted is a valid one that journalists, comedians and even cartoonists consider. Fear of losing one's life shouldn't be. The law is there to guide us in what we say, and punish us when we go too far. If you don't feel that the law adequately represents the rights of muslims or anyone else for that matter, or that certain depictions of religious figures in cartoons shouldn't be permissable, you're free to say so, write about it, protest and campaign to change the law. You aren't however free to take the law into your own hands.

The thought that a religion, a set of beliefs, or an idea, could be above criticism or ridicule is, to me, a scary one which could lead us into very dangerous ground.

Ultimately the line between humour and offence is a thin one, and the posts will move from person to person. It's something satirists and stand up comedians are well aware of. And the boundaries are often pushed. I don't doubt many people would have found the Charlie Hebdo cartoons extremely offensive, and I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, but the insinuation that insulting/offending people may have invited this horrific tragedy on any level is tantamount in my eyes to the old age adage that a rape victim "asked for it" by wearing a short skirt. It's victim blaming at its very worst, and especially against people who fought in many ways for the rights of those who attacked them.

So long as offence remains within the bounds of what is legally acceptable, then it is just that - acceptable - whether you personally like it or not. And until the respective laws change, people are just going to have to like it or lump it (or live in a country where the laws are different).

As we all argue about what's right to say and what's wrong, what's offensive, and what's hypocritical, it might do us good to remember that 17 people died last week in the cruelest of ways. Each was their own person, no doubt differing in their morals, ethics, ideas and thoughts. Let's not call many of them names before they are even cold in the ground, although... of course, it's your right to do so if you like because most of you, like them, have similar freedom of expression. I may not like you insulting them, and you may not like anything that i've said in this article, but as you write your comment in section underneath (perhaps about what a stupid idiot you think I am) just remember that Charlie Hebdo's staff died standing up for your right to do so.

...long before this happened:

http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/charliehebdo/Charlie_Hebdo_article%2011.htm

Some relevant parts:

"I was no longer part of Charlie Hebdo when the suicide planes made their impact on your editorial line, but the Islamophobic neurosis which bit by bit took over your pages from that day on affected me personally, as it ruined the memory of the good moments I spent on the magazine during the 1990s. The devastating laughter of “Charlie” which I had loved to hear now sounded in my ears like the laugh of a happy idiot getting his cock out at the checkout counter, or of a pig rolling in its own shit. And yet, I never called your magazine racist. But since today you are proclaiming, high and loud, your stainless and irreproachable anti-racism, maybe it’s now the right moment to seriously consider the question."

(this section cuts right to the core IMO) "The obsessive pounding on Muslims to which your weekly has devoted itself for more than a decade has had very real effects. It has powerfully contributed to popularising, among “left-wing” opinion, the idea that Islam is a major “problem” in French society. That belittling Muslims is no longer the sole privilege of the extreme right, but a “right to offend” which is sanctified by secularism, the Republic, by “co-existence”. And even - let’s not be stingy with the alibis! - by the rights of women. It’s widely believed today that the exclusion of a veiled girl is a sign, not of stupid discrimination, but of solid, respectable feminism, which consists of pestering those whom one claims to be liberating. Draped in these noble intentions that flatter their ignorance and exempt them from any scruples, we see people with whom we were close, and whom we believed mentally healthy, abruptly start to cut loose with a stream of racist idiocies."

"To Charlie Hebdo, it’s always been good form to scoff at the “fat idiots” who like football and watching TF1 . A slippery slope. Belief in one’s own superiority, accustomed to looking down on the common herd, is the surest way to sabotage one’s own intellectual defences and to allow them to fall over in the least gust of wind. Your own, although supported by a good education, comfortable income and the pleasant team spirit of “Charlie’s gang”, collapsed at a stupefying speed. I remember a full-page article by Caroline Fourest which appeared on June 11 2008. In it, she recounted her friendly meeting with the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot, who had gotten some grief for representing his Muslim fellow-countrymen in a particularly hilarious way. Judge for yourself: an imam dressed as Santa Claus buggering a goat, with the caption: “We have to share our traditions”. Or an Arab, slumped on a couch and lost in thought: “The Qur’an doesn’t say if you have to do anything to be on the dole for 30 years.” Or even the “monument to the slavery of white indigenous taxpayers”: a Dutch person in foot shackles, carrying a black person on his back, arms crossed and sucking on a pacifier. Foul racism? Oh come on, it’s freedom of expression! Certainly, Fourest granted, the slightly coarse humour of her friend “doesn’t always travel well”, but it must be understood “in the Dutch context which is ultra-tolerant, even angelic, towards fundamentalism.” Whose fault is it if Muslims leave themselves open to gags with export difficulties? That of Muslims themselves and their over-angelic allies, obviously. As Nekschot himself explained to Charlie Hebdo’s readers, “Muslims must understand that humour has been part of our tradition for centuries.”

No-one in your office up and quit after this insufficiently-noticed page, which after all did no more than sanctify a process which had begun six or seven years earlier. Birds of a tolerant feather flock together. But when I read this in your Le Monde article: “We are almost ashamed to remind you that anti-racism and passion for equality of all human beings are and will remain the founding principles of Charlie Hebdo”, the only information I got from it is that your team are not completely immune to shame. Really?"

"It’s rare that Charlie Hebdo is not cited to support the golden rule authorising us to spew all over Muslims. And, since your disciples have learned their lessons well, they never fail to exclaim when they’re caught red-handed: “But it is our right to mock religions! Don’t confuse legitimate criticism of Islam with anti-Arab racism!"

And this was coming from one of them. Whatever...

i still see no evidence of racism there at all.

the cartoons of an imam fucking a goat and the muslim on the dole were drawn by a dutch guy for another magazine.

all these allegations are falling short

"Everyone" knows those guys were leftist intellectuals. That doesn't mean they weren't part of the problem, that their satire and the nature of it isn't immune to criticism. The cartoon of the girls with hijab screaming for welfare was on the fucking cover; it was what greeted people in the stores that sold the mag. If anything, the supposedly well-meaning intentions of the satire seems to have been used as an excuse, a license if you will to make cheap jokes on behalf of the muslim minority while still keeping their hands clean...

>"Everyone" knows those guys were leftist intellectuals. That
>doesn't mean they weren't part of the problem, that their
>satire and the nature of it isn't immune to criticism. The
>cartoon of the girls with hijab screaming for welfare was on
>the fucking cover; it was what greeted people in the stores
>that sold the mag. If anything, the supposedly well-meaning
>intentions of the satire seems to have been used as an excuse,
>a license if you will to make cheap jokes on behalf of the
>muslim minority while still keeping their hands clean...

It's lazy and still harmful
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Do you think any radical muslims are diving into these images to get to the meat of the issue? Especially when they don't condone cartoons of the profit to begin with?

This would be like a lefty newspaper drawing Hillary Clinton in black face holding tea bags to prove how racist the Tea Party is...

and it would be viewed because its a racist image.

When I see the explanation for drawing a black woman as a monkey its smells like bullshit. Its an excuse used to mass produce a cartoon of a black woman as a monkey.

cool, so they weren't racist. glad we're finally in agreement

Just like it's about ethics in journalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSMJb0fcWt4&bpctr=1421266802

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

They're printing the cartoon because they are a private organisation, it's not illegal, and they want to.

-->

?

why do they want to print this?

White privledge isn't exclusive to french politics
We know this, we understand this in this country, we know its still hurtful and harmful to be used in ideology politics by the privileged class no matter the intention

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Useful to read for those struggling to understand the context of grotesque and seemingly racist/sexist/homophobic cartoons.

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

Not that it'll stop every Internet user with zero knowledge of French politics and satire judging them at face value still, but yeah, the information is there if you want to stop making quite such idiots of yourself in public.