Join the discussion about Charlie Hebdo - closed

796 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

NDPP wrote:

Perfect timing...

Working on a conspiracy?Wink

NS NS's picture

Sympathy for victims and their families and because freedom of expression, press also brings responsibility to not incite violence, hatred or prejudice againsts those who are already marginalized

#JeNeSuisPasCharlie

https://twitter.com/hashtag/JeNeSuisPasCharlie?src=hash

"Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic"

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

 

NorthReport

According to his classmates he was in school when they attack took place. They might have the wrong guy, eh!

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Youngest Suspect in Charlie Hebdo Attack Turns Himself In 

NorthReport

Charlie Hebdo’s most controversial content revolved around Islam

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/charlie-hebdos-most-controver...

NorthReport

Informative article Smith. Thanks.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Youngest Suspect in Charlie Hebdo Attack Turns Himself In

Quote:
 

The youngest suspect in today's deadly attack at a satirical newspaper's office in Paris has turned himself in, French police said, while the other two are "on the loose, armed and dangerous."French authorities have named the three suspects who they believe are responsible for the shooting deaths of 12 people, U.S. law enforcement officials told ABC News.

Officials identified the suspects as Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, two relatives both in their 30s and still at large, and 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, who police say is cooperating after his surrender in the French town of Charleville-Mezieres, about 2 miles north of Paris.

Cherif Kouachi, 34, is listed in a private database, ABC News has confirmed.

Kouachi, along with six others, was sentenced in May 2008 to 3 years in prison for terrorism in Paris. All seven men were accused of sending about a dozen young Frenchmen to join Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, after funneling them through radical religious establishments in Syria and Egypt. French authorities believed Kouachi had been planning to go to Syria for training in 2005. 

6079_Smith_W

"Most controversial" because they were singled out, or because some people threatened violence over that content? The article seems to imply the latter. By contrast, Frances sent condolences today.

And also, good article.

That twitter feed makes for interesting reading, not just because of the reference to Mein Kampf. Not surprisingly, some who object to criticism of organized religion aren't Charlie either.

Think the rich and powerful are all sad to see them brought down? I don't.

 

 

NS NS's picture

Smith,

These guys knew what they were doing

They courted controversy by constantly baiting and provoking depictions of Muslims and Arabs

"Charlie Hebdo was launched in 1969 but folded in 1981. However it was resurrected in 1992. Its circulation was not very big."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710545?

Gee I wonder how they boosted circulation and profit?

 

NorthReport

12 people in the journalism field were just slaughtered.

Not sure now, if ever, is the right time to be critical of them.

Perhaps today at least, a little perspective might be appropriate

NS wrote:

Smith,

These guys knew what they were doing

They courted controversy by constantly baiting and provoking depictions of Muslims and Arabs

"Charlie Hebdo was launched in 1969 but folded in 1981. However it was resurrected in 1992. Its circulation was not very big."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710545?

Gee I wonder how they boosted circulation and profit?

 

Glenl

NS wrote:

Smith,

These guys knew what they were doing

They courted controversy by constantly baiting and provoking depictions of Muslims and Arabs

 

Capital punishment for provocative cartoons. Seems a bit harsh to me.

onlinediscountanvils

NorthReport wrote:

12 people in the journalism field were just slaughtered.

Not sure now, if ever, is the right time to be critical of them.

Perhaps today at least, a little perspective might be appropriate

 

Here's some perspective:

Hara-Kiri, founded in the early 1960s as an anti-establishment journal, trudged along for several years but was forced to shut down following an editorial controversy surrounding the death of former president general Charles de Gaulle, BBC reported.

Shortly before de Gaulle's death in 1970, a fire at a discotheque killed more than 100 people. And the weekly headlined the story of de Gaulle's death with "Bal tragique a Colombey (de Gaulle's home) - un mort," meaning "Tragic dance at Colombey - one dead," BBC said.

The publication was soon banned, but resurfaced by changing its name to Charlie Hebdo (or Charlie Weekly)

If these journalists were the champions of free speech that most people are lauding them as, I'm sure they'd be the first to defend others' right to criticize them, even in death.

6079_Smith_W

ODA, I agree with you.

My point is that those who expects satirists to stay within the bounds of propriety needs to give their heads a shake. Their job is exactly the opposite, even when they go over the line.

Check out Neil Macdonald's editorial on the response from the rest of the media. In short, no they aren't Charlie.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charlie-hebdo-has-controversial-history-of-...

onlinediscountanvils

NS wrote:

"Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic"

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

 

 

I appreciated this piece, NS, as well as the ones that Catchfire has posted to this thread.

My prayers go out to the victims of this shooing. As an artist, a person who works in magazines, a human, and as a French woman I feel their pain.

MAIS

JE NE SUIS PAIS CHARLIE

I will not stand for this magazine, I will not celebrate the privilege of “free speech” to be a disguise for hate. I am a black woman who understands how frustrated one can be as whites continue to use laws as an excuse to be abusive to who we are whether it be religion, skin color, or sexual orientation. I know France is scared, I know people are hurting. But I cannot be this newspaper’s ally. I am an ally for the people of France, I am an ally to the victims and their families but I will not stand in solidarity for this hateful newspaper.

JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE

http://avantblargh.tumblr.com/post/107422672105

6079_Smith_W

Not sure what you are implying NS.

Those media which wind up testing these boundaries for the rest of us rarely come in nice packages, or aim their pens in our service alone.

There's a big difference between ridicule, nasty commentary, and even racism, sexism, and discrimination, and the line you seem to be talking about -  wilful incitement of hatred. We might not like some of that content, and we would be quite right in objcting to or even protesting some of it.

But the line of what is not allowed is fortunately a much higher bar.

Andr the bar for which murder is in any way a reasonable response to satire and commentary? We can't ask Pier Paulo Pasolini or Theo Van Gogh, unfortunately, but I expect Larry Flynt might have some thoughts on the matter.

 

NDPP

"Vive La Liberte'!

https://twitter.com/PeterHuth/status/552934366385827841/photo/1

I wasn't previously aware of it. The stuff seems to be mostly anti-Muslim and mostly just vile, toxic trash. I notice that white secular liberals seem to have largely escaped their vitriol as well. Not surprised some here find it rather cool though. Some thought  much the same about bombing Libya and installing Nazi thugs in Ukraine.  I'm not surprised either that this shit will now  be spread across the MSM front pages as some sort of tribute to 'free speech' by the very same imperial stenographers whose job it is to keep us all cheering on their troops and torturers. Including the Al CIA-Duh ones.

Thanks for #JeNeSuisPasCharlie NS

I'm not either.

Webgear

France's strict firearms laws prevailed today, however I am not sure how these criminals got assault rifles and a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

Guns didn't kill these people, cartoons did. 

NorthReport

oldv

Thanks for your point of view. Today is a day of mourning, so I respectfully disagree.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

From the above blog:

Quote:
because with free speech comes RESPONSIBILITY.

Actually, no it doesn't.  With free speech comes a few legal restrictions we feel necessary (no child pornography, no shouting "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre, etc.) and beyond those it comes with no obligations whatsoever.

But I expect we'll see a lot of this in the coming days.  Be as offensive as you want, but remember your responsibility to not offend.

Slumberjack

KenS wrote:
Like everyone else, you leave out that I was responding to your SPECIFIC comment that you are surprised that there are not more such attacks on news organisations "for any number of reasons".

Just to be clear, this is not wishful thinking on my part if this is what you're trying to get at.

Quote:
As if it is likely in the West that anybody might mount an attack like this. When/if that happens as frequently as was suggested, we will know we are REALLY in trouble- and that is true no matter how many people around the world already have to live with such threats of violence as part of their lives.

Yeah, it's kind of nice to be spared all of that isn't it?

Quote:
I'll check to see how philosophical you all are if the wars of the world come that close to home.

What world must you be living in, and what is the view like?

NDPP

Twelve Dead in Terrorist Shooting at Paris Offices of Charlie Hebdo

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/08/fran-j08.html

"...Long experience shows that the political forces that set such operations into motion are inevitably more complex and more sinister than they first appear. Nonetheless, the political purposes to which this latest atrocity will be put were readily apparent well before anyone had claimed to identify its authors.

It was siezed upon as an act that would strengthen the most reactionary political forces in Europe and internationally. As the aftermath of 9/11 conclusively demonstrated these actions horrify and disorient the public and provide for the state to implement policies for which - except for the terrorist actions - there is no broad-based popular support.

The main danger arising from this horrible attack is the political purpose to which it will be put..."

What To Say When You Have Nothing To Say? - by Diana Johnstone

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/07/what-to-say-when-you-have-nothing...

"...Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the 'human rights left', defending US-led wars against 'dictators'..."

Charlie Hebdo Killers Armed and Trained in Syria - Terrorism Made in France?

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-killers-armed-and-trai...

"It has been officially revealed (to the surprise of virtually no one) that at least two of the suspects in the Charlie Hebdo shootings are French-born individuals who were recruited for and trained in Syria in order to fight against the secular government of Bashar al Assad..."

6079_Smith_W

Some people aren't afraid to speak their minds:

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-catholic-league-blames-cartoonists-f...

I agree with you lagatta about sometimes inappropriate content. If I were drawing the cover of this morning's Berliner kurier I'd probably have opted for the black headgear the murderers actually wore.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395...

But I didn't draw it.

And while there is plenty (like that aspect of the cover)  that I also object to, it is interesting how that content can shake out what some people are made of - in this case those who are willing to be apologists for murder, and imply that the victims are responsible because of their writing.

 

 

lagatta

Charleville-Mézières is 10 km from the Belgian border and 289 km northeast of Paris. A lot farther than "2 km" (which would be an inner suburb). For anyone with a knowledge of French literature, it is the birthplace of Arthur Rimbaud, and for that young poet (who hated the place) it was a world away from Paris. Talk about bad fact-checking.

Quite a few of the "I am not Charlie" tweeters are religious rightists, most of them seem to be Caholics.

I'm very critical of Charlie Hebdo's uncritical mock everybody stance, but their main target over the years remains the far right: https://charliehebdo.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/affiche-lepen.jpg

And evidently not all the staff was white.

Edited to add:

One of the editorial staff members killed was the subeditor/copy editor (correcteur) who was of Algerian Kabyle origin. One of the police officers killed was of Algerian origin.

The expression "white", has a cultural context of course. Many North African people have the same skin colour as southern Europeans (while others are darker, and even Black).

josh

NS wrote:

 

"Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic"

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

 

Mustapha Ourrad, a Charlie Hebdo copy editor of Algerian descent, was among the victims.

 

 

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

From the above blog:

Quote:
because with free speech comes RESPONSIBILITY.

Actually, no it doesn't.  With free speech comes a few legal restrictions we feel necessary (no child pornography, no shouting "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre, etc.) and beyond those it comes with no obligations whatsoever.

But I expect we'll see a lot of this in the coming days.  Be as offensive as you want, but remember your responsibility to not offend.

 

Yes, and of course it goes without saying, even if it is considered irresponsible, the remedy is not murder.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Why was the thread title changed?  If that was what I'd meant, I'd have said that.  Frankly, I'd be delighted if a few participants here hadn't actually joined the discussion.  Specifically you, Webgear, with your victim-blaming.

Charlie Hebdo's content was more than just jabs at Islam, but the majority of their content that we hear about has been focused on Islam, and the political branch of it specifically.  Why do we hear about it more? Because of the reactions to it.  Anti-muslim satire is not the totality of what the publication was about, and it's easy to slip into the rationale that they were white guys making fun of brown people.  It would be easy, facile and WRONG.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders?...

Quote:

The murders today in Paris are not a result of France’s failure to assimilate two generations of Muslim immigrants from its former colonies. They’re not about French military action against the Islamic State in the Middle East, or the American invasion of Iraq before that. They’re not part of some general wave of nihilistic violence in the economically depressed, socially atomized, morally hollow West—the Paris version of Newtown or Oslo. Least of all should they be “understood” as reactions to disrespect for religion on the part of irresponsible cartoonists.

They are only the latest blows delivered by an ideology that has sought to achieve power through terror for decades. It’s the same ideology that sent Salman Rushdie into hiding for a decade under a death sentence for writing a novel, then killed his Japanese translator and tried to kill his Italian translator and Norwegian publisher. The ideology that murdered three thousand people in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The one that butchered Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam, in 2004, for making a film. The one that has brought mass rape and slaughter to the cities and deserts of Syria and Iraq. That massacred a hundred and thirty-two children and thirteen adults in a school in Peshawar last month. That regularly kills so many Nigerians, especially young ones, that hardly anyone pays attention. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

NS wrote:

Smith,

These guys knew what they were doing

They courted controversy by constantly baiting and provoking depictions of Muslims and Arabs

"Charlie Hebdo was launched in 1969 but folded in 1981. However it was resurrected in 1992. Its circulation was not very big."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710545?

Gee I wonder how they boosted circulation and profit?

 

Fuck you.

Will you follow up with "She knew he was a violent asshole, but she stayed anyway."?

Thanks for your support of censorship by non-governmental means.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Timebandit wrote:
Why was the thread title changed?  If that was what I'd meant, I'd have said that.

Hey TB, looks like the thread title was changed by none other than rabble.ca's editor-in-chief, Meagan Perry, who has made this thread the photo feature on the front page today. Congratulations, even if it's not what you may have wanted. Many legendary journalists -- Rex Muprhy, Margaret Wente, Jonathan Kay -- go their whole careers without getting such an honour.

I sympathize with the objections to victim blaming and I don't think anyone is suggestion that Charlie Hebdo deserved what they got (except for Webgear's appalling post above, which I hope he can clarify) -- but I do think there is a fine line between denouncing the murder of journalists and showing solidarity with a publication that was only too happy to boost sales by positioning itself on the wrong side of the false "clash of civilization" divide. I think republishing CH's racist cartoons in some sort of display of defiance is particularly in poor taste.

So I guess what I'm saying is, it's cool if you're angry at victim blaming, but can I ask for fewer "fuck yous"?

ilha formosa

Quote:
One source said one of the brothers had been identified by his identity card, left in the getaway car.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-france-shooting-idUSKBN0KG0...

Quite a klutzy thing to do.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Catchfire, while I don't always agree with Charlie Hebdo's cartoons or their politics, there are some that I do appreciate.  This is hitting a bit close to the bone for me:  Lefty, mouthy creatives in media were executed for being offensive.  As a lefty creative in media who may or may not be prone to mouthiness on a given day, this scares the living shit out of me.  I'm currently working on a doc in the faith/against-faith space.  Am I "asking for it" because I "know what I'm getting into"? 

"Fuck you" was the most civil response I could formulate, actually.

6079_Smith_W

Catchfire wrote:

I think republishing CH's racist cartoons in some sort of display of defiance is particularly in poor taste.

I'm torn about that one. That is to say, I take your point, though I don't entirely agree, given the context. I thought for awhile before deciding to NOT post an image of the cover I linked to above, and on most days I wouldn't have made the link at all, given the racist element. But this day isn't like most days, and it isn't pictures of the Pope or Hollande that drove those murderers.

I don't like that stuff either. And I know that satire and commentary doesn't have to include sexism and racism. But in instances like this, where the freedom to publish that highly objectionable material is what is in question (and in fact, showing the image of Mohammed AT ALL is the issue), I can see why some make the exception. Especiall since (as Neil Macdonald said in his editorial last night) most major news outlets, including the CBC, are refusing to run the pictures even as coverage.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7509265/charlie-hebdo-cartoons

Quote:

Part of Charlie Hebdo's point was that respecting these taboos strengthens their censorial power. Worse, allowing extremists to set the limits of conversation validates and entrenches the extremists' premises: that free speech and religion are inherently at odds (they are not), and that there is some civilizational conflict between Islam and the West (there isn't).

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

French Terror Suspect Was Failed Rapper-Turned-Jihadist 

Quote:

As French authorities race to capture two men who they say killed 12 in a brutal attack on a magazine in Paris Wednesday, details emerged overnight about the two suspects, one of whom appears to have been a failed rapper.

Cherif Kouachi, 32, was briefly featured in a 2005 French television documentary as an aspiring rap musician who was arrested on terror charges that put him in prison for a year and a half.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Yeah, I get that Timebandit. I should have also added that to others who are trying to contextualize CH and the attacks within the larger climate of islamophobia and war on terror, etc., should take care to avoid making claims that CH had this coming somehow. Then perhaps creating less fertile ground for the fuck yous in the first place.

NDPP

and speaking of cartoons and terrorists...

 

As 2015 Begins, Jew-Hatred Spreads in Canada

http://jdl-canada.com/2015/01/04/as-2015-begins-jew-hatred-spreads-in-Ca...

"This cartoon appeared on the Facebook page of CJPME - Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.

JDL will be investigating CJPME in depth this year and will be exposing the individuals who comprise this sick organization.

We will tell you who its members are, where they live and where they work..."

josh

 

Rage and condemnation don’t do the job, nor is it helpful to alienate the millions of Muslims who dislike what’s being done in the name of their religion. Many of them immediately condemned the attack on Charlie Hebdo, in tones of anguish particular to those whose deepest beliefs have been tainted. The answer always has to be careful, thoughtful, and tailored to particular circumstances.

onlinediscountanvils

[url=https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-... Hebdo: This Attack Was Nothing To Do With Free Speech — It Was About War[/url]

Asghar Bukhari wrote:
White people don’t like to admit it, but those cartoons upheld their prejudice, their racism, their political supremacy, and cut it how you will — images like that upheld a political order built on discrimination.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Yeah, I get that Timebandit. I should have also added that to others who are trying to contextualize CH and the attacks within the larger climate of islamophobia and war on terror, etc., should take care to avoid making claims that CH had this coming somehow. Then perhaps creating less fertile ground for the fuck yous in the first place.

Like post 84, right below where you posted this?

duncan cameron

Thanks to Lagatta for thoughtful, informative posts.

Confusing blaspehmy with racism is fairly common unfortunately. Satire is not to everyones taste. Making fun of the powerful and of religious authority creates animosity.

Those anxious to stop anti-Islamic propaganda need to be supported. Organized relgion has its own shortcomings as any feminist can attest.

Charlie Hebdo represents a long French tradition of anti-clericism associated with Voltaire and the French enlightement. It has changed according to who is running it. The latest big change was in 2009, when Philippe Val left for France Inter.

Understanding what #CharlieHebdo represents in the French media scene requires a fair amount of historical understanding. Some of it is on display in this article by Stéphane Baillergeon in Le Devoir.

http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/medias/428273/charlie-hebdo-et-la-tradit...

Censorship by machine gun is no better than state censorship. indeed.

josh

mersh wrote:

I know it's been said upthread, but I think we can learn from the Spanish and Norwegian experiences -- not just condemnation of mass murder, but asking ourselves what sort of world we want to live in, ultimately. Do we treat this as an "act of terrorism" and double down on state repression, or do we trust the existing criminal justice system to respond without feeding into islamophobia, racism, etc. in the name of justice? We can mourn and condemn racism without supporting murder. It's not that hard.

on debating dead moral questions

 

 

It is with a right wing political and media complex looking to grind their axes of hate and fear, and a sensation seeking, exploitative mainstream media.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

NDPP wrote:

and speaking of cartoons and terrorists...

 

As 2015 Begins, Jew-Hatred Spreads in Canada

http://jdl-canada.com/2015/01/04/as-2015-begins-jew-hatred-spreads-in-Ca...

"This cartoon appeared on the Facebook page of CJPME - Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.

JDL will be investigating CJPME in depth this year and will be exposing the individuals who comprise this sick organization.

We will tell you who its members are, where they live and where they work..."

I feel very compelled to join this page.Sadly I don't know anything about CJPME but I'm going to check them out. BTW,that cartoon really summed up the conflict in the Middle East.Since when has truth become bad taste?

Nevermind.

mersh

I know it's been said upthread, but I think we can learn from the Spanish and Norwegian experiences -- not just condemnation of mass murder, but asking ourselves what sort of world we want to live in, ultimately. Do we treat this as an "act of terrorism" and double down on state repression, or do we trust the existing criminal justice system to respond without feeding into islamophobia, racism, etc. in the name of justice? We can mourn and condemn racism without supporting murder. It's not that hard.

on debating dead moral questions

 

ETA: by condemning racism, I'm referring to some of the CH content & covers I've seen, as well as legislative restrictions on personal garb. I support free speech but by no means do I ednorse CH's attempt to make a joke of women who were abducted and assaulted by Boko Haram by conflating them with "welfare queens"

6079_Smith_W

The truth often goes hand-in-hand with bad taste. A lot of people don't pay attention otherwise. It's rarely the polite ones that wind up in the dock or getting shot; it's the foul mouthed ones. That gets to the core of one of the central questions here, I'd say.

 

 

NS NS's picture

NR

I think you know what I am saying but I will repeat:

 

When did it become true that to defend someone's free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas?

That apply in all cases?

There is something truly alarming about the celebration of CH as a beacon of satire and western culture

When exactly is the right time for talk about their cartoons and ideas?

NS NS's picture

Smtih .

that is a straw man argument and you know it!

It not about Muslim people not having a sense of humor or that satire is about taste

Saire is about speaking truth to power,  challenging those with most power and not about beating down the weak , powerless , voiceless and oppressed

That translates arcross borders & languages

NDPP

Tom Mulcair Asked For More Security After Multiple Threats

http://www.canada.com/News/canada/Mulcair+asked+more+security+after+mult...

"NDP leader Tom Mulcair says he has faced threats separate from the Oct 22 Ottawa attack on Parliament Hill, and that they have prompted him to ask the RCMP for added protection.

Mulcair was speaking in Ottawa at a press conference on the Wednesday terrorist attacks in Paris, France..."

 

New PM Security Adviser Once Worried About Canada's Terrorism 'Blind Spot' - David Aken

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2015/01/20150...

"The horrible terrorist attack in Paris Wednesday came hours after Prime Minister Stephen Harper named as his new national security adviser a top bureaucrat who once warned that Canada's failure to deal with the threat of terrorism was a serious blind spot.

That new adviser - his name, well known in Ottawa circles, is Richard Fadden - also cautioned against media and political 'elites' who would rather 'avert their eyes' to the problem of domestic terrorism..."

See where this is all going yet? Cui Bono?

lagatta

The odd thing about the JDL post is that there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the IDF soldiers are Jewish, except the Star of David on the helmet of one of them. But it was ISRAEL that decided to use this symbol, firstly a religious symbol of Judaism, and later a sign of infamy that people of Jewish origin (whether or not they were religious, and even if they were converts to Christianity) were forced to wear during the Nazi repression, then genocide. It is on the Israeli flag, and on its weaponry. No antisemites or neo-Nazis made the founders of the state choose that symbol.

They did make a Parisian friend of mine wear it when she was a little girl under the Occupation. Now she is an old lady, and ferociously opposed to any form of racism or discrimination, whomever the victims. And she is very critical of how Israel treats the Indigenous Palestinians.

If a cartoonist wants to show that Canada is mistreating its Indigenous population, using a Maple Leaf is not "anti-Canadian".

6079_Smith_W

NS wrote:

Smtih .

that is a straw man argument and you know it!

It not about Muslim people not having a sense of humor or that satire is about taste

Actually no it isn't. Think about it.

Or are you blaming all Muslim people for this attack, and implying there was a good reason for it?

(and you still haven't answered my question above)

Plenty of us - including many Muslims - are exposed to stuff we find offensive. Those who would argue for censorship or resort to attack or murder are coming from another place entirely.

I don't know where your head was at but I was thinking of some of the names I mentioned above, as well as Lenny Bruce, Allan Ginsberg, EC Comics, Simplicissimus, and plenty of others who weren't so polite in telling uncomfortable truths.

NS NS's picture

Glenl wrote:
NS wrote:

Smith,

These guys knew what they were doing

They courted controversy by constantly baiting and provoking depictions of Muslims and Arabs

 

Capital punishment for provocative cartoons. Seems a bit harsh to me.

I have been attacked and told that calling out the cartoons racists means I hate free speech & endorse mass murder

Glenl & Timebandit and the rest who attacked me:

 

France and Europe has ghettoized its Muslim pop, empowering radicals among immigrants and far-right. To pretend that CH did not operate, benefit and even prosper in this atmosphere, is disengenuous.

"You are all debating an argument no one is advancing." On Charlie Hebdo and dead moral questions

That’s what’s happening today in regards to the terrorist attacks in France. We are having a series of loud, impassioned, righteous conversations about questions like “Should people murder?” and “Should we have the right to publish cartoons?” We’re debating, in other words, dead moral questions, and for the same reason we always do: because that debate allows us to ignore the ones that might lead us to a different place than the celebration of our own liberal righteousness. To read the people writing about this attack, this is the fundamental question at hand: were these killings OK? If that were actually a moral question worth asking, then it would provoke disagreement. And yet I see no disagreement.

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/07/on-debating-dead-moral-questions/

 

6079_Smith_W

And if we want to get technical about these kinds of attacks, looking back at the Rushdie fatwa, the Islamic Jurisprudence Academy in Mecca condemned the fatwa against him as illegal.

And in this case, Muslim leaders around the world have condemned the attack. The only groups I have read blaming the victims are one American Catholic organization (which seems to be offside from their pope), and some in left political circles..

So what are you talking about? You want to try and shift this to a discussion about offensiveand edgy political satire? Maybe you should start another thread. This one is about murder. and attacks on free speech.

 

NS NS's picture

Smith,  you may not have seen the 'toons , cuz racist satire is an oxymoron

 

In 2009, Charlie Hedbo fired a writer for a joke they said as anti-semitic - then he was charged with a hate crime http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html …

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Pepe Escobar wrote:
Cui bono, then, with killing Charlie? Only those whose agenda is to demonize Islam. Not even a bunch of brainwashed fanatics would pull off the Charlie carnage to show people who accuse them of being barbarians that they are, in fact, barbarians. French intel at least has concluded that this is no underwear bomber stunt. This is a pro job. That happens to take place just a few days after France recognizes Palestinian statehood. And just a few days after General Hollande demanded the lifting of sanctions against the Russian "threat".

False flag? Maybe.

Who profits from killing Charlie?

Quote:
this was a pro job. And staying with option one, this points right at - what else - blowback. Yes, they could be Daesh/ISIS/ISIL mercenaries trained by NATO (crucially, France included) in Turkey and/or Jordan. But it might get even false-flag nastier. They could also be former or current French special forces.

Pages

Topic locked