Join the discussion about Charlie Hebdo - closed

The marches, called amid mounting panic over the attacks and hysterical appeals from France’s major political parties and press outlets for national unity, took on a bizarre character. Thousands of police and soldiers were mobilized in Paris alone. Helicopters flew overhead and snipers lined the rooftops as a delegation of nearly 50 foreign heads of state joined the march, while interior ministers of the major powers gathered in Paris to discuss a coordinated escalation of security measures.

--

Behind the atmosphere of hysteria stoked up by the French political establishment and media is an attempt to impose a definite and reactionary political agenda. In a country that has seen two world wars and numerous revolutionary struggles, the killing of 12 people is being elevated to the level of an unprecedented national tragedy in a bid to revive the flagging fortunes of Hollande, France’s most unpopular president since World War II.

By appealing for national unity behind the police and security forces, Hollande is seeking to bolster the credibility of a government despised for its austerity policies, legitimize French participation in the reactionary, Washington-led “war on terror” in Africa and the Middle East, and facilitate right-wing political combinations in a desperate attempt to stabilize the state.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/12/fran-j12.html

I am likely  one of the few posters here with a long history of exposure to Charlie Hebdo; I lived in France for 16 years from the mid 1970s onward, and CH receded in the mediascape more and more

... not just because it was so-o-o repetitive (you can only laugh so many times at Sarkozy screwing the Pope, or vice versa, or Le Pen sieg-heiling in his underwear, or Hollande getting a blowjob while singing the Marseillaise).

My very first day in France in 1975, in the middle of the Portuguese revolution and military uprising against Salazar, I recall a series of cartoons in CH titled: Which way forward for Portugal??

 The panels outlined the likely outcomes, ranging from "Right-wing dictatorship" (images of piles of skulls, swastikas, barbed wire) to "Left-wing dictatorship"" (miserable gays and dissidents in labour camps) and finally to "Capitalist democracy", with a top-hatted tycoon riding 2 people like mules with the carrot of TVs and stereos dangled in front of their gaping mouths....

that was their overall view: everybody's to blame, all the time. No heroes, really. And lots of anuses on display every issue.

Frankly, I hadn't bought a copy in years, but when I did it was not great reading. Just my take.

Aziz Ansari Mercilessly Mocked Rupert Murdoch For His Anti-Muslim Comments On Twitter

Ansari is pure genius.

Quote:

Rupert Murdoch: Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.

Quote:

Aziz Ansari: @rupertmurdoch Rups can we get a step by step guide? How can my 60 year old parents in NC help destroy terrorist groups? Plz advise.

@rupertmudoch Are you responsible for the evil shit all Christians do or just the insane amount of evil you yourself contribute to?

@rupertmurdoch is Christian just like Mark David Chapman who shot John Lennon. Why didn't Rupert stop it? #RupertsFault

Fifth Column, babble is not the place to air completely unsubstantiated and utterly incredible conspiracy theories. No more of the "shooting was faked" nonsense please. I'll add that referring to Jewish people as 'the Tribe' in the way you've done upthread is anti-Semitic and against babble policy. Consider this a warning, thanks.

*waves magic formatting wand, fixes thread so it is suitable for company*

the bandwagon effect, by Aislin:

http://montrealgazette.com/gallery/editorial-cartoons

Mosher started badly, acting above it all, but has gotten ahead of the story in the last few days ...

lagatta wrote:

NS, the Anglosphere also tends to set itself up as to what is racist and how antiracists must combat racism.

There have been powerful antiracist movements in France and other francophone societies, but they do not tend to espouse the "privilege-checking" and guilt that such movements in some anglophone societies, particularly the US, seem centred on. AKA, changing discourse more than reality.

There is also a (sorry) black-and-white portrayal of French society, in which the outlying districts are predominantly inhabited by people of colour.

The old city of Paris is very small. You can walk across it in either direction in a day, without being an athlete. This is like saying all people in NYC would have to fit into Manhattan, or all Torontonians into the old city. In truth, there are many people of all colours and creeds who live in the so-called suburbs, and not all of them are hideous or horrible.

Yes, of course there is racism, sexism and class privilege in French society, but isn't that the case in all modern capitalist societies?

I certainly don't agree with all of Charlie's "humour", but they have nothing to do with Michel Houllebecq or other spokesbots for racism and the far right.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. 

I like French popular culture, the kind that is exported anyway, Beeson's films , Amelie and L'Auberge Espagnole. I am well aware that France is just like other democracies with its own problems such as 10% of French have negative views of Jews. 27% have negative views of Muslims. 66% dislike Roma

Moral Clarity by Adam Shatz

Adam Shatz writes about those unique problems France has "with its while the crimes of colonisation in Algeria are still hardly acknowledged by the state" and how "liberal intellectuals have become laptop bombardiers'. He talks to his friend who happens to be French/Parisian of North African descent.

Assia (not her real name) is a French woman of Algerian origin who has taught for many years in the States, a leftist and atheist who despises Islamism. She read Charlie Hebdo as a teenager, and revelled in its irreverent cartoons. She feels distraught not just by the attacks but by the target, which is part of her lieux de mémoire. A part of her will always be Charlie Hebdo. And yet she finds it preposterous – and disturbing – that even Americans are now saying ‘je suis Charlie.’ Have any of them ever read it? she asked. ‘You couldn’t publish Charlie in the US – not the cartoons about the Prophet, or the images of popes getting fucked in the ass.’ Charlie Hebdo had an equal opportunity policy when it came to giving offence, but in recent years it had come to lean heavily on jokes about Muslims, who are among the most vulnerable citizens in France. Assia does not believe in censorship, but wonders: ‘Is this really the time for cartoons lampooning the Prophet, given the situation of North Africans in France?’

French citizens of North African origin feel their backs are against the wall. That they are turning to an imported form of Islam – often of Gulf origin, often radical – is no surprise: few of them have any familiarity with the more peaceful and tolerant Islam of their North African ancestors. Nor is it surprising to find an increasing anti-Semitism among French Maghrébins in the banlieue. They look at the Jews and see not a minority who were persecuted by Europe but a privileged elite whose history of victimisation is officially honoured and taught in schools, while the crimes of colonisation in Algeria are still hardly acknowledged by the state. 

The video refers to that portion of the attack where the terrorists shoot the Policeman. It speak for itself as it clearly shows that the Policeman was not shot in the head.

As for the term "the tribe" if it doesn't have relevance it wouldn't be offensive. The truth doth hurt and an inconvenient truth doth hurt inconveniently. But I find it ironic how you're trying to suppress an inconvenient truth in a thread about a group using coercion to supress another inconvenient truth. Does the term cultural marxism make you smile? How about the sanctimony of political correctness?

Fun facts about Charlie Hebdo:

The offending piece in Charlie Hebdo, a pillar of the left-libertarian media establishment, was penned last month by a 79-year-old columnist-cartoonist who goes by the name of Bob Siné. He described the plans — since denied — of Jean Sarkozy, 21, to convert to Judaism before marrying Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, an heiress to the fortune of the Darty electrical goods retailing chain. "He'll go far in life, this little fellow!" Siné wrote of Sarkozy Jr. Quote: Nobody paid attention for a week: Siné is a notorious provocateur whose strong pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist views have in the past crossed the line into anti-Semitism. I'd say he's far from alone in that among a certain French left. But this is the summer, news is slow, and since a journalist at the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur denounced the article as "anti-Semitic" on July 8, France has worked itself into a fit of high intellectual dudgeon. The storm is gusting at high velocity, but I'll try to take things in order. Philippe Val, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, requested an apology from Siné, to which the veteran "chroniqueur" replied, with some brio it must be said, that he would much rather cut off his testicles.
That did it for Val, who promptly fired Siné, who shot back by bringing legal action against the paper for "defamation." Quote: Several political bloggers have asked why Val, in the name of free speech and solidarity with a Danish newspaper under fire, bravely republished cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, but drew the line at Siné's caricaturing of the purported relationship between Jews, money and an opportunistic young Sarkozy with a nascent political career in the department of Hauts-de-Seine, near Paris. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/op...ohen.html?_r=0 

So it seems constantly criticizing Muslims is ok, but take a hard shot at "the tribe" and you are fired. He is know facing criminal prosecution in France.

Challenging power and privilege can be career ending.

■Became weekly Hara-Kiri Hebdo in 1969.
■Banned by French government in 1970.
■Reopened as Charlie Hebdo,taking name from Charlie Brown comic.
■Went out of business in 1981.
■Revived in 1992 in response to Gulf War. (curious but perhaps propitious timing)
■Firebombed in 2011 after issue 'guest-edited' by Muhammad

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo 

Some more inconvenient satire: 
 

I keep reading these claims that CH couldn't get published in other western countries.

In the first place, is there any evidence that is true? Not sure if anyone has tried to portray god having anal sex (though there is that onion article where it is Ganesh doing the fisting, if anyone cares to do a search) but he did have a one night stand with Sarah Silverman on U.S. TV without anyone having an anyeurism.

My second question is what bearing it has at all on the topic of this thread - restrictions in other countries OR the reality of western racism and Imperialism, and butchers trying to exploit this for a photo op.

Or for that that matter, a three-way trinity. Who cares? And after all, they didn't get shot for offending Christians, though there were a few callers on cross-country-jerk-off arguing in favour of censorship, though like most of the other mealy-mouthed commentators the caller didn't dare say she thought they got what they deserved.

We have kind of exhausted the question of whether they were asking for it, and if they were just doing it for the money, so I guess it is no surprise that we are moving on to other non sequiturs. Any smear that will stick, I suppose.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Just to clarify, this is blasphemy, according to the standard being waved around in this thread:

The Angel Gabriel and the Prophet Mohammed

[emphasis added]

I think I may have been the first person to post CH illustration 'hook-nosed' racialized caricature of Prophet Mohammad in this thread (see post #134)

in which Smith replied

Quote:

You forgot to mention blasphemy. In fact, you just committed it yourself. That fellow is supposed to be Mohammed.

Welcome to the club.

 

People including Smith continue to repeat conventional wisdom that says the reason why Muslims are offended is because they consider it "blasphemous" and that Isam forbids the images of Mohammad. I do not used the word 'blasphemy' to attribute what 1.7 Billion Muslims' perceptions or what Islam says.

The pastor trying to burn the Qur'ans and the guy behind the film "Innoncence of Muslims" were absolutely inflammatory. However, I haven't seen any data that asks Muslims the question about the Danish cartoons, and that was 10 years ago.

What is the opinion prominent Islamic /Religious Scholars on the cartoons? Do they agree they are blasphemous?

Charlie Hebdo and the Danish cartoons in 2005-6 "are essentially prove that ‘unless you can put up with this, you don’t belong in France" [or France] says Reza Aslan.

What everyone gets wrong about Islam and cartoons of Mohammed 

Quote:

Part of the offense may also come from the fact that the cartoons can appear explicitly designed to provoke. Aslan suggested that publications that print such cartoons may often be attempting to provoke an extreme response in order to make a statement about who belongs in European secular culture.

Is publishing a cartoon of Mohammed really blasphemy?

Dalia Mogahed, a Muslim academic and co-author of "Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think" explains: 

Quote:

Over time, Islamic scholars extended that tradition to cover Mohammed and the other major prophets [Jesus, Moses, Noah etc ]  as well, and discouraged artists from depicting them in images. That has created a strong cultural norm against images of Mohammed, even in the absence of a religious law against them.

... Like Judaism, is an iconoclastic religion that does not permit God to be anthropomorphized — that is, portrayed as a human being — and prizes textual scripture instead. 

[emaphasis added]

Red Winnipeg wrote:

To paraphrase Molly Ivins: [b]"Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar."[/b]

I think that may be the nub of the discomfort many have with defending CH satirical cartoons. Few will bat an eye if the Pope is skewered satirically by CH because the Pope is powerful. But, what of Muslims? Many will argue that they are among the oppressed and powerless -- and, therefore, satire directed at their beliefs is cruel and wrong.

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.

Red Winnipeg wrote:

Aside from the problems of classifying an entire group of individual people who share a common trait as forming an undifferentiated mass (here, classifying and labeling Muslims as "powerless"), must or should we hold our tongues (and refrain from criticism and satire) if beliefs are espoused that we strongly (or even mildly) disagree with, such as death for apostacy? If a person is a member of a religion classified as "powerless," can we not mock that religion, as atheists mock Christianity (presumably a "powerful" class -- never mind that in some countries, Christians are a persecuted minority)?

They aren't all powerless but many are vulnerable in the current climate and it certainly doesn't mean they are immune from criticism. For example I am very critical of female genital mutilation and will speak out against it but I would not mock it and I would not mock Christians in a country in which they are a persecuted minority.

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...

That doesn't mean there are no powerful wealthy Muslims in France. I am certain there are. It doesn't negate the enormous vulnerablity of large numbers of Muslims.

Red Winnipeg wrote:

When it comes to the expression of ideas, I think it's wrong to muzzle expressions if they fail the [i]political[/i] "powerful-powerless test" because it leaves questions and issues that are otherwise important unexamined and immune to being questioned.

Expressing disapproval is not muzzling.

I don't think it would be appropriate to publish a cartoon mocking Rinelle Harper or the over a thousand missing indigenous women or mocking the victims of Pickton. Saying so doesn't muzzle anyone.

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?

The last issue of Charlie Hebdo has sold for over $80,000 on ebay:

http://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_sop=3&_nkw=Charlie+heb...

Based on the snippets: 

"One of Farzat’s cartoons had depicted a sweaty Assad clutching a briefcase as he ran to catch a ride with ousted Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. He said the attempt to silence him had only strengthened his resolve."

...It appears these cartoonists are supportive of US/NATO/Israeli backed attempts to overthrow the governments of Libya and Syria, so it is natural that they would ally themselves with the current campaign.   Seems like this is fundemantally different than the Mohammed issue.  Their position seems a tad schizophrenic (if you're worried about radical Islamists targeting cartoonists, it's probably not best to support radical Islamists in order to overthrow secular nationalist regimes) but I suppose consistent with the Orwellian nature of these proxy wars.   

They certainly don't deserve to be targeted in any fashion, obviously.   In any case it seems like different power dynamics are at play.   If I was providing support to foreign nationals attempting to overthrow the Canadian government I would expect to be targeted as well.  Doesn't make it right but that's the world we live in.  

Pondering wrote:

Expressing disapproval is not muzzling.

I completely agree.

Durrutix wrote:

Seems like this is fundemantally different than the Mohammed issue.

That wouldn't apply to the cartoon I posted above, nor any number of other commentators and activits pushing for religious reform, which is why I posted it. 

Or this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/books/an-algerian-author-fights-back-a...

and this:

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1661353/jakarta-posts-editor-faces...

 Not that I think people in that part of the world who criticize Assad or Qaddafi are all stooges of the U.S., NATO and Israel, as you say. I don't think the reality is that simple, and I think they are capable of making their own political decisions for themselves.

@NDPP

"Arguably the icing on the lethal cake was the “support” to France offered by the House of Saud, which has just conducted the first round (50 out of 1,000 lashes) of public flogging of jailed blogger Raif Badawi. His crime: running a liberal website in favor of that oh so precious “freedom of speech”, but in Saudi Arabia."

Hypocrisy on a truly epic scale.  

Commentator on RT states: 

"This is not about free speech, it is about humiliating Muslims on behalf of Netanyahu while making sure that Palestinians lose popular support. French Muslims should test this new found freedom of speech by putting out their own publication."

That's actually a brilliant dea.  Fill it up with holocaust cartoons and "evil joo banker" stereotypes.  Watch the media do a 180.    

New found freedom?

If you don't want to cut and paste a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion from the site where it is available online you can buy one from Apple.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion...

Racist propaganda has always been freely available. Not all of it attracts the attention of the law.

Though I'll say again, there is a big difference between that and political satire, as has been noted a number of times in this thread.

@6079

"Racist propaganda has always been freely available. Not all of it attracts the attention of the law."

Indeed, that would seem to be the entire point.  

"there is a big difference between that and political satire"

I've seen the cartoons.  They are clearly attempts to demean, degrade and humiliate a persecuted minority.   I don't believe in hate speech laws, but I recognize hate speech when I see it.  If you don't agree, well, I guess that's all there is to say.  

@ Durrutix.

Yeah. I fundamentally disagree and I don't see any point in arguing about it either. All I can do is point to the numerous informed opinions to the contrary. And that fact that while I also see some material that crosses lines, I see an intent that is far more anti-racist, and anti- oppression.  I certainly see no basis for making a direct comparison to openly racist propaganda like that published by the National Front, or reprinted by Glen Greenwald.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I'm concerned about the young man who turned himself in and had an ironclad alibi as he was in a class at the time. A report said he was cooperating.

Why hasn't he been released or charged?

I believe Mourad Hamyd was released yesterday. The 'ID' aspect of this thing sure seems 'fishy' to me

As was, IMHO, a kill-shot from an AK 47 fired into a cop's head at point black range -  a 7.62 x 39mm cartridge of 123 grains travelling 2000 feet per second with no visible blood spatter or body shock. CF seems to know all about it, so perhaps he can enlighten us all further as it's a question of interest to more than a few...?

Leaders "unite" for right to print illustrated racial slurs while journalists rot in their prisons

They should've had a banner that reads:"If anyone is going to murder people over what they write or say, it's going to be us!"

President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria

Pondering wrote:

The gun thing is a hoax. Paladin1 said it is possible for that to happen with a normal type bullet that doesn't explode or anything.

Correct.

That I know. And I suspect it would be harder to achieve with some kind of hollow point or 'exploding' bullet.

Russian Media, Turkish Politicians Suggest U.S., Israeli Involvement in Paris Attacks

Quote:

Conspiracy theories are swirling around last week’s  terror attacks in Paris, and beyond the customary fringe websites, they  are being aired by Turkish politicians and mainstream Russian and  Iranian media outlets.

Those making – or hinting at – the claims would have the world  believe that U.S. or Israeli intelligence services were behind the  attacks on the offices of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper and a  kosher supermarket, which together with a street shooting left 17  victims and three terrorists dead over three days.

A mass circulation Russian newspaper, Komsomolskaya Pravda, ran a front-page headline Monday asking whether “the Americans” were behind the Paris terror attacks.

In the related story, a political analyst, Col. Alexander Zhilin,  linked his theory to differences between the U.S. and European Union  over sanctions against Russia in response to the Ukraine crisis.

Zhilin, who heads a body called the Moscow Center for the Study of  Applied Problems, said immediately after French President Francois  Hollande on January 5 raised doubts about continuing with the sanctions,  he – Zhilin – had predicted that terror attacks could now be expected  in France.

The U.S. needed a way to consolidate U.S.-E.U. unity over the  sanctions, he said, and planning a terror attack was a “cheap and  effective” option.

Separately, Komsomolskaya Pravda interviewed Russian economist Mikhail  Khazin, head of a consulting firm called Neoconomics. He wondered who  benefited most from the Paris attacks, and concluded that the primary  beneficiary was the United   States.

“Let me add that in the elite of the United States there are several  groups, each of which has its own opportunities to promote and organize  such attacks,” he was quoted as saying.

Khazin went on to list others who, in his view, could also benefit  from the attacks, including Britain, Saudi Arabia and “Islamic State,  al-Qaeda and so on” – although he added that the latter possibility was  “the least likely.”

Other reports in the paper highlighted skepticism expressed by some  quarters over the attacks, with one headline highlighting a comment by  an Arab café waiter in Paris: “Someone needs a war between Muslims and  Christians …”

In Iran, the Press TV broadcaster ran on its website an article by Paul Craig Roberts, a columnist, former U.S. Treasury official, and 9/11 conspiracy theorist, who wrote that one way of seeing the attack on Charlie Hebdo “is as an attack designed to shore up France’s vassal status to Washington.”

“The suspects can be both guilty and patsies,” said Roberts. “Just  remember all the terrorist plots created by the FBI that served to make  the terrorism threat real to Americans.”

On Roberts’ own website, he also highlights reports from other  sources suggesting that the Paris attacks were a “false flag operation” –  that is, a covert operation designed to point a finger at a purported  perpetrator, while the actual mastermind’s identity remains hidden.

“Whether or not it is a false flag operation, the shootings are being used for a wider purpose or purposes,” he said.

Those purposes could include “bringing France back into Washington’s  orbit,” stifling “the growing European sympathy for the Palestinians,”  and countering “the rising opposition in Europe to more Middle Eastern  wars,” Roberts charged.

But of course... B-/