Charlie Hebdo attack, Paris, FR

Discussion in 'World Events' started by GeoffP, Jan 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Re above amusing cartoon.
    Is it OK on this thread to post pictures "gently poking fun" at other religions?
    Or just Islam?

    This type of cartoon is not something separate from religious and race based attacks on people and property, it is part of the same thing.

    In no way does it justify the murder of innocent people, but it may be part of the cause, stirring up animosity and hatred between people of different beliefs.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2015
    Bells likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Watching some of the France Unity March.
    Mightily impressed by it.
    I was afraid that it might be highjacked by the extreme right,
    but it's an astonishing display of solidarity.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    I sort of find the French suddenly discovering Charlie Hebdo and the French Government suddenly supporting freedom of speech to be somewhat ironic. Charlie Hebdo was not a popular publication in France. Some of the cartoons were amusing, but most of the time, it was just crass. I understand the desire for solidarity and to speak out against the horrific crime that was committed. In no way should they have been murdered or even targeted.

    But the ironic and hypocritical thing about the publication itself and the way the Government is carrying on about freedom of speech and of the press now, comes from how Charlie Hebdo came to be.

    It used to be known by another name. Hara-Kiri Hebdo. And here is where the hypocrisy enters the fray:

    In November 1970, following the death of Charles de Gaulle at his home in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, the weekly Hara-Kiri Hebdo bore the headline « Bal tragique à Colombey : 1 mort » (Eng: "Tragic ball in Colombey: 1 death").

    The choice of the title refers to a tragedy of the same month: a fire at a discothèque where 146 people were killed. The chosen title was somehow downplaying the gravity of de Gaulle’s demise, by suggesting a comparison with a tragedy which had just earlier resulted in the loss of many more people. The government felt this editorial choice was an offence of lèse-majesté against the deceased President. As a result, the magazine was immediately and permanently banned from sale to minors and publicity by the minister of the interior Raymond Marcellin.

    Charlie Hebdo was started immediately afterwards. Charlie in the title refers to General de Gaulle (said Georges Wolinski); but it was the name of another magazine from Éditions du Square Charlie Mensuel, named after the character Charlie Brown from Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts

    It's all fun and games until the French Government is insulted and loses an eye..

    The French Government has maintained quite a bit of control over the press over the last decade or so. Their declaration that the French has always valued freedom of the press and freedom of speech, as they have repeatedly touted this past week, is actually not really the case in France.

    While it has become increasingly acceptable to insult Islam, and other religions, it is not acceptable to insult or portray politicians in ways that they consider to be unflattering. And the ways in which the Government have managed to control this should raise eyebrows of anyone who truly supports freedom of the press and freedom of speech. And the censorship and control does not just stop with the media. The previous French Government made intensive forays into censorship and control of the internet and internet access in France.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. dsdsds Valued Senior Member

  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I watched about two hour of the TV coverage and saw no British or American flags in the crowd, nor were those countries represented in marching line of high government officials from many lands. I was married to a Norwegian and now am to a Brazilian. I spotted both those country's flags several times, so no problem with my "flag spotting" skills. It did take some courage for high officials / many country presidents, to go there as "sleeper cells" reportedly have been activated. Perhaps a problem with the "land of the free & home of the brave"? Personally, I think at least Obama's wife should have been there in the front line of the march.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2015
  9. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    In my book, it's ok to mock any religious belief or cultural practice. As I said to pjdude, if there are Christian or Jewish forces using violence and legal suppression to block criticism of their beliefs, I'd respond in the same way.

    Too fucking bad for them, I guess. It's vilely offensive to the very idea of modern human civilization that the members of a society shouldn't have the right to freely criticize other peoples' beliefs. If Muslims don't want to be offended and wish for me to practice voluntary self-censorship, then they need to stop brainwashing their kids to the exclusion of proven scientific facts and critical thinking, stop coercing people into joining or staying in their religion, and stop questioning my right to say and publish things which may offend them. Western society has long been far too tolerant of other peoples' intolerance and allowed them to mistake generosity for weakness, so it's time to reverse course and lay down the secular laws of the land.
    Trooper likes this.
  10. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    It seems to me that western society, in its caution, fails to make some crucial distinctions that would help to frame the debate. Bashing Islam does not amount to the same thing as bashing Muslims, just as criticizing the Pope is not the same thing as accusing all Catholics of pedophilia. I can criticize and mock the concept of a flat 6000 year-old Earth or mountains teleporting or anything that comes out of any given interpretation of a religion without categorizing its followers as belonging to some derelict subspecies. If you don't want your ideas to be challenged, then don't put them out there where people can learn about them in the first place.
  11. CptBork Valued Senior Member

  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    The European Court of human rights made an interesting comment when upholding the French Government's ban on women wearing the burqa.
    They said that preservation of a certain idea of 'living together' was a legitimate aim of French authorities.

    If they want people to coexist peacefully then banning of hate crimes in the form of grossly offensive cartoons might have been a better target.

    Would they allow people to publish this magazine in the USA?
    That isn't a rhetorical question.
    I wonder whether it would breach US law.
  13. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    The Burqa bans sound more extreme than anything going on in Canada or the US. If it can be established that Burqas are being used by Muslim societies as a systematic tool to differentiate and isolate themselves from even the most tolerant elements of secular society, then I can sympathize with France's reasoning, but the same logic goes for any other kind of tool used by a community's hardliners in order to isolate their members from integrating or assimilating into the secular society at large. You should go to a free country to be free, not to bring along oppressive medieval superstitions with dreams of slowly turning your new host into the same shithole you came from. It's not only Muslim conservatives I have a problem with, but those are the ones causing the present troubles in France, and believing that blowing yourself up in a supermarket is "going too far" doesn't make you ipso facto a liberal.

    I don't know much about Charlie Hebdo and don't see much of personal interest in their style or content (I guess their crap looks cool to some people raised a certain way in some weird part of France), so you tell me what's so objectionable that you think it should be banned. Frankly, nothing should be banned if it's only defamatory against a fictional character from a fairy tale. I don't think anyone in the US has a legal copyright on the usage of Mohammed as a character (maybe Disney should file for one).
  14. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Think about it this way:

    Am I allowed to start my own church, where I preach that my urine can cure cancer but only when accompanied by intense prayer and avoidance of all conventional therapies? No? Then why the hell should established churches, synagogues and mosques be allowed to preach anything they want either?

    Can I teach my kids that they have to do all my house chores for me every night, or else the Bogeyman will come and rape them up the butt? No? Then why the hell should anyone be allowed to teach children about hell?

    Oh let me guess, I have to objectively prove each of my claims first, just like all the established superstitions have done.
  15. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    I don't think CH should be banned, but when it strays from reasonable comment it should be subject to laws of inciting hatred.
    What is reasonable would have to be up to a court to decide.
    This might have happened even if the cartoons had been less inflammatory
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

  17. Bells Staff Member


    If people can be allowed to start a Church that has them dancing with rattle snakes, being bitten by rattle snakes as a form of prayer and declaration of belief, for example, then a church where drinking urine is touted as being beneficial or a cure when accompanied by intense prayer would be no better or no worse.

    In fact, "urine therapy" is practiced all over the world by some people. And yes, there are people who claim it cures cancer..

    And in some parts of the world, you will even be exempt from paying tax and you might even get Government funding.

    Why shouldn't they?

    Do you think the State should involve itself in the religious beliefs of its citizens?

    Yes, you actually can. While some may question your parenting methods and so long as you do not show them images of pornography, then why do you think you are not allowed to teach them that.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    At least hell isn't teaching them that something is going to anally rape them if they do not clean their room...

    Hey, if you believe that you are going to be anally raped by a childhood fictional character if you do not clean the house, more power to you, dude. At the very least, you'll have a very clean house.

    There is mocking and then there is coming across like a bigoted, anti-Semitic or racist dickhead. Charlie Hebdo often skirted and crossed the dickhead line.

    And yet, this is the same "modern human civilisation" which shut down its predecessor for mocking the Government's and the media's reaction to a politician's death..

    Are you also protest against Netanyahu telling French Jews that they should all come to Israel for protection, thereby encouraging them to remain in their religion and brainwashing their children further in their religious State? That in a time where the French Government is calling for solidarity and unity within the country, another head of State is trying to poach French citizens away by stoking religious fear in them?
  18. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Well that's the crux of it; we need to protect people from being harassed and discriminated against based on race, gender or creed, without restraining people from their right to freely and openly criticize legends and ideas. Drawing caricatures of a well-known mythical figure does not fall into the restricted category above. There's no human right to not be offended by what other people do or say, if it doesn't prevent you from going about your day doing your own thing all the same.

    If we're going to censor publications which are critical of specific religions or cultures, then places of worship should be held to the same standards when they go out preaching against other religions and ways of life. Mosques, churches, synagogues and their affiliated schools should be treated the same way as magazines when it comes to what they are and aren't allowed to say.

    Indeed, I don't see treasonous rats like Anjem Choudary complaining that it's our cartoons keeping people like him down in society. I'm not in favour of insulting people just for the sake of insulting them, but when it happens, it's not enough for those who feel insulted to simply condemn the most indiscriminate of responses; rather they must be willing to swallow their pride and condemn any sort of force or coercion whatsoever.
  19. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member


    Why didn't you attend?
  20. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Well I'm specifically focussing on the secular democracies of North America, Europe, Australia and Japan. To my knowledge, you can't just start a church and preach anything you like whatsoever (see Waco standoff), but if I'm right about this, it would indeed constitute a major double standard.

    Absolutely! If governments think it's their job to control the amount of porn a kid gets to watch, then they should also take in interest in all the other things kids might watch. Religious brainwashing involving threats of violence, whether in this life or the next one, constitutes a clear form of child abuse with demonstrably devastating consequences to their critical thinking abilities and quality of life.

    True enough. In hell, furnace fires cauterize the rape wounds so they can be inflicted infinitely many more times, a much cleaner procedure. And who said anything about just cleaning their room? If I'm going to brainwash my kids into total obedience, might as well also get them to wash the car, mow the lawn, shovel the snow, sweep the chimney, cook my food, clean my dishes, and maybe whore themselves out on the weekends to make me some extra cash.

    Well I'm only here to defend the right to mock.

    Well, to be blunt, France has long been known as a nation that believes in social engineering, and after 100 years of it, doesn't look like it's achieving the desired results or reminding anyone that it used to be an important country. Radical Islam is only one issue out of many to be dealt with, but it's become an elephant in the room and needs to catalyze major changes in society's approach to integration and tolerance. If out of fairness we have to alter our standards towards other institutions in the process, then let it be so.

    I'm fed up with Netanyahu's antics, and if he wants to justify his actions by comparing himself to Bashar Assad next door, then he should be held to the same standards and international privileges that Assad gets. That said, France needs to do a lot, LOT more to protect its Jewish population from anti-semitic attacks and incitement alongside combatting Muslim radicals; they're failing miserably at it, and it's deeply undermining France's credibility when trying to play a constructive role in Middle East peacemaking.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You can, pretty much. It wasn't the preaching that got the Waco folks crossways with the National Guard.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    So was I.

    Hue Hue..

    Of course you can.

    You can start a Church and preach and pray to kill the President of the US and to kill all gays, you can also start a Church and tell your adherents to kill themselves, not have children, have abortions to save the planet. You are also permitted to have a Church or religion that teaches its adherents that they should kill themselves so they can be taken up to space by alien gods (remember Heaven's Gate?). Then of course is the Creativity Religious Organisation/Movement which teaches, preaches and adheres to white supremacy. My favourite in the moronic and obscene religions allowed under the guise of "religious freedom" is "The Body".. If any should be put on the list to be flung by way of giant catapult into the burning sun, it is these folks.

    In short, yes, you can just start a Church and preach anything you like whatsoever. Keep in mind that if you end up starving children to death, such as in the case of "The Body", and the authorities find out about it, you may be prosecuted. But so long as no one is hurt, you are free to preach what you like. It should also be noted that even if you do preach crap and others are hurt, more often than not, you can continue on preaching and the religious organisation you founded will not be banned.

    I don't disagree with you. This should apply to all religions. Which is why schools and colleges like Patrick Henry College (subject of the "God's Next Army" documentary which is enough to keep sane people up at night), radical Jewish and Islamic schools which preach and teach religious hatred should be closed down. I also believe that home schooling programs should not be allowed to allow parents to turn their children into intellectual retards who believe in Adam and Eve (as was evidenced in the Jesus Camp documentary).

    I find a good long cane is more than sufficient to teach... ermm.. to encourage children become servants. And selling them on weekends for cash is only really acceptable in certain societies. I believe some areas of Thailand have a tourism industry based on just that.

    My point still stands.

    You mean multiculturalism?

    I would argue that France needs to do more to protect all of its citizens equally. Regardless of religious orientation. One is no more or no less important than the other.
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Cost of round trip from Brazil. - I would have liked to show my support for freedom of speech / press. Would have gone if some one paid my air fare.

    "Think globally, act locally" is a rule I try to follow. - Why I often march a few blocks in the world's 2nd largest Gay Pride day celebration despite being as heterosexual as they come. Why I took a summer off from my Ph.D. graduate experiment to lead the successful civil rights movement that opened the restaurants of Baltimore to all, regardless of skin color. (The two prior summer efforts lead by others failed - they were based on "moral persuasion." Mine was based on economic pressure.)

    With help of many cars owned by rich girls of nearby Gaucher College, and precisely timed / coordinated* sit-ins, on a good Sunday we could cost restaurants more than $25,000 in lost business. After a few month of doing this, the Restaurant Association, RA, did a 180 turn, and joined us in asking the MD legislature to make discrimation based on skin color illegal, which they promptly did.

    * This was required as during the prior two summers the RA had developed a telephone chain alert system that got restaurant's doors locked after the first one or two sit-in groups got in. (A waitress stood at door opening it for normal customers.) Our sit-ins were simultaneous - timed to the minute. About 5 minutes before 4 or 5 five blacks ran to and thru the door, the white car owner went in and ordered some thing expensive, like a well done steak, that would take time to fix. Soon one of the blacks she had deliver (car parked at least a block away) sat with her and others sat at other tables. - That was when the shouting began until the cops arrived. A Waitress had to read a long notice designed to prevent hunters from entering a posted farm land, before the cops told us to leave. We did and picketed outside for a few hours. The Baltimore AfroAmerican newspaper was already paying the legal cost of test court cases for two who had not left when told to - did not want more cost.

    It was not the "Normandy Invasion" but just as precisely timed and planed - I had to be careful that the car driver had not been sent to that restaurant before as she might have been recognized and tripped the RA's alert system. Also as traffic conditions could cause delay, all sat in the parked car for 10 minutes, waiting for WBT, "white body exit time." The "BBs" (black bodies) were with rare exceptions, only high school kids. We had an essentially infinite supply of BBs as summer was otherwise boring for most. I had gone to Morgan State, an all black college inside Baltimore, but none there wanted to help - they were making it out of poverty. - Not their problem as they saw it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 12, 2015
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page