Join the discussion about Charlie Hebdo - closed

796 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-c...

Not helpful.

Thing is, I am sure those at the paper would have been the first to defend him, if they were still alive.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

Not all satire and not everywhere. We are talking about within the western world and more specifically within France directed against a minority that is struggling AND does not convey any particular message other than "up-yours". I don't really consider that any more satirical than fat jokes.

Quote:

This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.

On a continent where immigrants and the children of immigrants are disproportionately represented in almost every prison system, the French figures are the most marked, according to researchers, criminologists and Muslim leaders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR200804...

Pondering wrote:

Expressing disapproval is not muzzling.

Pondering wrote:

The population of France is 66 million but the typical print run of Charlie Hebdo is 60 thousand and they don't normally have mainstream support. Not buying their paper is not muzzling, it's an expression of disapproval or indifference.

I think media should have printed some of the better work of all the cartoonists more prominently. Isn't that what is usually done? Printing the best of someone's work rather than the most offensive?

Is anyone here promoting banning or censorship?

I feel compelled to say that I agree with most (almost all?) of what you have written, not just specifically in this comment but throughout the topic.

wage zombie

Red Winnipeg wrote:

Pondering: "Political satire is elevated by it's attempt to communicate some message beyond simply insulting people."

When is speech an "attempt to communicate some message" versus "simply insulting people"? If I say, "Fuck the Pope!" should I be barred from doing so because it is "simplying insulting people" or can I say it because I have attempted "to communicate some message"?

Nobody is trying to bar you from saying "Fuck the Pope!"  They're telling you that nothing about making that statement makes you a brilliant satirist.  "Fuck the Pope!" absent any futher commentary puts you on par with an angry teenager.

6079_Smith_W

The ideologues seem to be pushing their way to the front of the line on both sides to exploit this. Apparently it is an act of war now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11342210/UK-shop...

By contrast, some might consider Rotterdam Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb rude and potty-mouthed, but he is not making threats. He hasn't justified the violence, nor is he likely to shoot anyone.

http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/01/08/muslims-dont-like-free-speech-can-fuck-...

(edit)

And while I don't buy the argument that selective censorship by government is a valid argument that it is a good thing, if one is arguing for self-censorship (as is being done here) does that extend to cutting women out of pictures so as not to offend religious sensibilities? The question of legality is moot.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ultra-orthodox-jewish-newspaper-edits-fem...

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Just popping in again as a reminder that for me and some others this horrible event isn't about free speech.

........

Aamer Rahman rocks!

 

.....

Beyond Freedom of Speech for white men by Nora Loreto, rabble.ca blogger

Quote:

In 2011, the French government banned women from covering their face in public. France, a country with a brutal colonial relationship to many predominantly Muslim countries, chose Muslim women as its target in a state version of What Not to Wear.

....

The face-cover ban should be controversial. Every defender of free expression in the Western world should have mounted fierce opposition to the ban as it encroaches on women’s right to free expression. 

But the fight for Free Speech waged by most Canadian pundits isn’t a fight that includes women. It’s one of the few struggles that white men with access to both power and privilege can wage demanding even more privilege, without criticism. There is no universal access to free speech and free expression in an unequal society.

When a gunman murdered 14 people for political reasons in Montreal in 1989, it was condemned not as an attack on free speech, but as a horrifying example of violence against women.

...

So what state protections have there been for Muslim women who believe their faith demands they cover their faces? Why is their freedom of expression less important? Where’s the global outrage over the fact that pro-Palestinian protests been banned by the state of France? If violence against women is a tool meant to silence them (either through fear or murder), why do Western states consistently fail to keep women safe?

In the wake of the murder at the Charlie Hebdo offices, many pundits have reduced freedom of speech to fighting for the privileged to mock the oppressed. The greatest free speech advocates in Canada, the ones who rush to spew odes to freedom across whichever opinions sections, so often ‘forget’ to condemn attacks on freedom of speech when they happen to non-white, non-male people.

...

Imagine every single Canadian newspaper running editorials demanding justice for Indigenous women, based on the premise that the violence waged against them are attacks on their free speech and expression.

Imagine journalists collectively demanding that the state not only protect, but ensure stable funding mechanisms, free of political interference, to allow for the news industry to engage in investigative reporting or to hire more journalists.

...

Freedom of speech is extremely important and must be defended, and equal access to freedom of speech is not a struggle that exists in isolation. It includes the freedom for everybody to choose their own clothing. It includes the freedom to live without fear that your partner will murder you in your home.

Until the fight for Freedom of SpeechTM is wrestled away from the old white men whose names grace the opinion pages of Canada’s national newspapers, this campaign will only seek to give more rights to the already privileged while ignoring (and in some cases, further oppressing) the freedom of speech of the oppressed.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Maysie.

I agree with your first statement. And as I said above, I'd say anyone who is actually concerned about free expression is just as alarmed about that comic being investigated.

But the distractions, bandwagon jumping and exploitation aside, we are still left with that very basic question of freedom. If they crossed that big a  line, well where is that line?

Again, why did the attackers target a gang of irreverent comics, and other newspapers, and not the National Front? A bank?

I'd suggest that this renewed oppression and  violence is exactly what they wanted to happen.

And the suggestion that it is all old white guys? I'll leave that as an open question.

 

 

wage zombie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I agree with your first statement. And as I said above, I'd say anyone who is actually concerned about free expression is just as alarmed about that comic being investigated.

What comic are you referring to that is being investigated?

Quote:

But the distractions, bandwagon jumping and exploitation aside, we are still left with that very basic question of freedom. If they crossed that big a  line, well where is that line?

Who is they?  Charlie Hebdo?  They are a bunch of nobodies who became heroes by virtue of becoming victims.  What is the very basic question of freedom you are referring to?

Quote:

Again, why did the attackers target a gang of irreverent comics, and other newspapers, and not the National Front? A bank?

They chose a target that offered good bang for terrorist buck.

Why didn't the Boston Marathon bombers choose a US political party?  Or a bank?

Quote:

I'd suggest that this renewed oppression and  violence is exactly what they wanted to happen.

Sure.  Increase polarization, increase recruitment.

Durrutix

Free speech not so "free" when non-Muslims in the crosshairs.  

Left: "Koran is shit; doesn't stop bullets. 

Right: "Charlie Hebdo is shit; doesn't stop bullets

Is the left image "free speech" and the right image "terrror speech"?  If so, why?  

France moves to crack down on 'terror' speech

French courts have started handing out prison sentences to outspoken supporters of the recent terror attacks in Paris, with a girl as young as 15 apprehended by police for referring to the Kouachis as “my brothers”.

The longest sentence so far was handed to a man in the northern French city of Valenciennes on Tuesday after he was found guilty of telling police “there should be more Kouachis. I hope you’re the next (victims)”.

According to France Info, he was sentenced to four years behind bars.

All over France judges are putting France’s recently approved Anti-Terror Act to use, a law spearheaded by Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve and geared primarily at stopping terrorists and their sympathizers from condoning barbaric acts and attracting new recruits to their cause on the internet.

In Toulouse, southern France, three men between the ages of 20 and 25 received ten-month jail terms after they applauded the murder of 17 people during last week’s attacks.

“The Kouachi brothers are only the first ones, I should have been with them so we could have killed more people,” one of the accused was reported as telling tramway security in the city in southern France.

French authorities are also concerned about the high volume of altercations in schools across the country during the minute of silence held for the victims of the Charlie Hebdo and Kosher supermarket massacres.

Out of the 70 incidents they recorded, the words of a 15-year-old schoolgirl who interrupted the homage are perhaps the most disturbing.

“They succeeded, I’m proud of them and their killings, they’re my brothers”.

http://www.thelocal.fr/20150113/france-kicks-off-crackdown-on-terror-speech

6079_Smith_W

@ wage zombie

The story at #451

A bunch of nobodies? Really?

The basic question: the right to publish or say anything so long as it doesn't contravene hate laws (and I include in that material which runs afoul of abusive use of those laws). Again, read the story at #451.

As was mentioned upthread the attackers chose a good target by design, or more likely because they happened to be the only ones willing to go to the boards on the issue of the image of Mohammed, because they have a sometimes offensive style of humour that some aren't willing to defend (though I challenge those who question CH's political intent) . I think there are plenty of media voices, even in the Muslim and Arab world, who see beyond that.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

And @ Durrutix

I probably don't need to say it, but I don't agree with charging for those things, and I don't think anyone honestly concerned with press freedom considers that a conflict.

Wanna make fun of CH? Fine. It has been done enough while they were alive, and those who get their noses out of joint over it now that they are dead probably need to be shaken up.

 

wage zombie

Please be more explicit about the expected takeaway from your link in #451.  It is a very short article.  My takeaway is that the right of free speech is applied selectively by the state.

I get the sense that you're looking to debate whether anything published by CH was hate speech.  Please inform me if that's not the case.  At this point, I think that question is irrelevant.  It's no longer about Charlie Hebdo (IMO).

Quote:

As was mentioned upthread the attackers chose a good target by design, or more likely because they happened to be the only ones willing to go to the boards on the issue of the image of Mohammed, because they have a sometimes offensive style of humour that some aren't willing to defend (though I challenge those who question CH's political intent).

So why was the Boston Marathon bombed?  Are extremist muslims anti-fitness?

lagatta

Cabu and Wolinski have been very well-known cartoonists and illustrators in France (and throughout the French-speaking world) for many decades.

Durrutix

@ 6079

"I don't think anyone honestly concerned with press freedom considers that a conflict."

I hope you're right.  Presumably the newspapers and liberal blogosphere will shortly be full of loud howls of condemnation over these acts -- French authorities arresting 15 year old girls for "terror speech" and sentencing Muslim men to 4 years in prison for off-the-cuff remarks.   As I mentioned previously, the real threat to free speech in France is posed by the authorities, not Muslims, and we are now seeing that rather vividly. 

6079_Smith_W

@ wage zombie

Actually no. I'm not trying to debate that. I don't care if some one thinks it was hate speech,  though I don't think it was. There are plenty of people who have said they deserved it.

The takeaway should be clear; a comic should be able to speak uncomfortable truths without having the law brought down on him.

As for your other framing, the bombers in Yemen didn't attack the U.S.S. Cole because of the ship newsletter. Attackers have different reasons and targets. That notwithstanding, there is an established tradition of attacking writers and artists for making depictions of the prophet and challenging religious doctrine.

And yes, free speech is selectively recognized by the state. That is a bad thing in my opinion, and I don't see how it is in conflict with standing up for the right to publish in this case.

and @ Durrutix

Believe me, I am as concerned about this boiling over, and the worst coming out in people as you are. I recognize that the Muslim and non-white population is a threatened minority in France, and that the white majority are increasingly moving to the right. If I don't say it all the time here, let me assure you it is on my mind.

Recognizing the differences in opinion you and I have on this, I do not see the two issues as being in conflict; quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

 

bekayne

Durrutix wrote:

Left: "Koran is shit; doesn't stop bullets. 

Right: "Charlie Hebdo is shit; doesn't stop bullets

Did anyone claim it could?

NorthReport

3 million copies now - good!

Charlie Hebdo cover to feature Prophet Muhammad with tear on cheek

Liberation loaned out office space to make issue possible

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charlie-hebdo-cover-to-feature-prophet-muha...

wage zombie

lagatta wrote:

Cabu and Wolinski have been very well-known cartoonists and illustrators in France (and throughout the French-speaking world) for many decades.

Thanks for the explanation.  My assumption was based on the 60,000 circulation of the magazine which seems quite small.

wage zombie

Durrutix wrote:

Left: "Koran is shit; doesn't stop bullets. 

Right: "Charlie Hebdo is shit; doesn't stop bullets

bekayne wrote:

Did anyone claim it could?

The Koran or Charlie Hebdo?

wage zombie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ wage zombie

Actually no. I'm not trying to debate that. I don't care if some one thinks it was hate speech,  though I don't think it was. There are plenty of people who have said they deserved it.

Here on Babble?

Thanks for clarifying your other points.

6079_Smith_W

@ bekayne

I don't get what you are saying at # 465. Please explain.

and @ wage zombie

I was talking more about the American Catholic organization, and others in wider society. That said, there has been some blurring of the lines here, IMO. Only one person has come right out and said they were asking for it, but the fact that we are having this conversation in the wake of their murder is one of a number of implied associations - about their work, and about the opinions of those in the non-white community - that I have mentioned already.

 

 

 

lagatta

Here's one from the Arab Democratic Movement: "It's hard to be co-opted by idiots"

http://assawra.blogspot.fr/2015/01/marche-republicaine-cest-dur-detre.html

The disproportionate charges and prison sentences are disturbing indeed. I remember back when, we'd casually say things like "Where are the FLQ, now that we really need them?" and none of us were about to set off bombs or kidnap anyone.

NDPP

The Vulnerability of French Jewry

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/13/the-vulnerability-of-french-jewry/

"The main impediments to the security of French Jewry  are two-fold. First Israel...

Substantively, Israel needs Islamic extremism as an essential force in the pursuit of Middle Eastern hegemony and territorial expansion. The 1982 Yinon Plan envisaged the fragmentation of neighboring Arab states, to the benefit of greater Israel - and well advanced in implementation it is.

The major beneficiary, if not the major motivating force, of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has been Israel. Dissolution of Syria (means to the permanent appropriation of the Golan Heights and the stepping stone to Lebanon and Iran), is almost there. Add the hitherto unimagined 'gold mine' of Mediterranean gas revenues, prime for monopolization.

Israel is actively supporting Jihadi forces in Syria and Iraq towards this end. So also are the US [Canada,] Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France itself - all for their particular interests. But the active participation of Israel in Islamic extremism has the 'Righteous Among the Nations' as an integral part of the team fostering 'global' jihadism, neatly ignored in our self-regulating 'liberty of expression' media..."

NDPP

Charlie Hebdo Massacre Bolsters Stephen Harper's Tough Line on Radical Islam: Walkom

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/09/charlie_hebdo_massacre_bol...

"It may be crass to ask which Canadian politician benefits most from the Charlie Hebdo massacre. But it is necessary. In the short run, and with an election scheduled no later than October, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the clear winner from this grim affair.

Given popular revulsion over the Charlie Hebdo atrocity, Harper will find it politically easier to pass new laws aimed at beefing up security - even if they whittle away unnecessarily at individual civil liberties.

Conversely, the Liberals and New Demoncrats will find it politically more difficult to oppose such laws or to criticize Canada's participation in the latest Iraq war.

'The international jihadist movement has declared war,' Harper said Thursday, hinting strongly that Canada would respond in kind.."

 

New Anti Terror Laws Could Be 'Slippery Slope': US Expert

http://www.canada.com/News/canada/anti+terror+laws+could+slippery+slope+...

"The federal government will soon table a bill to allow for certain laws of preventative arrest to thwart potential terror acts.

'I think that's a very slippery slope, to be honest,' said John Horgan, director of the Center for Terrorism and Security Studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

'We are dealing with a complex phenomenon; we have shifted to this preventative paradigm,' Horgan told the Citizen. 'It's remarkable to me as a scholar how we seem to have lost any sense of proportion in that..."

bekayne

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ bekayne

I don't get what you are saying at # 465. Please explain.

My mistake, I misinterpreted "indicted"

 

bekayne

6079_Smith_W wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/french-comedian-dieudonne-c...

Not helpful.

Thing is, I am sure those at the paper would have been the first to defend him, if they were still alive.

 

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

Durrutix wrote:

 

 

They should have lead with the cover on the right for thier opening after the attack.

6079_Smith_W

Actually, a follow-up to #451.

Here's a cover they did of him at the time of the previous scandal:

And a bit of a translation of that and some other cartoons:

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

I still expect they'd take an even more dim view of those in power to use this as an excuse to clamp down on comedy.

and @ lagatta

Good article. That cartoon is worth reprinting.

 

 

NS NS's picture

The Sydney Morning Herald issued an apology for this accurate depiction of Israelis in August 2014

 

 

NS NS's picture

Charlie Hebdo satire for all religions? NOPE just Anti-Islam Bigotry

 

 

 

Another Ex Charlie Hebdo staffer documents mag's rising  OBSESSION not just with fundamentalist Islam but Muslim stereotypes.

 

DaveW

Acting brazenly for monetary gain alone is an anti-Semitic trope, which the editors of Charlie immediately rejected.

But that happened in concert with their many many caricature denunciations of Israel, Netanyahu, Western policies in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, etc.

So no, NS, they do not focus one-sidedly on Islam.

I have been reading CH off an on since 1975 and while anti-religion has always been a huge theme, anti-Islamism has historically been secondary.

6079_Smith_W

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11343077/How-I-c...

http://www.lesinrocks.com/2015/01/10/actualite/luz-eyes-us-weve-become-s...

Quote:

 

Now, there’s momentum. And in a year, what will remain of this rather progressive momentum for the freedom of speech? Will financial help be offered to private press? Will people oppose the closure of newspapers? Newspaper stands? Will people buy newspapers? Will anything remain of this momentum? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

Unionist

NS wrote:

The Sydney Morning Herald issued an apology for this accurate depiction of Israelis in August 2014

Hook nose, star of David, and a skullcap (which a small minority of Israeli men wear) - anti-Semitic trash. Of the same order as Netanyahu and Harper, who equate Jews with Israel. I didn't see their apology, or what they apologized for... but this kind of shit is no different from the Islamophobic tropes passing as "satire" in many media. That is not to say, of course, that anyone should be murdered for printing them, nor should their freedom of expression be restricted. But defending shit like this on babble? Cool, carry right on. Just make sure to defend it when Roma and LGBTQ folks and indigenous peoples and Muslims are targeted.

I am a Jew, I am anti-Zionist, I support the struggle of the Palestinian people. Ridicule Jews at your peril.

 

6079_Smith_W

Anyone else read Andrew Coyne's latest editorial on this (he has written two in succession) - the latest comparing Bonhomme on his cover to Mohammed on theirs.

 

 

NDPP

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually, a follow-up to #451.

Here's a cover they did of him at the time of the previous scandal:

And a bit of a translation of that and some other cartoons:

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

I still expect they'd take an even more dim view of those in power to use this as an excuse to clamp down on comedy.

 

apparently not...From the guy in the picture...

 

Famous Comedian Dieudonne replies to Minister of the Interior Bernard Cazeneuve

http://quenelplus.com/a-la-une/liberte-dexpression-dieudonne-repond-a-be...

"Yesterday we were all Charlie. We all walked and stood for freedom to be allowed to laugh at everything. All the Government's officials - you included - were walking together in the same direction. Yet when I came back home I felt all alone.

The Government has been targeting me for a year now and is still looking to eliminate me by any means, searches, indictments...More than eighty judicial procedures have struck down my kinfolk and me. And the Government keeps on ruining my life. Eighty judicial procedures.

Since the beginning of last year, I have been treated as public enemy number one, when all I try to do is make people laugh about death, because death laughs at us all, as Charlie knows now, unfortunately...

Whenever I express myself some people will not even try to understand me, they will not listen. They try to find some kind of pretext to suppress me.

I am looked upon as if I were Amedy Coulibaly, when I am no different from Charlie..."

6079_Smith_W

Well he said it. He's no different from Charlie.

Your point?

 

 

NDPP

@Smith: made thanks

 

CCIF: Collectiv Contre L'Islamophobie en France

http://www.islamophobie.net/articles/2015/01/11/les-actes-islamophobes-d...

Islamophobia explodes (fr)

Mr. Magoo

I'm finding it fascinating that militants with enough conviction to kill others (and/or die themselves) over their grievances are, when the act is done, suddenly too bashful to say what those grievances "really" are, so they have to make something up on the spot about "The Prophet" or whatever.

6079_Smith_W

@ NDPP

In terms of the government leaning on him for his stage show I agree with you. It's a good point. That's why I posted it myself.

But there's nothing in there about CH. As for them making a political cartoon about his turning a "Fuck You" salute to Jews a national trend, I'd say that's fair comment.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And while I don't buy the argument that selective censorship by government is a valid argument that it is a good thing, if one is arguing for self-censorship (as is being done here) does that extend to cutting women out of pictures so as not to offend religious sensibilities? The question of legality is moot.

Just the opposite. I would say the moral imperative is to vigorously reject such censorship. In this case women are being wronged by being removed from the public eye. The appearance of women is not directed at offending fundamentalists. The women appearing does not threaten to increase bigotry or violence against them. There is no moral imperative not to offend anyone's sensibilities in the general sense.

The reason most Canadian news sources didn't reprint the most offensive cartoons is due to multiculturalism. Canada is not free from racism or from crimes against humanity in our treatment of indigenous peoples but as a nation we are trying. We place a very high value on mutual respect for one another's cultures and religions. We passionately and earnestly struggle with the question of imposing life-saving treatment on an 11 year old girl because she is indigenous.

Basic respect and consideration for one another is a core tenet of multiculturalism. Muslims aren't preventing us from reprinting the cartoons nor is it self-censorship. It's self-respect and pride in trying to be a civilized nation.

It is our sensibilities that that dictate restraint.

France is the place, remember, where the concept of free expression has failed to stop politicians from banning headscarves and burqas. Charlie Hebdo may claim to be a satirical, equal-opportunity offender. But there’s good reason critics have compared it to “a white power mag.” As Jacob Canfield wrote in an eloquent post at the Hooded Utilitarian, “White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire.”

...

Free speech allows us to say hateful, idiotic things without being punished by the government. But embracing that right means that we need to acknowledge when work is hateful or idiotic, and can’t be defended on its own terms. We need to recognize, as Vox’s Matt Yglesias argues today, that standing up for magazines like Charlie Hebdo is a “regrettable” necessity, in part because it provides cover for anti-Muslim backlash. “Blasphemous, mocking images cause pain in marginalized communities,” he writes. “The elevation of such images to a point of high principle will increase the burdens on those minority groups.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/charlie...

It also provides cover for the people most responsible for this carnage and that isn't the shooters or even radical imams.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

It also provides cover for the people most responsible for this carnage and that isn't the shooters or even radical imams.

Oh really? Do tell.

As for the motive for cutting women out of photographs, your distinction isn't actually valid (and I even recognize that they have the right to do it, however offensive). In the first place, I reject the notion that everyone who has fallen victim to a fatwa or attack did it only to offend. Was The Satanic Verses just a gag?

Even so, the fact is we are allowed to poke religion in the eye, because as much as fundamentalists there and in the United States and elsewhere would like to argue that religions are people with human rights, they are not. And any attempt to give legal recognition for that sort of nonsense - especially above the rights of actual people - SHOULD be resisted.If that means printing forbidden images, so be it.

As for some media in multicultural Canada wanting to be sensitive, I am fine with that, as I said upthread. I am glad though, that rabble has decided to take a laissez faire attitude toward it.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo

If my particular Holy Book says that some thing or other is "sacred" and must not be named/eaten/spoken of, and I neither name, nor eat, nor speak of it, then am I not good to go?

In other words, why am I supposed to give a rat's ass if someone else names, eats or speaks of the sacred thing?  Am I somehow accountable, in an afterlife context, for what some total strangers do, too? 

Jews (or certainly, American Jews) live in a world that reveres bacon.  How do *they* make it to the afterlife without forcing others to not eat bacon? 

NorthReport

Maybe they don't, make it there that is. Laughing

Pondering

Durrutix wrote:

@ 6079

"I don't think anyone honestly concerned with press freedom considers that a conflict."

I hope you're right.  Presumably the newspapers and liberal blogosphere will shortly be full of loud howls of condemnation over these acts -- French authorities arresting 15 year old girls for "terror speech" and sentencing Muslim men to 4 years in prison for off-the-cuff remarks.   As I mentioned previously, the real threat to free speech in France is posed by the authorities, not Muslims, and we are now seeing that rather vividly. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And yes, free speech is selectively recognized by the state. That is a bad thing in my opinion, and I don't see how it is in conflict with standing up for the right to publish in this case.

The conflict is that when free speech is defended selectively it is not free speech that is being defended.

Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.

"L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad."

A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-c...

If anyone should be fired it's the editor who is responsible for deciding what does and doesn't get printed. Charlie Hebdo did not defend free speech they bowed and accepted censorship to avoid offending the powerful.

Pondering

bekayne wrote:

Durrutix wrote:

Left: "Koran is shit; doesn't stop bullets. 

Right: "Charlie Hebdo is shit; doesn't stop bullets

Did anyone claim it could?

I think the point is that the cartoon on the left could be printed on it's own throughout the western world and it would be defended as free speech.

If the cartoon on the right were printed without the other one next to it changing the message, it would be broadly condemned as a taunt or threat. It would generate fury. 

Because they were printed together the message is changed.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

If anyone should be fired it's the editor who is responsible for deciding what does and doesn't get printed. Charlie Hebdo did not defend free speech they bowed and accepted censorship to avoid offending the powerful.

Didn't we go through this already?

Sinet won a wrongful dismissal suit, and Val actually resigned form the paper the year after the firing. The question was raised whether he was a good fit in the first place.

And those pictures are being printed, as have a number of images making fun of CH. Where's the fury? There is no more basis to that than the accusation that they only made fun of Islam.

 

NorthReport

Jon Stewart mocks “Je Suis Charlie” hypocrisy: Countries claiming solidarity — even as they jail journalists

The segment's light and mocking tone ends with a serious statement on freedom of the press

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/13/jon_stewart_mocks_countries_who_jail_jou...

NDPP

Who is Responsible For the French Terrorist Attacks?  -  by Peter Symonds

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/13/pers-j13.html

"Last week's terrorist attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris is being cynically exploited not only in France, but also by United States and its allies to advance an utterly reactionary agenda.

Attacks on basic democratic rights, already evident in the mass deployment of French police and new troops, go hand in hand with the preparations to escalate war abroad, in the first instance in the Middle East and North Africa..."

 

France Deploys 10,000 Troops in Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attacks  -  by Chris Marsden

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/13/fran-j13.html

"France increasingly resembles a police state.

Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, who came to Paris for Sunday's march, has played a leading role in whipping up a climate of fear over the attacks, to the extent of placing him at odds with Hollande's government.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said Saturday that Jews 'not just in France [but also in Belgium and other places, Sweden] were 'under attack' by a combined Islamist anti-Semitic attack,' and that 'the safest place for Jews is the national home of Jews.'

Further evidence of the extent of official knowledge of all involved in the terror attacks reinforces growing suspicion of possible French state involvement. Both of the Kouachi brothers were on British and US terror watch lists, and Coulibaly was previously convicted for plotting to free an Islamist militant from prison. Coulibaly met Cherif Kouachi in prison.

US intelligence has said that Seif Kouachi had been placed under surveillance by France in November 2011,  but scrutiny was supposedly ended in June 2014, after he was, without explanation, deemed to be no longer dangerous..."

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If anyone should be fired it's the editor who is responsible for deciding what does and doesn't get printed. Charlie Hebdo did not defend free speech they bowed and accepted censorship to avoid offending the powerful.

Didn't we go through this already?

Sinet won a wrongful dismissal suit, and Val actually resigned form the paper the year after the firing. The question was raised whether he was a good fit in the first place.

And those pictures are being printed, as have a number of images making fun of CH. Where's the fury? There is no more basis to that than the accusation that they only made fun of Islam.

That Sinet won his suit proves that Charlie Hebdo folded to political pressure when they fired him in the first place. I haven't seen any cartoons making fun of Charlie Hebdo but even if they exist why should they produce fury? I haven't seen anyone claiming they only "made fun" of Islam. I think it's been made amply clear that they ridicule all kinds of leaders and religions. They had every right to publish. They didn't deserve to die.

Pondering

Thank you for your earlier comment Wage Zombie.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
As for the motive for cutting women out of photographs, your distinction isn't actually valid (and I even recognize that they have the right to do it, however offensive). In the first place, I reject the notion that everyone who has fallen victim to a fatwa or attack did it only to offend. Was The Satanic Verses just a gag?

I never made that claim. I am talking about this particular incident not all incidences. I never said everything Charlie Hebdo printed was of the same quality as what I saw which in my opinion lacks content therefore makes no statement beyond being offensive. I would have preferred the cartoonists be honoured by examples of their finest work.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Even so, the fact is we are allowed to poke religion in the eye, because as much as fundamentalists there and in the United States and elsewhere would like to argue that religions are people with human rights, they are not. And any attempt to give legal recognition for that sort of nonsense - especially above the rights of actual people - SHOULD be resisted.If that means printing forbidden images, so be it.

Did Charlie Hebdo print those images in reaction to an attempt at giving Islam legal personhood of some sort?

6079_Smith_W wrote:
As for some media in multicultural Canada wanting to be sensitive, I am fine with that, as I said upthread. I am glad though, that rabble has decided to take a laissez faire attitude toward it.

I don't see anything about it on Rabble. They leave it up to the mods to determine which posts are acceptable as usual so not particularly laissez faire. Canadian publications individually decided not to print based on their assessment of the value of the material which is also a normal process. All material goes through an assessment process. Nothing is printed by default.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It also provides cover for the people most responsible for this carnage and that isn't the shooters or even radical imams.

Oh really? Do tell.

That will take a post of it's own and it won't be tonight because the chain of events that led to these murders is long.

6079_Smith_W

Plenty of people in this thread have claimed that they targetted Islam and left other religions alone.

And you just said that you thought that if that second picture was published it would generate fury. Well it seems to be making the rounds,as have a number of other unflattering things. I haven't heard any public outcry.

The Danish paper which originally ran pictures of Mohammed has declined to reprint this time. In their case the editor said directly it was because of fear, and that militants have control over their newsroom decisions.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/13/the-newspaper-that-firs...

And another take on it (interesting, though I could do without the gendering)

(edit)

And crossposted with your last post.

Yes, thinking that the right to free speech and security of the person  should be trumped by a "religious right", as is the case here, and is done in a lot of other ways by other fundamentalists, is trying to give religions the same status as people.It is a dangerous precedent.

And the offending pictures are here in this thread. As I said, I am pleased that there has been no thought given to removing them even though they are just as offensive as any other depiction  (as indeed some people have tweetes and written in response to the latest CH cover).

 

Pages

Topic locked