"...But many believe the journal's history is being white-washed, as long time media watchers say Charlie Hebdo went from a group motivated by freedom of expression to one obsessed with Islamophobia and other right-wiing causes.
In 2006 Val and another Charlie Hebdo staffer signed a manifesto that shockingly declared Islam to be the 'New Totalitarianism,' even on a par with Nazism. Among the other 10 signatories - reactionaries beloved of conservative think tanks in the West. [and progressive Canadian sites].
As is often the case, anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian went hand-in-hand."
Were the Paris Killings a Threat To Our Freedoms? - by Michael Rozeff
"I say emphatically; The Paris killings were not a threat to our freedoms. The neocon ideas that are being implemented in Washington's foreign policies are not just threats to our freedoms, they have brought very real inroads into our freedoms. They have decimated certain of these.
In this instance, the idea being asserted is that they are opposed to freedom of the press. All of this is the biggest bunch of nonsense imaginable. It is complete baloney. The answer is that it's only in the last 65 years or so that the US has meddled seriously in a bunch of Muslim nations.
The neocons use these lines (lies) so as to produce a warrior attitude against the countries they wish to invade. They want us to think that when there is retaliation against US and Western political and military policies, that it's not retaliation, not blowback, not provoked by what the US has done, but instead stems from a hatred of the West at a religious level or ideological level.
The neocons are completely wrong about this. All this uproar about a world-defining event in Paris is total hokum. It's Barnum & Bailey time. The neocons want to use it to peddle their warmongering. The truth stares us in the face."
"...Hollande went overnight from a fuddled little man to male Joan of Arc and defender of liberty. All France rallied to the embattled president and gave him a new lease on political life.
Hollande and the National Assembly lost no time in announcing that France would increase and intensify its military operations in Mali, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, East Africa, Abu Dhabi, Iraq, Afghanistan (from where French troops have been withdrawing) as well as covert operations in Syria, Lebanon and Somalia.
In fact, Hollande has been advocating French military intervention in Africa and Asia for much of his term. One would think that Socialists would be less militaristic but such is not the case in France. [or Canada!]. There has long been an anti-Arab/Anti-Muslim core in the Socialists and members with imperial ambitions.
Interestingly, it was France's Socialists who secretly provided Israel with its nuclear arsenal.
The mayhem in Paris certainly reminded many of America's 9/11 ordeal. In both cases, a floundering, lackluster leader was suddenly catapulted into the role of national champion and heroic warlord...and he is milking the Paris massacre for all its worth."
Maybe we need to step back and accept it's about multiple issues not just free speech but including free speech.
I accept that some individuals and publications did not reprint out of fear of reprisals so their free speech was curtailed but free speech in general has not been seriously curtailed by these attacks.
No one has said that free speech is the only issue here. And if it was just these attacks it would be no problem, since the murderers aren't in any position to kill anyone any more.
But there have been media - the Danish paper, for one - which admitted to fear, and another apologizing. And while I support papers making whatever decision they would ordinarily, when you have an entire country's media declining to do so, I'd say Rahman has a compelling case for calling out the cowards.
If you mean Canada they were printed here and there are reasons other than cowardice not to. I find it problematic that you seem to think all publications should have, by default, printed material they otherwise would not have printed. Editorialists honoured the cartoonists through heartfelt cartoons of their own.
From reading about Charlie Hebdo they seem almost anarchist to me. Their work was/is sophisticated so there is some misinterpretation happening not only due to culture but also due to not knowing the context they were drawn in. The vulgarity also presents a barrier. The message wasn't racist, it was anti-racist and anti-all-religion and anti-government. For the sake of argument I will drop any mention of imbalance in quantity or other accusations of being in any way actually a racist publication by intent.
Charlie Hebdo had a circulation of 60,000. Their brand of vulgar lampooning of religion and government did not appeal to many. It would appeal to people with a fairly sophisticated understanding of current affairs that are fine with vulgarity. I don't think it is sexist to think that it would appeal more to men than to women due to the rape theme and general vulgarity.
Is it not fair to think that many people seeing those cartoons, even in France, would be struck first by the vulgarity and insulting caricatures so much so that they wouldn't proceed to evaluating the message. Is it fair to say the less educated someone is the less likely they would understand it correctly?
I find it problematic that you seem to think all publications should have, by default, printed material they otherwise would not have printed.
Did you read what I just wrote? You quoted it.
Quote:
And while I support papers making whatever decision they would ordinarily...
This is the second time I have corrected you on it, and at least the third time I have repeated it. Upthread I explicitly said I felt the CBC made a valid decision in not deciding to run them solely out of solidarity.
But I also said that when you have a nation's entire media deciding collectively to self-censor (and some notable voices of disapproval) and justification like "balancing principles with pragmatism", I'd say Rahman's calling out those among them who don't want to take the risk as cowards is fair.
What would we say about a similar conspiracy of silence so as to not offend Christian hypocrisy? Or a conspiracy to not cover ANY particular issue of great interest? I get that some of this is out of politeness, but that is also undercut in the article below, in which it is admitted openly that the British press don't shy away from controversy.
They did run this cartoon though, which refers both to racism, and fear as a motive for not publishing. Not sure if it is serious, or satrizing how some journalists are reacting.
And less-educated people are not as likely to get coarse satire? Not sure what that is based on. From what I see it is mostly the highly educated who have been falling all over themselves pretending they don't get it, and, for instance, that CH was actually making fun of Christiane Taubira, rather than calling out a racist attack against her.
The cartoons (or at least some of them) were printed here in Québec. I don't believe that they were published anywhere in English Canada, or in English-language media here; even within CBC/Radio-Canada, there was a cultural split.
Pondering, I find it odd that you don't seem to have seen Charlie Hebdo, given the part of Montréal you live in. I wasn't in the habit of reading it either; while there were some cartoonists I admired, I found they were getting far too gratuitously frat-boy-fart-jokes in their dotage. But it was prominently displayed at newsagents and libraries throughout the Plateau and up in my neighbourhood north of there.
The real issue, as I see it, is that people were murdered for penning and publishing rude comics that were disrespectful of a particular religion. The real distraction, as I see it, is all this nonsense about false flag operations and whether or not a police officer was murdered in cold blood in the course of his work (he most demonstrably was). If we could set aside the bullshit and talk about what I started the damned thread about, that would be awesome.
ETA: What claim have I made that is dubious?
"Mods notified."
Mods notified. Again, what are you twelve?
As for an alleged "false flag operation," it certainly wouldn't be the first time. In fact it's a perfectly reasonable supposition given that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe for the past 50 some odd years were indeed false flag operations. Only a complete...wait for it...IDIOT would imagine otherwise.
Durrutix, personal attacks are not permitted here and are regularly reported as abuse, so how about you back off and play nice, K?
Lagatta: The National Post published at least one of the pre-shooting Muhammed cartoons, and the post-shooting Je Suis Charlie cover a few times. On-line anyway.
Thanks, votd. It isn't a paper I see often around where I live; I suppose it is at the newsagent's that sells papers and periodicals from everywhere. Suppose the Pest published those to fuel the flames, like Faux News.
"Israel has been having its own internal debate about the significance of the Paris killings this month, with concerns quite separate from those being experienced in Europe.
While Europeans [and some Babblers] are mired in debates about free speech and the role of Islam in secular societies, Israelis generally - and their prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular - view the attacks as confirming Israel's place as the only safe haven for Jews around the world.
His approach is embodied in recent efforts - delayed because of the election - to pass a basic law defining Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. That would crown Mr Netanyahu leader of Jews worldwide - rather than of Israeli citizens..."
"In this commentary, this writer will join in the condemnation of the assault on Charlie Hebdo and the killing of journalists. It should be stated categorically here that this writer defends freedom of speech without endorsing the speech's content. Thus, I am unequivocally denouncing the killings in France.
The use of satire as camouflage for racist and offensive speech is unacceptable and should be equally denounced.
It is also urgent for progressive forces to work to ensure that the killings and mass mobilization are not turned into vehicles for manipulating the working people to support racism, islamophobia and other forms of European jingoism and chauvinism.
Even the mainstream media such as Reuters is now writing that 'Charlie Hebdo fallout: Specter of fascist past haunts European nationalism.' This spectre must be taken seriously because fascism emerges in the midst of a capitalist crisis when the ruling elements mobilize chauvinism and racism to divert the attention of the working people from mobilizing against the capitalist class.
This was the concrete experience of fascism during the last major capitalist depression.
Progressives cannot sit idly by while religious warfare is being stoked to inflame the passions of young exploited and alienated working peoples. Those who have not accepted the massive propaganda about saving freedom of expression, are asking questions about why six months before perpetrating such violence, the Frence security apparatus ended surveillance of these three men..."
Letters From Brussels: At Gun Point Under My Own Window
"Ethnically profiled at gun point in my own street, under my own window, they could have just went with me a few meters to see my name on the bell and compare it with the name on my ID. I walk feeling heavy, very heavy inside, I stand in front of my door and wonder if I have the right to open it.
I see blonde blue-eyed people walk next to the cops, they walk not looking suspicious at all..."
The cartoons (or at least some of them) were printed here in Québec. I don't believe that they were published anywhere in English Canada, or in English-language media here; even within CBC/Radio-Canada, there was a cultural split.
Pondering, I find it odd that you don't seem to have seen Charlie Hebdo, given the part of Montréal you live in. I wasn't in the habit of reading it either; while there were some cartoonists I admired, I found they were getting far too gratuitously frat-boy-fart-jokes in their dotage. But it was prominently displayed at newsagents and libraries throughout the Plateau and up in my neighbourhood north of there.
I don't frequent newsstands but I had heard of Charlie Hebdo. I don't pay any attention to sports news either so I rarely know which sport famous atheletes are from. It's not the kind of publication I would look for but I didn't assume anything about its Quebec circulation or lack thereof. It would still appeal to a limited audience. I do believe that many people seeing the type of cartoons they produced would not get the intended message and simply see the drawins as racist caricatures therefore socially acceptable.
Which bandwagon is this, I wonder... the pro-conservative religion, pro-censorship, pro-state control, anti-gay bandwagon, or the whatever bandwagon the western powers aren't on bandwagon?
Very convenient either way.
Quote:
“The publication in Russian media of such caricatures go against ethical and moral norms worked out over centuries,” said the media and communications watchdog Roskomnadzor.
“Disseminating caricatures on religious themes in the media can be considered insulting or humiliating to the representatives of religious confessions and groups, and qualified as inciting ethnic and relgious hatred”, an offence under Russian law, it said.
The publication would also violate the Russian media and anti-extremism laws, the watchdog said, adding that it was asking Russian media to “refrain from publishing caricatures that can be seen as a violation”.
Though as I just mentioned in the other place, the narrative that cartoonists are to be equated with reactionary governments isn't entirely accurate. Using the French example, Jacques Hébert found out the hard way that it wasn't healthy to be more radical than the radicals, and to criticize them once they were in power:
"There is a certain terrible symnmetry playing out in France. Israel is deliberately and consistently doing all it can to excite fears among French Jews, in order to lure this desirable population into moving to Israel.
At the same time, the so-called 'Islamic State', as well as 'al Qaeda in Yemen' and associated fanatic Islamic groups are working hard to recruit fighters out of the Muslim communities in France and other European countries.
Outside powers are now pushing France into a war in the Middle East that it can neither afford nor win. France, like the US, designates Islamic terrorism as its great enemy, while doing everything possible to favor its growth and extension.
France appears to be manipulated by both Israel and the United States.
The notion that it is very daring to commit 'blasphemy' against a god in which you do not believe makes no sense to me. Certainly, in the milieu of Charlie Hebdo, insulting Islamic beliefs was the surest way to amuse one's friends. It was supposed to sell papers..."
"In the wake of the horrific Charlie Hebdo massacre, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves LeDrian made the following statement: 'Today, the new and serious element is that there is no dividing line between the external threat and the internal threat.'
He made this statement as he sought to justify the current mobilization of ten thousand French troops inside France as well as the expanding French military role in US-led colonial wars in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Such 'danger from within and without' claims are the tried and true method for preparing ordinary people who do not want war or the suppression of democratic rights, to accept both."
"There have been more and more places of worship being attacked. Muslim girls and women who wear the veil or those that don't are being attacked and there's silence from the politicians'..."
"The implications of terrorist acts - particularly when carried out in proximity to an election year - are far ranging for every democracy. 'Right wing parties benefit from the increasing prominence of the security issue during a wave of terror."
"Remember also, that Charlie called Cuba a dictatorship, Fidel and Chavez dictators, Charlie supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. He approved the bombing of Libya and celebrated the murder of Gaddafi. He consistently sides with Israel against the Palestinians.
He says that Russia is a danger to world peace and is responsible for the situation in Ukraine, which indirectly supports the US. He called for intervention in Syria and said the Syrian opposition were 'heroes'. Curiously, Wikipedia calls this paper 'a French satirical weekly on the left.'
No wonder so much support from the Canuckle-head 'left!'
"Let's say....admidst all of this death and destruction, two young Jews barged into the editorial offices of Der Sturmer, and they killed the staff for having humiliated them, denigrated them, demeaned them, insulted them, queried Norman Finkelstein....How would I react to that?
There's a big difference between satire and sadism. Charlie Hebdo is sadism. It's not satire..."
Charlie Hebdo consistently sides with the Israelis against the Palestinians? :
Shall I continue?
And yeah, the west was right behind them:
And funny, I have always thought of threatening people into opening doors, murdering others, and terrifying hostages as sadism. Depicting uncomfortable opinions with a pen? Not quite the same thing.
Not really, though I am not surprised you are throwing in a piece shot before the attacks, and putting a dollop of JDL on top as if that has anything to do with anything.
So he blames it on racist, right-wing, anti-immigrant sentiment, and names PEGIDA and the National Front, two of the groups skewered most by Charlie Hebdo.
And criticizing religion is "aggressive secularizing"?
"With the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Europe has entered a new political era, the worst aspect of which could be another rise of right wing forces and this, another blow to progressive movements..."
Charlie Hebdo, the Free Press and Racism - by Sara Flounders
"The Charlie Hebdo assassinations strengthen the hand of the state, which is using them in an ideological offensive, even if the State had a role in arming and training them.
The French government's protection of the racist journal Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with protecting Freedom of Speech. This is a deception that must be confronted.
Charlie Hebdo serves a very important purpose for French imperialism, and that is why its virulent racism has been protected at the very time that protests against it are prohibited."
Yes, of course I knew about that massacre, and the Charonne massacre a year later. Maurice Papon was really a disgusting piece of shit; I'm sure Le Pen père has wet dreams about him with his hatred of both Arabs and Jews.
But I've been chatting with people in France (some are of Maghrebi and African origins) about this and why on earth parts of the anglo left seem to be locating Charlie among the racist far right - when there is no shortage of actual racists and reactionaries, such as Houllebecq and Zemmour. Headslap.
But I've been chatting with people in France (some are of Maghrebi and African origins) about this and why on earth parts of the anglo left seem to be locating Charlie among the racist far right - when there is no shortage of actual racists and reactionaries, such as Houllebecq and Zemmour. Headslap.
Two reasons that I can see:
First, being too dumb to figure out anything that doesn't conform with their doctrinaire approach. I mean studiously dumb, in that they refuse to consider what is actually going on because it doesn't compute with their beliefs.
And secondly, having a deep mistrust of anyone - particularly any media - that actually shows some free and critical thinking, won't simply act as their tool, and might actually turn it's criticism on them.
Part of this may be a cultural divide between Europe and N.A. (though not really, we have similar examples of satire), but this is not anything different than any other purity war on the right or the left that we see all the time.
Simple act of focusing MORE on the events from a western white European country than any other non white country in itself is an act of racism!
I'll just pass over the irrelevant argument
I suppose calling France a "white" country is something the National Front would love to hear; but if we are talking about what is and isn't racist what do you think about ignoring the many non-white and Muslim people who have been part of that society for some time, and the history which is much longer?
Nationalism based on racial segregation into white and non-white nations? This is good news to extremists on all sides. For the rest of us? Not so much.
Not to mention that, if any discussion of political violence in a "white" country is racist, then we're all racist every time we talk about anti-abortion violence, sectarian strife in Belfast, etc.
Simple act of focusing MORE on the events from a western white European country than any other non white country in itself is an act of racism!
I'll just pass over the irrelevant argument
I suppose calling France a "white" country is something the National Front would love to hear; but if we are talking about what is and isn't racist what do you think about ignoring the many non-white and Muslim people who have been part of that society for some time, and the history which is much longer?
Nationalism based on racial segregation into white and non-white nations? This is good news to extremists on all sides. For the rest of us? Not so much.
Historically white and still controlled by whites. Actually, the European Parliament seems pretty white too.
Are we going to pretend that because there is a "black" president whites don't control the U.S? If France were not dominant white the laws against women wearing hijabs would not have passed.
Sure, just like Canada is a white nation. You think selling into the divisive whitewashing language of racists is going to do anything to lessen that divide? Or change the perception that those who aren't white are not part of those nations?
I am struck by how many progressive, leftwing people have come to consider that blasphemy is a line that should not be crossed if we are to live in a society of good manners and peaceful acceptance of cultural differences. On the face of it this puts them on a par not only with Muslim religious sentiment, including that of a minority of fanatics, but with a mindset that says some things are too sacred to be touched. It puts a right not to be offended before freedom of speech.
Simple act of focusing MORE on the events from a western white European country than any other non white country in itself is an act of racism!
I'll just pass over the irrelevant argument
I suppose calling France a "white" country is something the National Front would love to hear; but if we are talking about what is and isn't racist what do you think about ignoring the many non-white and Muslim people who have been part of that society for some time, and the history which is much longer?
Nationalism based on racial segregation into white and non-white nations? This is good news to extremists on all sides. For the rest of us? Not so much.
I don't think there is any country on the Earth completely dominated by just one single race? I'm sure each has an minority group to at least less than 1% population.
I'm just commenting on western media.
Furthermore, I'm sure it's safe to say France is a white country. But really it would be more correct to use the word "predominant"
Not to mention that, if any discussion of political violence in a "white" country is racist, then we're all racist every time we talk about anti-abortion violence, sectarian strife in Belfast, etc.
For the record, I generally use similar terminolgy to describe all froms of political violence. That might sometimes include the word "terrorism", but I'd apply it equally to anti-abortion fanatics just as soon as I'd apply it to the people who shot up the Hebdo.
@WWWTT That would a better "Gotcha", IF I had used the word "terrorist" to describe Muslim political violence in the same post. But since I did no such thing, your rebuttal isn't quite the LOL-worthy triumph you make it out to be.
Furthermore, I'm sure it's safe to say France is a white country.
Evidently not white and safe enough for some. See the le Pen cover from a certain racist rag I posted at #724..
Yes, of course western media only covers white news. Let's keep those "black and white" arguments coming until someone calls us on it and we have to admit that's not quite how things are in the real world.
But I've been chatting with people in France (some are of Maghrebi and African origins) about this and why on earth parts of the anglo left seem to be locating Charlie among the racist far right - when there is no shortage of actual racists and reactionaries, such as Houllebecq and Zemmour. Headslap.
Ten Euros says no one from the people calling Charlie Hebdo a racist rag will actually respond to you; they've ignored this point for quite a few pages already. But 20 Euros says we'll have numerous more links to anglo-left kneejerk articles that continue the same uninformed assumptions. Thanks for continuing to give the context!
Furthermore, I'm sure it's safe to say France is a white country.
Evidently not white and safe enough for some. See the le Pen cover from a certain racist rag I posted at #724..
Yes, of course western media only covers white news. Let's keep those "black and white" arguments coming until someone calls us on it and we have to admit that's not quite how things are in the real world.
White in the sense of who controls the country and whose culture is respected not in the sense of the colour of all of its inhabitants. The only perspective being considered to have any validity at all is rooted in western culture and western ideals. As usual we are the centre of the world and everyone else is othered. All that matters is us and our rights.
You mean western culture and western ideals that Muslim and non-white people are not a part of at all, even though they have been living in it for hundreds of years, and in some places, for longer than the so-called whites? Those Muslim and non-white people whose culture is largely responsible for the creation of our western culture?
Speaking of "othering", that's the lie that the racists want us to keep repeating.
All that matters is us and our rights. Wonder what Salman Rushdie would have to say about that.
You mean western culture and western ideals that Muslim and non-white people are not a part of at all, even though they have been living in it for hundreds of years, and in some places, for longer than the so-called whites? Those Muslim and non-white people whose culture is largely responsible for the creation of our western culture?
Speaking of "othering", that's the lie that the racists want us to keep repeating.
All that matters is us and our rights. Wonder what Salman Rushdie would have to say about that.
What modern western culture is derived from is not the point. We are talking about what it is now and the way it dominates discourse now and who's views it represents. For all France claims the anglo world "just doesn't understand" the cultural differences between France and the anglo world pale in comparison to the differences between western culture controlled primarily by white people and that of predominently muslim cultures. There is a racist component to our disrespect towards other cultures even as we adopt some of their cuisine and art.
I am talking about it now too, in case I didn't say it twice clearly enough.
You think there are some who aren't part of it and who have no place in it?
Or if we want to step outside of what some consider the "white" world, that this isn't just as much a threat to some people in countries other than European ones?
I know we have been around this before, but I am curious as to what you mean by "our disrespect", in the context of this situation.
Are we going to pretend that because there is a "black" president whites don't control the U.S? If France were not dominant white the laws against women wearing hijabs would not have passed.
Similar laws were enacted in secular Turkey and Tunisia long before the French directives (don't know whether those can be called "laws" or not). Of course we could argue whether or not those countries are "white" - people around the Mediterranean have very similar genes, and there isn't much difference between a Greek and a Turk, a Sicilian, Maltese or Tunisian, an Andalusian and a Moroccan. Whiteness is also a cultural construct.
So is blackness. The reason biracial Obama is "black" is because of the "one-drop-rule" under racist laws meaning even a share of "black blood" is a "taint". As a result, people of subsaharan African descent, whatever their hue, have reclaimed blackness.
Swallow, I've been very critical of Charlie Hebdo for a long time. But it was never in the right-wing, racist camp, which sadly does exist in France and elsewhere in Europe. One of the leaders of the extreme anti-Muslim movement in Germanyh had to step down after a photo of him posing as Hitler was revealed...
6079, in this case it is francophone and anglophone, not Europe vs North America.
Where I stay when I'm in Paris is not "white", it is very multiracial and multicultural. And of course, it is a "no-go-zone".
Facts Behind Charlie Hebdo's Islamophobia (and vid)
http://www.presstv.com/Video/2015/01/17/393441/Facts-behind-Charlie-Hebd...
"...But many believe the journal's history is being white-washed, as long time media watchers say Charlie Hebdo went from a group motivated by freedom of expression to one obsessed with Islamophobia and other right-wiing causes.
In 2006 Val and another Charlie Hebdo staffer signed a manifesto that shockingly declared Islam to be the 'New Totalitarianism,' even on a par with Nazism. Among the other 10 signatories - reactionaries beloved of conservative think tanks in the West. [and progressive Canadian sites].
As is often the case, anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian went hand-in-hand."
Were the Paris Killings a Threat To Our Freedoms? - by Michael Rozeff
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/were-the-paris-killings-a-threat-to-...
"I say emphatically; The Paris killings were not a threat to our freedoms. The neocon ideas that are being implemented in Washington's foreign policies are not just threats to our freedoms, they have brought very real inroads into our freedoms. They have decimated certain of these.
In this instance, the idea being asserted is that they are opposed to freedom of the press. All of this is the biggest bunch of nonsense imaginable. It is complete baloney. The answer is that it's only in the last 65 years or so that the US has meddled seriously in a bunch of Muslim nations.
The neocons use these lines (lies) so as to produce a warrior attitude against the countries they wish to invade. They want us to think that when there is retaliation against US and Western political and military policies, that it's not retaliation, not blowback, not provoked by what the US has done, but instead stems from a hatred of the West at a religious level or ideological level.
The neocons are completely wrong about this. All this uproar about a world-defining event in Paris is total hokum. It's Barnum & Bailey time. The neocons want to use it to peddle their warmongering. The truth stares us in the face."
Lucky Francois - by Eric Margolis
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/eric-margolis/charlie-hebdo-boosts-so...
"...Hollande went overnight from a fuddled little man to male Joan of Arc and defender of liberty. All France rallied to the embattled president and gave him a new lease on political life.
Hollande and the National Assembly lost no time in announcing that France would increase and intensify its military operations in Mali, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, East Africa, Abu Dhabi, Iraq, Afghanistan (from where French troops have been withdrawing) as well as covert operations in Syria, Lebanon and Somalia.
In fact, Hollande has been advocating French military intervention in Africa and Asia for much of his term. One would think that Socialists would be less militaristic but such is not the case in France. [or Canada!]. There has long been an anti-Arab/Anti-Muslim core in the Socialists and members with imperial ambitions.
Interestingly, it was France's Socialists who secretly provided Israel with its nuclear arsenal.
The mayhem in Paris certainly reminded many of America's 9/11 ordeal. In both cases, a floundering, lackluster leader was suddenly catapulted into the role of national champion and heroic warlord...and he is milking the Paris massacre for all its worth."
If you mean Canada they were printed here and there are reasons other than cowardice not to. I find it problematic that you seem to think all publications should have, by default, printed material they otherwise would not have printed. Editorialists honoured the cartoonists through heartfelt cartoons of their own.
From reading about Charlie Hebdo they seem almost anarchist to me. Their work was/is sophisticated so there is some misinterpretation happening not only due to culture but also due to not knowing the context they were drawn in. The vulgarity also presents a barrier. The message wasn't racist, it was anti-racist and anti-all-religion and anti-government. For the sake of argument I will drop any mention of imbalance in quantity or other accusations of being in any way actually a racist publication by intent.
Charlie Hebdo had a circulation of 60,000. Their brand of vulgar lampooning of religion and government did not appeal to many. It would appeal to people with a fairly sophisticated understanding of current affairs that are fine with vulgarity. I don't think it is sexist to think that it would appeal more to men than to women due to the rape theme and general vulgarity.
Is it not fair to think that many people seeing those cartoons, even in France, would be struck first by the vulgarity and insulting caricatures so much so that they wouldn't proceed to evaluating the message. Is it fair to say the less educated someone is the less likely they would understand it correctly?
Did you read what I just wrote? You quoted it.
This is the second time I have corrected you on it, and at least the third time I have repeated it. Upthread I explicitly said I felt the CBC made a valid decision in not deciding to run them solely out of solidarity.
But I also said that when you have a nation's entire media deciding collectively to self-censor (and some notable voices of disapproval) and justification like "balancing principles with pragmatism", I'd say Rahman's calling out those among them who don't want to take the risk as cowards is fair.
What would we say about a similar conspiracy of silence so as to not offend Christian hypocrisy? Or a conspiracy to not cover ANY particular issue of great interest? I get that some of this is out of politeness, but that is also undercut in the article below, in which it is admitted openly that the British press don't shy away from controversy.
Here's the Guardian's defense of the decision.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-p...
They did run this cartoon though, which refers both to racism, and fear as a motive for not publishing. Not sure if it is serious, or satrizing how some journalists are reacting.
http://cifwatch.com/2015/01/08/is-a-guardian-cartoon-on-the-charlie-hebd...
And less-educated people are not as likely to get coarse satire? Not sure what that is based on. From what I see it is mostly the highly educated who have been falling all over themselves pretending they don't get it, and, for instance, that CH was actually making fun of Christiane Taubira, rather than calling out a racist attack against her.
Here she is, by the way:
http://www.public.fr/News/Charlie-Hebdo-Christiane-Taubira-On-peut-tout-...
The cartoons (or at least some of them) were printed here in Québec. I don't believe that they were published anywhere in English Canada, or in English-language media here; even within CBC/Radio-Canada, there was a cultural split.
Pondering, I find it odd that you don't seem to have seen Charlie Hebdo, given the part of Montréal you live in. I wasn't in the habit of reading it either; while there were some cartoonists I admired, I found they were getting far too gratuitously frat-boy-fart-jokes in their dotage. But it was prominently displayed at newsagents and libraries throughout the Plateau and up in my neighbourhood north of there.
http://www.pressegauche.org/spip.php?article20416
Lagatta: The National Post published at least one of the pre-shooting Muhammed cartoons, and the post-shooting Je Suis Charlie cover a few times. On-line anyway.
Thanks, votd. It isn't a paper I see often around where I live; I suppose it is at the newsagent's that sells papers and periodicals from everywhere. Suppose the Pest published those to fuel the flames, like Faux News.
Though it does mean Postmedia has. Here's the Vancouver Sun:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Metro+Vancouver+magazine+shops+st...
And according to the cutline on that pic this latest issue was being published in six languages, including Arabic and Turkish.
The canadian press ran a disclaimer before this video piece. Seems like a fair move to me:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Video+Canadians+line+first+Charlie+He...
(edit)
And Amnesty International has addressed the crackdown in France since the shootings:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/france-begins-jailing-p...
Netanyahu and Europe's Far Right Find Common Ground - by Jonathan Cook
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2015-01-18/netanyahu-and-europes-far-right-...
"Israel has been having its own internal debate about the significance of the Paris killings this month, with concerns quite separate from those being experienced in Europe.
While Europeans [and some Babblers] are mired in debates about free speech and the role of Islam in secular societies, Israelis generally - and their prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular - view the attacks as confirming Israel's place as the only safe haven for Jews around the world.
His approach is embodied in recent efforts - delayed because of the election - to pass a basic law defining Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. That would crown Mr Netanyahu leader of Jews worldwide - rather than of Israeli citizens..."
Manipulation in Paris
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/19/manipulation-in-paris/
"In this commentary, this writer will join in the condemnation of the assault on Charlie Hebdo and the killing of journalists. It should be stated categorically here that this writer defends freedom of speech without endorsing the speech's content. Thus, I am unequivocally denouncing the killings in France.
The use of satire as camouflage for racist and offensive speech is unacceptable and should be equally denounced.
It is also urgent for progressive forces to work to ensure that the killings and mass mobilization are not turned into vehicles for manipulating the working people to support racism, islamophobia and other forms of European jingoism and chauvinism.
Even the mainstream media such as Reuters is now writing that 'Charlie Hebdo fallout: Specter of fascist past haunts European nationalism.' This spectre must be taken seriously because fascism emerges in the midst of a capitalist crisis when the ruling elements mobilize chauvinism and racism to divert the attention of the working people from mobilizing against the capitalist class.
This was the concrete experience of fascism during the last major capitalist depression.
Progressives cannot sit idly by while religious warfare is being stoked to inflame the passions of young exploited and alienated working peoples. Those who have not accepted the massive propaganda about saving freedom of expression, are asking questions about why six months before perpetrating such violence, the Frence security apparatus ended surveillance of these three men..."
Letters From Brussels: At Gun Point Under My Own Window
http://www.aboujahjah.org/articles-and-blog/fri-jan-16-2015
"Ethnically profiled at gun point in my own street, under my own window, they could have just went with me a few meters to see my name on the bell and compare it with the name on my ID. I walk feeling heavy, very heavy inside, I stand in front of my door and wonder if I have the right to open it.
I see blonde blue-eyed people walk next to the cops, they walk not looking suspicious at all..."
Chomsky: Paris Attacks Show Hypocrisy of West's Outage
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-noam-chomsky/
"Their' crimes are terror attacks, while 'Our' attacks are not crimes, but are noble defense of values.'
I don't frequent newsstands but I had heard of Charlie Hebdo. I don't pay any attention to sports news either so I rarely know which sport famous atheletes are from. It's not the kind of publication I would look for but I didn't assume anything about its Quebec circulation or lack thereof. It would still appeal to a limited audience. I do believe that many people seeing the type of cartoons they produced would not get the intended message and simply see the drawins as racist caricatures therefore socially acceptable.
Which bandwagon is this, I wonder... the pro-conservative religion, pro-censorship, pro-state control, anti-gay bandwagon, or the whatever bandwagon the western powers aren't on bandwagon?
Very convenient either way.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1157424
A range of other opinions within Russia, from support for CH, to spreading the unsubstantiated theory that the west orchestrated the attack:
https://news.vice.com/article/russias-reaction-to-the-charlie-hebdo-atta...
And a state-sponsored rally in Chechnya:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/anti-charlie-hebdo-protest-...
Two useful articles by historians, from activehistory.ca -
[url=http://activehistory.ca/2015/01/whowhat-really-is-charlie/]Who/What Really Is Charlie? By Alban Bargain-Villéger[/url]
[url=http://activehistory.ca/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-in-historical-context/]Cha... Hebdo in Historical Context By Geoff Read[/url]
Another historical comparison from The Comics Journal:
http://www.tcj.com/charlie-horses-on-caricature-and-outrage/
Though as I just mentioned in the other place, the narrative that cartoonists are to be equated with reactionary governments isn't entirely accurate. Using the French example, Jacques Hébert found out the hard way that it wasn't healthy to be more radical than the radicals, and to criticize them once they were in power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_H%C3%A9bert
France Under the Influence - by Diana Johnstone
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/20/france-under-the-influence/
"There is a certain terrible symnmetry playing out in France. Israel is deliberately and consistently doing all it can to excite fears among French Jews, in order to lure this desirable population into moving to Israel.
At the same time, the so-called 'Islamic State', as well as 'al Qaeda in Yemen' and associated fanatic Islamic groups are working hard to recruit fighters out of the Muslim communities in France and other European countries.
Outside powers are now pushing France into a war in the Middle East that it can neither afford nor win. France, like the US, designates Islamic terrorism as its great enemy, while doing everything possible to favor its growth and extension.
France appears to be manipulated by both Israel and the United States.
The notion that it is very daring to commit 'blasphemy' against a god in which you do not believe makes no sense to me. Certainly, in the milieu of Charlie Hebdo, insulting Islamic beliefs was the surest way to amuse one's friends. It was supposed to sell papers..."
What's More Dangerous Than Terrorists in Paris?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/whats-more-dangerous-than-terrorists-in-par...
"In the wake of the horrific Charlie Hebdo massacre, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves LeDrian made the following statement: 'Today, the new and serious element is that there is no dividing line between the external threat and the internal threat.'
He made this statement as he sought to justify the current mobilization of ten thousand French troops inside France as well as the expanding French military role in US-led colonial wars in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Such 'danger from within and without' claims are the tried and true method for preparing ordinary people who do not want war or the suppression of democratic rights, to accept both."
Anti-Muslim Incidents Soar By 110% in France
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/01/21/394047/Anti-Muslim-acts-up-110-...
"There have been more and more places of worship being attacked. Muslim girls and women who wear the veil or those that don't are being attacked and there's silence from the politicians'..."
Terrorism At the Ballot Box - by Warren Kinsella
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/01/19/terrorism-at-the-ballot-box
"The implications of terrorist acts - particularly when carried out in proximity to an election year - are far ranging for every democracy. 'Right wing parties benefit from the increasing prominence of the security issue during a wave of terror."
Charlie Hebdo: The [Not Very] Hidden Agenda Exposed (and vid)
http://youtu.be/J0dkqK1pGqE
I Am Palestine, I Am Odessa, I Am Donbass, But I Am Not Charlie
http://redstaroverdonbass.blogspot.ca/2015/01/i-am-palestine-i-am-odessa...
"Remember also, that Charlie called Cuba a dictatorship, Fidel and Chavez dictators, Charlie supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. He approved the bombing of Libya and celebrated the murder of Gaddafi. He consistently sides with Israel against the Palestinians.
He says that Russia is a danger to world peace and is responsible for the situation in Ukraine, which indirectly supports the US. He called for intervention in Syria and said the Syrian opposition were 'heroes'. Curiously, Wikipedia calls this paper 'a French satirical weekly on the left.'
No wonder so much support from the Canuckle-head 'left!'
Norman Finkelstein: Charlie Hebdo is Sadism, Not Satire
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article40766.htm
"Let's say....admidst all of this death and destruction, two young Jews barged into the editorial offices of Der Sturmer, and they killed the staff for having humiliated them, denigrated them, demeaned them, insulted them, queried Norman Finkelstein....How would I react to that?
There's a big difference between satire and sadism. Charlie Hebdo is sadism. It's not satire..."
Charlie Hebdo consistently sides with the Israelis against the Palestinians? :
Shall I continue?
And yeah, the west was right behind them:
And funny, I have always thought of threatening people into opening doors, murdering others, and terrifying hostages as sadism. Depicting uncomfortable opinions with a pen? Not quite the same thing.
Well, if Charlie Hebdo is nothing but a racist hate rag, so is almost the entire French left wing.
God it's good to be in Canada, where we're better than those frenchies and don't need to look for context or complexity.
This may be helpful...
Reza Aslan on Canadian Islamophobia
http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2015/01/best-net/watch-author-re...
the barking dogs of the JDL were of course defending Israel outside
Not really, though I am not surprised you are throwing in a piece shot before the attacks, and putting a dollop of JDL on top as if that has anything to do with anything.
Here's what he had to say after the fact:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/reza-aslan-blames-ch...
So he blames it on racist, right-wing, anti-immigrant sentiment, and names PEGIDA and the National Front, two of the groups skewered most by Charlie Hebdo.
And criticizing religion is "aggressive secularizing"?
Speaking of equal opportunity ridicule, everybody gets it here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/19/1358556/-Cartoon-Charlie-Hebd-o...
I was wondering how long it would take for Canada to impose the same restrictions as France.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/blaney-promises-to-fight-anti-semitism-ze...
Now I got my answer.
After Charlie Hebdo: Breaking the Cycle of Fascism
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/22/after-charlie-hebdo-breaking-the-...
"With the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Europe has entered a new political era, the worst aspect of which could be another rise of right wing forces and this, another blow to progressive movements..."
Charlie Hebdo, the Free Press and Racism - by Sara Flounders
http://blackagendareport.com/node/14631
"The Charlie Hebdo assassinations strengthen the hand of the state, which is using them in an ideological offensive, even if the State had a role in arming and training them.
The French government's protection of the racist journal Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with protecting Freedom of Speech. This is a deception that must be confronted.
Charlie Hebdo serves a very important purpose for French imperialism, and that is why its virulent racism has been protected at the very time that protests against it are prohibited."
George Galloway MP: Who Benefits From Islamophobia? (and vid)
http://www.presstv.com/Video/2015/01/23/394389/Who-benefits-from-Islamop...
"A wave of Islamophobia and a spike of attacks is sweeping across Europe..."
Tears of the prophet. An analysis of the new issue by The Comics Journal:
http://www.tcj.com/the-tears-of-the-prophet/
A little historical context to the way the French government has treated immigrants from it's former colonies
Paris massacre of 1961
Perhaps as many as 200 (no one knows for sure) peaceful Algerian independence protesters were massacred by Paris city police.
BTW the Prefect of Police for Paris at the time was Maurice Papon, a Nazi collaborator and police official in the Vichy regime.
Yes, of course I knew about that massacre, and the Charonne massacre a year later. Maurice Papon was really a disgusting piece of shit; I'm sure Le Pen père has wet dreams about him with his hatred of both Arabs and Jews.
But I've been chatting with people in France (some are of Maghrebi and African origins) about this and why on earth parts of the anglo left seem to be locating Charlie among the racist far right - when there is no shortage of actual racists and reactionaries, such as Houllebecq and Zemmour. Headslap.
Wow! 25 pages about an event in France that saw less than 20 people dead.
I wonder how many drone stikes happened in the same time?
I wonder how many Afghans, Iraqis died since?
Simple act of focusing MORE on the events from a western white European country than any other non white country in itself is an act of racism!
Paris and Volnavakha: The Brutal Face of NATO Terrorism
http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/22/paris-and-volnovakha-the-brutal-face-o...
"The terrorist actions in Paris are part of the same machine that carried out the terrorist action against the bus at Volnavakha"
Two reasons that I can see:
First, being too dumb to figure out anything that doesn't conform with their doctrinaire approach. I mean studiously dumb, in that they refuse to consider what is actually going on because it doesn't compute with their beliefs.
And secondly, having a deep mistrust of anyone - particularly any media - that actually shows some free and critical thinking, won't simply act as their tool, and might actually turn it's criticism on them.
Part of this may be a cultural divide between Europe and N.A. (though not really, we have similar examples of satire), but this is not anything different than any other purity war on the right or the left that we see all the time.
I'll just pass over the irrelevant argument
I suppose calling France a "white" country is something the National Front would love to hear; but if we are talking about what is and isn't racist what do you think about ignoring the many non-white and Muslim people who have been part of that society for some time, and the history which is much longer?
Nationalism based on racial segregation into white and non-white nations? This is good news to extremists on all sides. For the rest of us? Not so much.
Not to mention that, if any discussion of political violence in a "white" country is racist, then we're all racist every time we talk about anti-abortion violence, sectarian strife in Belfast, etc.
Historically white and still controlled by whites. Actually, the European Parliament seems pretty white too.
http://blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/tag/european-parliament/
Are we going to pretend that because there is a "black" president whites don't control the U.S? If France were not dominant white the laws against women wearing hijabs would not have passed.
Sure, just like Canada is a white nation. You think selling into the divisive whitewashing language of racists is going to do anything to lessen that divide? Or change the perception that those who aren't white are not part of those nations?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/paris-attacks-right...
I don't think there is any country on the Earth completely dominated by just one single race? I'm sure each has an minority group to at least less than 1% population.
I'm just commenting on western media.
Furthermore, I'm sure it's safe to say France is a white country. But really it would be more correct to use the word "predominant"
LOL!
White violence=political violence
Muslim violence=terrorism!
For the record, I generally use similar terminolgy to describe all froms of political violence. That might sometimes include the word "terrorism", but I'd apply it equally to anti-abortion fanatics just as soon as I'd apply it to the people who shot up the Hebdo.
@WWWTT That would a better "Gotcha", IF I had used the word "terrorist" to describe Muslim political violence in the same post. But since I did no such thing, your rebuttal isn't quite the LOL-worthy triumph you make it out to be.
Evidently not white and safe enough for some. See the le Pen cover from a certain racist rag I posted at #724..
Yes, of course western media only covers white news. Let's keep those "black and white" arguments coming until someone calls us on it and we have to admit that's not quite how things are in the real world.
Ten Euros says no one from the people calling Charlie Hebdo a racist rag will actually respond to you; they've ignored this point for quite a few pages already. But 20 Euros says we'll have numerous more links to anglo-left kneejerk articles that continue the same uninformed assumptions. Thanks for continuing to give the context!
White in the sense of who controls the country and whose culture is respected not in the sense of the colour of all of its inhabitants. The only perspective being considered to have any validity at all is rooted in western culture and western ideals. As usual we are the centre of the world and everyone else is othered. All that matters is us and our rights.
You mean western culture and western ideals that Muslim and non-white people are not a part of at all, even though they have been living in it for hundreds of years, and in some places, for longer than the so-called whites? Those Muslim and non-white people whose culture is largely responsible for the creation of our western culture?
Speaking of "othering", that's the lie that the racists want us to keep repeating.
All that matters is us and our rights. Wonder what Salman Rushdie would have to say about that.
What modern western culture is derived from is not the point. We are talking about what it is now and the way it dominates discourse now and who's views it represents. For all France claims the anglo world "just doesn't understand" the cultural differences between France and the anglo world pale in comparison to the differences between western culture controlled primarily by white people and that of predominently muslim cultures. There is a racist component to our disrespect towards other cultures even as we adopt some of their cuisine and art.
I am talking about it now too, in case I didn't say it twice clearly enough.
You think there are some who aren't part of it and who have no place in it?
Or if we want to step outside of what some consider the "white" world, that this isn't just as much a threat to some people in countries other than European ones?
I know we have been around this before, but I am curious as to what you mean by "our disrespect", in the context of this situation.
Pondering said:
Similar laws were enacted in secular Turkey and Tunisia long before the French directives (don't know whether those can be called "laws" or not). Of course we could argue whether or not those countries are "white" - people around the Mediterranean have very similar genes, and there isn't much difference between a Greek and a Turk, a Sicilian, Maltese or Tunisian, an Andalusian and a Moroccan. Whiteness is also a cultural construct.
So is blackness. The reason biracial Obama is "black" is because of the "one-drop-rule" under racist laws meaning even a share of "black blood" is a "taint". As a result, people of subsaharan African descent, whatever their hue, have reclaimed blackness.
Swallow, I've been very critical of Charlie Hebdo for a long time. But it was never in the right-wing, racist camp, which sadly does exist in France and elsewhere in Europe. One of the leaders of the extreme anti-Muslim movement in Germanyh had to step down after a photo of him posing as Hitler was revealed...
6079, in this case it is francophone and anglophone, not Europe vs North America.
Where I stay when I'm in Paris is not "white", it is very multiracial and multicultural. And of course, it is a "no-go-zone".
Pages