Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Mr. S]

Versailles... I've bought a lot of Charlie Hebdo issues there in the 90's
Not a small city, but known to be a bastion of christian conservatism

Funny thing, 2 colleagues and I used to live in the same house right in front of the Saint Louis Cathedral - not in the same flat, it was just by chance that we all got appartments on the same floor.

Anyway, there was some sort of big visit, lots of church people coming around...one of my colleagues threw condoms out his window. Let's just say people looked up and had a less than happy expression on their faces. Ahhh...Versailles, je t'aime!

 

[Famine]

However, the BBC today clarified its policy that it is not necessary to refrain from depicting the prophet Mohammed, as evinced by tonight's Panorama where the cover of the 'guest-editted' edition of Charlie Hebdo was shown full screen and uncensored.

The BBC and other broadcasters tread the fine line that is at the centre of this particular debate - adhering to the principle of free speech while avoiding causing unnecessary offense. BBC News 24 and the 6 O'Clock News quite probably have a different editorial policy to that of Newsnight or Panorama... they clearly do, since one will show potentially offensive pictures while the others don't, hence it's not entirely accurate to suggest that the BBC capitulate to terrorists.

I'd imagine that very few would-be terrorists have a current-affairs-heavy favourites list on iPlayer. In fact I'd take a guess that the majority of UK-based ones would only stretch as far as BBC News and the overwhelming majority of non-UK-based ones would only be able to catch what was formerly the World Service (if they watch BBC broadcasts at all) or the BBC News website.

So while the distinction between editorial policies for BBC News and Panorama for UK residents who watch such things may clearly show that the latter's willingness to show the cover of CharlieHebdo means the BBC as a whole has not cowed in the face of terrorism, the outward face is one of capitulation. In France at the scene of the crime and in Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Leeds* or other terrorist breeding grounds, the great British national broadcaster is afraid to show the image to the point of blurring it out.

It doesn't even need propaganda or spin - blurring it is a clear message.

*Satire

 

[Ibonibo]

Don't lose your sense of humor in face of tragedy, sign reads:

Being islamist, ending in a kosher supermarket.
Kill a newspaper and die in a print shop.
If God exists, he has humor!

"Dieu est un comédien jouant devant un public trop effrayé pour rire."
(François-Marie Arouet, dit Voltaire)

God is a comedian playing infront of a public to scared to laugh

...

"c'est la société qui corrompt l'homme"
(Jean-Jacques Rousseau)

"Society corrupts the human"

 

[Dennisch]

Funny, I went to work this morning and stopped by the news stand (this is in Versailles, so it's not a small city) and asked the guy to reserve some Charlie Hebdo copies for me.

I did the same thing, even though the guy wasn't sure he would even receive any copies. But if so, I seemed to be the first and only to ask for them.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'd imagine that very few would-be terrorists have a current-affairs-heavy favourites list on iPlayer. In fact I'd take a guess that the majority of UK-based ones would only stretch as far as BBC News and the overwhelming majority of non-UK-based ones would only be able to catch what was formerly the World Service (if they watch BBC broadcasts at all) or the BBC News website.

So while the distinction between editorial policies for BBC News and Panorama for UK residents who watch such things may clearly show that the latter's willingness to show the cover of CharlieHebdo means the BBC as a whole has not cowed in the face of terrorism, the outward face is one of capitulation. In France at the scene of the crime and in Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Leeds* or other terrorist breeding grounds, the great British national broadcaster is afraid to show the image to the point of blurring it out.

It doesn't even need propaganda or spin - blurring it is a clear message.

*Satire

There is a school of thought that one should not change one's normal behaviour in the face of terrorist threats or terrorist activity. For the mainstream BBC to publish an image of the prophet Mohammed would be exactly that. To alter one's editorial policy across the board to avoid causing offense would constitute a change in behaviour and would indeed be a capitulation to the terrorists, but that is not what the BBC have done.

The Guardian newspaper have done something similar - they have published tomorrow's cover in an online article, but one needs to scroll down the page to find a thumbnail-sized image of it, underneath a bolded warning (visible at the top of the page without scrolling) that "this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive." That is not their normal behaviour, but both the BBC and the Guardian are at least showing the image when they could just as easily have not shown it at all.

Both are sticking to the principle of free speech while also demonstrating at least some level of consideration for the fact that not everyone wants to see these pictures - it seems like a sensible attitude to me... publish the pictures in a manner that those who want to see them can see them, but those who don't want to see them are unlikely to see them.

 

[Famine]

There is a school of thought that one should not change one's normal behaviour in the face of terrorist threats or terrorist activity. For the mainstream BBC to publish an image of the prophet Mohammed would be exactly that. To alter one's editorial policy across the board to avoid causing offense would constitute a change in behaviour and would indeed be a capitulation to the terrorists, but that is not what the BBC have done.

You're not thinking like a terrorist.

Terrorist attack occurs because journalists make images of Mohamed. Journalists after the attack blur out images of Mohamed.

It doesn't matter whether they would have blurred it out beforehand or not - and it turns out that from guidance published by Question Time and subsequently removed from the BBC website under the guise of revision, they would have done:

Due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence. The Prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape of form.

, rather how they treat it afterwards. Not showing the cover at all would have at least been a halfway house that needs interpretation, but showing it and blurring it out is a message in the head of terrorist Islamists that what's on the cover is offensive because terrorist Islamists find it offensive. It's "You win, we'll say it's offensive too" - remembering that the goal is to spread Islam and this obliteration of religious iconography forms one of the principles (or at least one of theirs).


It's actually worth noting that Islam is something of an iconoclastic religion anyway. Images of living things are generally held to be distasteful and a surprising amount of Islamic art is geometric in nature, absent not only of Mohammed but humans, animals and even plants (though not exclusively).

Mohammed, incidentally, is only the second most important thing not to draw, behind Allah - so let's hope no-one gets any bright ideas about sky pixie labelling.

 

[tarnheld]

"Dieu est un comédien jouant devant un public trop effrayé pour rire."
(François-Marie Arouet, dit Voltaire)

God is a comedian playing infront of a public to scared to laugh

Voltaire, a true satirist!

Have to add another one from him:

J'ai toujours fait une prière à Dieu, qui est fort courte. La voici: Mon Dieu, rendez nos ennemis bien ridicules! Dieu m'a exaucé.​

I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: "O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!" God granted it.​

 

[Dotini]

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-and-the-profiteers-of-tragedy/
While some may seek to valorize Charlie Hebdo as unmitigated heroes, no libertarian – or decent person, for that matter – could react with anything other than revulsion to this cartoon which celebrates the murder of peaceful demonstrators by Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

 

[Famine]

While some may seek to valorize Charlie Hebdo as unmitigated heroes, no libertarian – or decent person, for that matter – could react with anything other than revulsion to this cartoon which celebrates the murder of peaceful demonstrators by Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Why? Is it because it's easier than reacting with anything other than revulsion to the murder of peaceful demonstrators by Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and doing anything about it?

Incidentally, the first word on the cartoon is "slaughter". Doesn't seem all that celebratory to me. Also the image has been removed as it contains an expletive which we don't permit on the site even in a foreign language in a picture - the link will have to suffice.

 

[Dennisch]

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-and-the-profiteers-of-tragedy/
While some may seek to valorize Charlie Hebdo as unmitigated heroes, no libertarian – or decent person, for that matter – could react with anything other than revulsion to this cartoon which celebrates the murder of peaceful demonstrators by Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

I see something different in that cartoon.
It ridicules the slaughter of the protester rather than glorifying it.

Edit.

Indigo tree'd

 

[tarnheld]

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-and-the-profiteers-of-tragedy/
While some may seek to valorize Charlie Hebdo as unmitigated heroes, no libertarian – or decent person, for that matter – could react with anything other than revulsion to this cartoon which celebrates the murder of peaceful demonstrators by Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

There is no celebration, but reacting to cruel killing with satire. If you aren't socialized with that, it will disgust you, but you should be more disgusted by the actual slaughter.

Edit: see above.

 

[Dotini]

Why?

Printing offensive and tasteless cartoons serves the terrorist purpose by sharpening the contradictions - it polarizes society along ethno-religious lines. It plays directly into the hands of the American neocons and the European far right parties. Thus, no libertarian can support such propaganda.

You should know that the neocons, who are in power and getting stronger, want war. They want more boots on the ground in the Middle East, and they want to topple Russia and Iran. They are on a mission of creative destruction. Why should we help them?

 

[Famine]

Printing offensive and tasteless cartoons serves the terrorist purpose by sharpening the contradictions - it polarizes society along ethno-religious lines. It plays directly into the hands of the American neocons and the European far right parties. Thus, no libertarian can support such propaganda.

Ropey reasoning aside, why does that mean that any decent person has to be revolted by it?

Incidentally, I support it on the principle of freedom of expression of a private entity.

You should know that the neocons, who are in power and getting stronger, want war. They want more boots on the ground in the Middle East, and they want to topple Russia and Iran. They are on a mission of creative destruction. Why should we help them?

Why should we censor them, or anyone else, based on what you interpret as something offensive? What does anyone have to fear from a free press to make them revolted by the thought of it?

 

[Dennisch]

offensive and tasteless cartoons .

For one person. Someone else might think they're funny.

 

[Mr. S]

I did the same thing, even though the guy wasn't sure he would even receive any copies. But if so, I seemed to be the first and only to ask for them.

I made a reservation for 3. I hope that I'm getting one.

 

[Dotini]

Incidentally, I support it on the principle of freedom of expression of a private entity.

The principle of freedom of expression of a private entity is important. I believe it.

But also important is to avoid being used or manipulated to serve the purposes of Islamic terrorists and their symbiotic counterparts in the West - the neocons and European far right.

I'm trying to help you see that your noble instincts are being used against you.

 

[Famine]

The principle of freedom of expression of a private entity is important. I believe it.

But also important is to avoid being used or manipulated to serve the purposes of Islamic terrorists and their symbiotic counterparts in the West - the neocons and European far right.

I'm trying to help you see that your noble instincts are being used against you.

They often are. We don't abandon our principles because other people don't hold them - that's when we must hold them firmest of all.

Though how they're being used against me by a cartoon about the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators that you say is celebrating that slaughter, to the point of me having to be revolted by it if I'm a decent person escapes me still.

 

[Dotini]

Though how (my noble instincts) are being used against me...escapes me still.

If you are a decent person - and I know you are - you will be revolted by London, Paris and Madrid being ankle deep in blood, new Western armies on the march in the Middle East, and open military conflict with Moscow and Tehran. Europe and Europeans have a lot to lose by such a scenario. By worsening relations with European Muslims, you are bringing this nightmare closer to reality.

But perhaps I shouldn't care. I'm elderly and don't have much longer to live. And there is a school of thought that holds that the US is elevated when all others are lowered. Perhaps human life is redeemed when an important principle is clung to, even as a continent descends into bloodshed and ruin.

 

[Touring Mars]

You're not thinking like a terrorist.

Phew. I agree to some extent with your point, but it is also true that many Charlie Hebdo covers are gratuitously offensive (like this one) and few respectable broadcasters or publishers in the UK are likely to show them under any circumstances for that reason alone, whether or not it appears to somehow support the terrorist mindset. You are quite right to say that we don't think like terrorists and nor should we - we are damned if we do and damned if we don't by their reckoning anyway, so there comes a point where considering the feelings of those who are prepared to commit mass murder becomes a pointless task.

Printing offensive and tasteless cartoons serves the terrorist purpose by sharpening the contradictions - it polarizes society along ethno-religious lines. It plays directly into the hands of the American neocons and the European far right parties. Thus, no libertarian can support such propaganda.

My favourite movie of all time ends with a bunch of Christians nailed to crucifixes by the Romans, and singing 'Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life'. It's pretty tasteless and terribly offensive to some Christians. It's still my favourite film because it's hilariously funny.

 

[numbnuts70]

Turkish news

 

[tarnheld]

They do it again! Despicable german satiricists mock "Je Suis Charlie" supporters.
And they tricked me to post this image because they wrote "Please share" next to it!

That's satire, folks!

 

[Dotini]

My favourite movie of all time ends with a bunch of Christians nailed to crucifixes by the Romans, and singing 'Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life'. It's pretty tasteless and terribly offensive to some Christians. It's still my favourite film because it's hilariously funny.

My favorite movie is Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. It is hilariously funny, with masterly performances by Peter Sellers, Sterling Hayden, George C. Scott and others.

In 1989, the United States Library of Congress included it in the first group of films selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. It was listed as number three on AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

The movie ends with the explosion of an hydrogen bomb triggering the automated destruction of all human and animal life on Earth.

 

[Famine]

If you are a decent person - and I know you are - you will be revolted by London, Paris and Madrid being ankle deep in blood, new Western armies on the march in the Middle East, and open military conflict with Moscow and Tehran.

Then either you're not using the word "revolted" in the fashion I expect, or I'm not a decent person.

In any case, I do not accept that I should be equally appalled by murder and by cartoon depictions of murder, even if they're celebrating that murder which doesn't seem to be an appropriate interpretation of a cartoon labelled "slaughter in Egypt".

Europe and Europeans have a lot to lose by such a scenario.

We have far less to lose than Americans. We don't have Constitutionally guaranteed free expression, for example - making schoolyard jokes on Twitter is a custodial offence in the UK, foolishly questioning the more inhumane aspects of WW2 is similarly punishable in Germany...

We can only die as a result of it - you lot can lose your freedom before you die.

By worsening relations with European Muslims, you are bringing this nightmare closer to reality.

By and large, European Muslims are those who have adapted to European culture thanks to the principles of multiculturalism. Here is somewhere they can have Halal butchers and mosques within their communities free from religious persecution - in exchange for not visiting religious persecution upon others. There are still members of the community who adhere to cultural practices that are not necessarily even part of the religion and think that women should be married off for the family, daughters should be circumcised and some things should never be said or thought, with a very small selection of those willing to beget extreme violence on others who disagree - but then there's still members of the Christian community even in the enlightened West who believe women should not be allowed to abort, birth control is immoral and some things should never be said or thought, with a very small selection of those willing to beget extreme violence on others who disagree. It's not innate to any one religion, but to the fact that some people are utter :censored:s - even some atheists think that women should be seen and not heard and blacks are inferior (qv James Watson selling his Nobel).

"European Muslims" are not the people offended by an image of Mohammed and it's not damaging to our relations with them for a French language magazine to carry such an image. They might be a bit ticked off if they woke up one morning to find their house plastered with inward-facing reproductions of it and bacon on their doorhandle, but then I'd be pissed off if someone did that to their house too. Or mine, come to think of it.

Phew.

Quite so!

I agree to some extent with your point, but it is also true that many Charlie Hebdo covers are gratuitously offensive (like this one) and few respectable broadcasters or publishers in the UK are likely to show them under any circumstances for that reason alone, whether or not it appears to somehow support the terrorist mindset.

Again, the problem with offensiveness is perspective. Even nearly universally offensive things like "the N-word" are apparently not offensive in certain contexts - where one comedian can use the word off the cuff and lose his career while another can use it in a targeted fashion as an insult against black members of the community and it be considered the high point of his, just because the former is white and the latter is black... And also because he went on to star in Lethal Weapon 4, which was no-one's high point.

But by and large I agree - though the gratuitously offensive nature of the image to which you link is the hypocrisy of the Church's stance on homosexual marriage - that there are occasions where someone blithers whatever's in their head just to get a reaction because a reaction is attention and attention is, in their head, immortality. Katie Hopkins, for example.

Yet there is a world of difference between not giving Katie Hopkins any attention by not broadcasting her and giving her attention by broadcasting her but dubbing her voice with someone else's to censor her* - or not giving CharlieHebdo's covers attention by not broadcasting it and giving them attention by broadcasting it blurred out. The former says nothing, the latter says "We are afraid of the consequences of this being shown unedited".

You are quite right to say that we don't think like terrorists and nor should we

Sun Tzu would disagree. We have to think like them, even an enemy irrationally hell-bent on our destruction, in order to deal with them appropriately.

Western responses thus far to assaults on our freedoms have been to remove the freedoms so they can't be assaulted...

but we are damned if we do and damned if we don't by their reckoning anyway, so there comes a point where considering the feelings of those who are prepared to commit mass murder becomes a pointless task.

At which point you have to ask... if it's an opt-in medium, whose feelings are you considering by blurring or censoring (as in South Park) the images? It would appear to only be the people who might kill you for it - and they probably want to kill you anyway because you're not what they'd see as a Muslim, even if you are one. Hell, they killed Ahmed Merabet...

My favourite movie of all time ends with a bunch Christians nailed to crucifixes by the Romans, singing 'Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life'. It's pretty tasteless and terribly offensive to some Christians. It's still my favourite film because it's hilariously funny.

Quoting for the Like. Also it was decried as blasphemous by the CofE, I recall, and picketed by people like Mary Whitehouse - though no deaths or arson attacks that I remember...

*Or making her breathe helium... Chris Morris is awesome.

 

[novcze]

Terrorist attack occurs because journalists make images of Mohamed. Journalists after the attack blur out images of Mohamed.

It doesn't matter whether they would have blurred it out beforehand or not - and it turns out that from guidance published by Question Time and subsequently removed from the BBC website under the guise of revision, they would have done:, rather how they treat it afterwards. Not showing the cover at all would have at least been a halfway house that needs interpretation, but showing it and blurring it out is a message in the head of terrorist Islamists that what's on the cover is offensive because terrorist Islamists find it offensive. It's "You win, we'll say it's offensive too" - remembering that the goal is to spread Islam and this obliteration of religious iconography forms one of the principles (or at least one of theirs).


It's actually worth noting that Islam is something of an iconoclastic religion anyway. Images of living things are generally held to be distasteful and a surprising amount of Islamic art is geometric in nature, absent not only of Mohammed but humans, animals and even plants (though not exclusively).

Mohammed, incidentally, is only the second most important thing not to draw, behind Allah - so let's hope no-one gets any bright ideas about sky pixie labelling.

Why should anyone care about what some religious lunatics find offensive, I can draw mohamed and alah right now and post it on the internet, right next to jesus, shiva, odin, thor, etc.
If anyone find it offensive they should seek mental help.

 

[tarnheld]

My favorite movie is Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. It is hilariously funny, with masterly performances by Peter Sellers, Sterling Hayden, George C. Scott and others.

In 1989, the United States Library of Congress included it in the first group of films selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. It was listed as number three on AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

The movie ends with the explosion of an hydrogen bomb triggering the automated destruction of all human and animal life on Earth.

This is a great movie! A favorite movie of mine is The Great Dictator from and with Charlie Chaplin, which foreshadows the Nazi atrocities only known to full extent much later, and that the followers of appeasement policy wanted to prohibit before the second World War.

 

[Milouse]

Someone, probably as annoyed as i am to see so many messages depicting Charlie Hebdo cartoons as racist/hateful, which is the exact opposite of its core values, has posted a must-read analyse:
http://junkee.com/the-problem-with-jesuischarlie/48456

The Taubira case with vs without context example is the most self-speaking one. (another article worth reading here: http://flyingfrenchy.kinja.com/charlie-hebdo-and-why-its-always-been-an-anti-racist-ne-1678770097)

Depict or caricature racism does not endorse racism.

 

[Johnnypenso]

New video:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/13/lv-bts-new-video-charlie-hebdo-attack.cnn

 

[Dotini]

Depict or caricature racism does not endorse racism.

This might be true if revised to state that it does not always endorse racism. Because its not possible to assert that every depiction of racism does not endorse racism. So it becomes a fine point of discrimination to discern which is which, and it is too often lost upon those without the requisite education or sophistication.

Because of race issues in America, most officials, educators, HR departments and careful people will simply avoid such depictions, and when confronted with them, may declare them all racist out of an abundance of caution.

PS, I looked at the cartoons in those links, and I can assure you they would not be allowed in the work place, in public places or on the public air in America. They are really for sophisticated people to enjoy in private, and shouldn't be pushed on an unsophisticated public.

 

[Boffin]

Hi all, would someone in France be able to secure a copy of the return edition of Charlie Hebdo for me? I understand that they are in high demand but it would be greatly appreciated. Last time I was in the country was 10 years ago and I enjoyed reading them then. There are no stockists in Australia and even more so now, any niche bookshop is grappling to order in 10 copies for every 100 demands. People are offering on reddit but I thought I would try in a community I am comfortable with first. Happy to take to private messaging.

 

[tarnheld]

This might be true if revised to state that it does not always endorse racism. Because its not possible to assert that every depiction of racism does not endorse racism. So it becomes a fine point of discrimination to discern which is which, and it is too often lost upon those without the requisite education or sophistication.

Because of race issues in America, most officials, educators, HR departments and careful people will simply avoid such depictions, and when confronted with them, may declare them all racist out of an abundance of caution.

PS, I looked at the cartoons in those links, and I can assure you they would not be allowed in the work place, in public places or on the public air in America. They are really for sophisticated people to enjoy in private, and shouldn't be pushed on an unsophisticated public.

I understand your point, but the discrimination you talk about happens all the time. I was born in the eastern part of germany, was a child when the wall came down, happy to only get a glimpse of living in an totalitarian regime. I have experienced people just talking unknowingly annoying stuff about the "Ossis", and i know the sting that you feel. But most of the time they just have prejudices, and you don't overcome them when you just not talk about it. So i show them the "Zonengabi" from Titanic magazine and we laugh about it and it helps to break the ice.

I can imagine that a lot of minorities are annoyed from the jokes or remarks the ignorant people make all the time, it's the small things that can make you mad. But satire can help here, by just bringing it to the surface in a ridiculous way.

You don't fight racism or prejudice by silence.