Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[GLASSJAW]

A separation of Church and state does not really extend to limiting religious expression through attire of Muslim women, and France has long been cracking down on what I would consider to be an important freedom.

yes, it actually does because that is how a democracy works, right? i agree with you on a personal level, but if an elected official passes a law that is supported by 82% of the population (http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/), then how can we say what the extent of the state's power is? that is democracy in action, for better or for worse.

The class of immigrants that make up the current demographic of Muslims in France are among the poorest and least educated, they are closed off from the outside and they are willingly isolated adding to the hostility. When these slum like conditions produce idiots trigger happy to revolt against anything of the "other" side showing dissent, it is pretty important to look at the environment that allowed this stuff to fester in the first place.

of course! i don't disagree, and i doubt many would -- least of all the french. i'm pretty sure this is a constant source of conversation there since the 'algeria thing' and the treatment of black immigrants in the 80s and early 90s. good movie on the subject: La Haine.

The same way events following Ferguson required a broader understanding of the situation and institutional bindings to fully appreciate the gravity, a similar scope is required here. After all, would you say that the killing of cops stems from nothing but a long standing conflict between troubled black men and the police force? The eventual discussion should lead to examining what made these men troubled, no? It does not mean that the actions today were not done by extremists or that they are rid of responsibility because you made an effort to understand what allowed these actions to be considered and executed by born French nationals.

i don't think anyone is denying that context matters. i just don't think context HAS to (or will even necessarily) change the direction of the conversation. what happened today DOES have the markings of an attack on free speech/artistic expression. that doesn't mean anyone is saying we should ignore the fact that muslims struggle in france and other western countries. this would be a much bigger issue if we actually lived in france, and i'm sure lots of websites/papers will have all sorts of articles tomorrow about the depths of "the muslim issue" in france.

Frankly, if you don't have time to discuss the intricacy and intersection of politics and social classes (I usually don't), then you definitely shouldn't have time to rabidly insist the sanctity of free press as if it's never been said before because it's been echoed in almost every other post.

what I said, and should have emphasized, is that I don't have time to read what CDC'ers have to say on this subject, since I have no reason to believe some posters who can't get their local politics straight would have the least bit of understanding of French culture. when I said "time" i actually meant I don't have the interest. you know, "ain't nobody got time for that" - as in, who cares what drummer4now pretends to know about anything? (lol "the blacks have racism, what do us browns get?!?!")

if the french citizens and politicians can't sort it out, can i? can LuLover83 or KeslerScores69? ehh.

i don't think i've ever "rabidly insisted on the sanctity of free press as if it's never been said before" -- but I'll do it now: the free press is an essential component of a democratic society. i don't care if a bunch of whiny muslims, or sihks, or jews or christians or atheists are offended. i don't care if i am personally offended. being a white male/devil who actually reads trash like salon.com, i am very regularly offended by almost everything i read on some places. it's just the way it is. but i think artistic expression is pretty important, even if it does ruffle feathers

the former editor of The Onion made a post earlier about how satire has been around forever in the west. from the toothless Colbert to the witty Wilde, or all the way back to dramatists or court jesters: people have been making fun of the powerful majority and alienated minority for literally ages. buncha whiny muslims aren't gonna change that. and don't worry, drummer4now, the jews won't change it either. nor will christians, atheists, etc.

I am not talking about censorship, I am referring to consciousness regarding the offensive nature of any topic and how some things have the potential to offend more than others simply by being more of a hot and current topic than another.

i guess this is just subjective. in my world, you can either make fun of religion or you can't. if muslims want to live in western society, they should brace themselves for the same shellacking that catholics, jews, and co. have been getting for the last 30 years

[taxi]

You have a good point of course. One counter point though, is that the cartoonists themselves are not religious of any denomination. They are insulting everyone but themselves. Sure I give credit to the lack of negative reactions from devotees of other religions, and political affiliations. But for practical purposes, what did the cartoonists expect to accomplish with insults?

Then insult the cartoonists. Don't threaten them. Don't assault them. Don't murder them.

[GLASSJAW]

You have a good point of course. One counter point though, is that the cartoonists themselves are not religious of any denomination. They are insulting everyone but themselves. Sure I give credit to the lack of negative reactions from devotees of other religions, and political affiliations. But for practical purposes, what did the cartoonists expect to accomplish with insults?

irrelevant

[drummer4now]

yes, it actually does because that is how a democracy works, right? i agree with you on a personal level, but if an elected official passes a law that is supported by 82% of the population (http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/), then how can we say what the extent of the state's power is? that is democracy in action, for better or for worse.

of course! i don't disagree, and i doubt many would -- least of all the french. i'm pretty sure this is a constant source of conversation there since the 'algeria thing' and the treatment of black immigrants in the 80s and early 90s. good movie on the subject: La Haine.

i don't think anyone is denying that context matters. i just don't think context HAS to (or will even necessarily) change the direction of the conversation. what happened today DOES have the markings of an attack on free speech/artistic expression. that doesn't mean anyone is saying we should ignore the fact that muslims struggle in france and other western countries. this would be a much bigger issue if we actually lived in france, and i'm sure lots of websites/papers will have all sorts of articles tomorrow about the depths of "the muslim issue" in france.

what I said, and should have emphasized, is that I don't have time to read what CDC'ers have to say on this subject, since I have no reason to believe some posters who can't get their local politics straight would have the least bit of understanding of French culture. when I said "time" i actually meant I don't have the interest. you know, "ain't nobody got time for that" - as in, who cares what drummer4now pretends to know about anything? (lol "the blacks have racism, what do us browns get?!?!")

if the french citizens and politicians can't sort it out, can i? can LuLover83 or KeslerScores69? ehh.

i don't think i've ever "rabidly insisted on the sanctity of free press as if it's never been said before" -- but I'll do it now: the free press is an essential component of a democratic society. i don't care if a bunch of whiny muslims, or sihks, or jews or christians or atheists are offended. i don't care if i am personally offended. being a white male/devil who actually reads trash like salon.com, i am very regularly offended by almost everything i read on some places. it's just the way it is. but i think artistic expression is pretty important, even if it does ruffle feathers

the former editor of The Onion made a post earlier about how satire has been around forever in the west. from the toothless Colbert to the witty Wilde, or all the way back to dramatists or court jesters: people have been making fun of the powerful majority and alienated minority for literally ages. buncha whiny muslims aren't gonna change that. and don't worry, drummer4now, the jews won't change it either. nor will christians, atheists, etc.

i guess this is just subjective. in my world, you can either make fun of religion or you can't. if muslims want to live in western society, they should brace themselves for the same shellacking that catholics, jews, and co. have been getting for the last 30 years

meh keep living in your imaginary world, where the grass is only greenier on your side.

Hard to believe I attend the same post-secondary institution as you...

[Guest]

I appreciate it but I am trying to add a little more dimension and perspective to a reaction that has been lacking any nuance or depth. I don't disagree with much of the comments here, and at the same I find them to be incomplete and immature if not combined with a larger perspective. Apparently though, some people think an attempt of trying to understand something from all sides is a way of justifying it. I don't recall excusing anyone's actions as much as trying to examine causal influences. Am I going to make the dead out to be heroes and doing the lame #JeSuisCharlie stuff? No

It's ironic how you view satire in a vacuum without any historical context. Satire has a long tradition of being a political vehicle for all kinds of movements and opinions. Perhaps in addition to discussing the Ottoman Empire, Algeria and so on we should seek to discover the underlying reasons for satire.

Edit: might read as being harsh, not my intent.

[GLASSJAW]

meh keep living in your imaginary world, where the grass is only greenier on your side.

Hard to believe I attend the same post-secondary institution as you...

crawl out from behind framingdragon's skirt and formulate your own opinion if you have one, i'll read it

you have posted a lot in this thread, but most of what you said was just weird stuff about jews and how 'brown people' aren't allowed to talk about racism or something.

oh, and "meh" a few times too.

[drummer4now]

crawl out from behind framingdragon's skirt and formulate your own opinion if you have one, i'll read it

you have posted a lot in this thread, but most of what you said was just weird stuff about jews and how 'brown people' aren't allowed to talk about racism or something.

oh, and "meh" a few times too.

Read a couple of pages back. That's my new coping mechanism aka approach.

These threads just bring out my raw emotions as this how i truly feel, but I hate the backlash so I appease and try to waterdown my opinions. I guess a lot of times my raw emotion or anger gets in the ways of typing an educated response. My real opinions are reserved for private matters.

Interesting how this is the second time I have been accused of that (first sentence).

I only do it because she says a lot of stuff I am afraid to post or acknowledge (she has balls), but my opinion is usually similar to hers.

[Honky Cat]

Bridie Jabour‏@bkjabour

Banksy’s take on #CharlieHebdo

Reply

Retweet

Favorite

More

• RETWEETS267
• FAVORITES135
• 

4:22 PM - 7 Jan 2015

Pretty much this...Satire isn't going anywhere...I think radical Islam better get used to it...I think we will see more provoking religious satire,..more than ever..IMO.

[drummer4now]

Pretty much this...Satire isn't going anywhere...I think radical Islam better get used to it...I think we will see more provoking religious satire,..more than ever..IMO.

Apparently that picture doesn't belong to Banksy. Someone using a fake twitter account under his name

[Guest]

Read a couple of pages back. That's my new coping mechanism aka approach.

These threads just bring out my raw emotions as this how i truly feel, but I hate the backlash so I appease and try to waterdown my opinions. I guess a lot of times my raw emotion or anger gets in the ways of typing an educated response. My real opinions are reserved for private matters.

Interesting how this is the second time I have been accused of that (first sentence).

I only do it because she says a lot of stuff I am afraid to post or acknowledge (she has balls), but my opinion is usually similar to hers.

"The price of satire. Was it worth it? (sic)."

What sort of response is this? People were murdered and this is your first reaction? I find that appalling.

Satire - specifically political satire - has been around longer than Islam or Christianity.

[Guest]

Pretty much this...Satire isn't going anywhere...I think radical Islam better get used to it...I think we will see more provoking religious satire,..more than ever..IMO.

A great quote from reddit: "If your faith can be shaken by a drawing, then you have none."

[GLASSJAW]

"The price of satire. Was it worth it?"

What sort of response is this? People were murdered and this is your first reaction? I find that appalling.

Satire - specifically political satire - has been around longer than Islam or Christianity.

dude, he's just being emotional. don't take him to task. can you blame him? while western, democratic ideology was threatened by a pinprick today, he felt threatened that his "brown person" experience was being trivialized and overshadowed by the brief expression of western solidarity.

tags: jews, jews, jews, christian missionaries, christian missionaries, jews, jews, my experience, my experience

[FramingDragon]

yes, it actually does because that is how a democracy works, right? i agree with you on a personal level, but if an elected official passes a law that is supported by 82% of the population (http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/), then how can we say what the extent of the state's power is? that is democracy in action, for better or for worse.

of course! i don't disagree, and i doubt many would -- least of all the french. i'm pretty sure this is a constant source of conversation there since the 'algeria thing' and the treatment of black immigrants in the 80s and early 90s. good movie on the subject: La Haine.

i don't think anyone is denying that context matters. i just don't think context HAS to (or will even necessarily) change the direction of the conversation. what happened today DOES have the markings of an attack on free speech/artistic expression. that doesn't mean anyone is saying we should ignore the fact that muslims struggle in france and other western countries. this would be a much bigger issue if we actually lived in france, and i'm sure lots of websites/papers will have all sorts of articles tomorrow about the depths of "the muslim issue" in france.

good post. I agree with almost all of it so I'm going to only reply to the bits that I am not necessarily in full agreement.

re: bolded.

Is it a requirement of democratic societies to have the citizens on board however, given that it can potentially lead to disastrous consequences we have things like the constitution put in place to protect a basic set of rights for every individual here in Canada. despite a process being democratic, is it okay if a state decides that non heterosexual people are denied certain rights because majority of the state believes that way? Similarly, I don't think even the democratic processes should be able to alter a universal set of human rights. I think France is behind other democratic nations in that regard, won't you agree?

I did not attempt to change the direction of this conversation. I do think the right reaction is one of condemnation of those who are clearly extremists set to justify themselves with faith against free press. I just think if the extent of the conversation stays there only, even among discussion between people who aren't French, we aren't necessarily looking at it in a holistic dynamic way and we limit ourselves to the doomed debate about censorship for safety vs. freedom of speech. Clearly, as we've discussed, there's more to this ongoing conflict than just a clash on the extent of self-expression. I was just looking to add more dimension in a conversation that's been heading in the right direction, albeit through a tunnel.

[Buddhas Hand]

These aren't the first people to die for freedom of speech. Millions of people have died so that you have the right to type misinformed comments on this internet forum.

What a crock. This sounds like the crap politicians are spewing ATM.

They died because they took the piss outa people who do not seem to have a sense of humour regarding their religion.

Don't get me wrong I think it is a tragedy but they knew the risks involved weighed up those risks and decided to take the piss anyway, I am kinda reminded of the immortal words of Steve Irwin , " I probably shouldn't do this ...But....."

I am willing to admit I am very similiar to them , I like to take the piss and stir the pot but I also take responsibility for my actions , when you take the piss there is gonna be a certain type of person who gets pissed with you , my particular motivation for taking the piss with religious people is because the actions of people who were driven by their religious beliefs have had a very negative impact on my life and i find one of the best ways to deal with this is to have a laugh at their expense, pretty frackin harmless IMO , in fact a lot less harmless than relgious people were to me and mine.

And whether millions of people have died or not trying to defend free speech people are still gonna type their comments misinformed or not on the internet and there would still be an internet for them to do this on.

What is really sad is we have lost people who made us laugh , my response to this is to keep taking the piss , every person should the bad MFers cannot kill us all and if we stop taking the piss they win.

[FramingDragon]

It's ironic how you view satire in a vacuum without any historical context. Satire has a long tradition of being a political vehicle for all kinds of movements and opinions. Perhaps in addition to discussing the Ottoman Empire, Algeria and so on we should seek to discover the underlying reasons for satire.

Edit: might read as being harsh, not my intent.

That was my initial point, however long-winded my posts might have been. If we focus on the cartoons as only images, and the response as the response to the cartoons only, aren't we ignoring the underlying reasons that set the table for this exchange to occur? I don't even mean to go to back to Ottoman Empire or Algeria, as much as the current day tensions between the Muslim immigrant populations and the French. Germany is on its way to boiling over soon as well, as is Belgium. It's very current.

[Buddhas Hand]

Acceptable would be a comedian like Stephen Colbert or any person who deals with that kind of humor and does not primarily target one group of people.

What I mean by time and place is using satire to target individuals not groups of people or in this case religion and branding everyone the same. The whole islamic issue is very hot topic in the world and meaningless cartoons only incite hatred from less educated folk (extremists).

IMO I see more jokes towards jewish and brown people than other races or ethnicities and I don't like it.

The Jews have anti-semitism, the blacks have racism. but what do brown people have? Nothing. We set back and take it.

The palestinians experience anti-semitism to , mostly from their fellow semites.

Racism is racism brother , whether you are black , brown , red , yellow , white or any colour inbetween.

[Buddhas Hand]

I might not be very smart but I can lift heavy things.

Very heavy things !

[elvis15]

Here's the issue.

This magazine was not singling out muslims. They regularly made cartoons that were extremely offensive to catholics and Jews, and probably would have attacked other religions if there were more of their members in France. They were challenging the idea that one specific religion should be out of bounds.

Definitely would not call this picture of a Jew with an exaggerated nose kissing a nazi, anything but "insulting":

...

We either have to live in a society where no one can say anything that's offensive to everyone else or everything is fair game. And just because you're allowed to say something, does not mean you are free from consequences. When I say consequences, I don't mean murder. If you offend people, you cannot expect those same people to want to support you or your business.

Publishing contrary opinions, calling people out for being offensive, economic boycotts, etc.. That's how you deal with offensive ideas in a free society. We don't say "well what did you expect?" after someone gets murdered for publishing a cartoon.

I agree they were happy to put everyone as fair game, but - and correct me on the details if I'm wrong - isn't using or creating am image of the prophet Muhammad strictly prohibited in their religion? That's a little bigger ballpark than using a physical stereotype in a cartoon.

From the wiki page on Muhammad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Islamic_depictions

In line with the hadith prohibition against creating images of sentient living beings, which is particularly strictly observed with respect to God and Muhammad, Islamic religious art is focused on the word. Muslims generally avoid depictions of Muhammad, and mosques are decorated with calligraphy and Quranic inscriptions or geometrical designs, not images or sculptures. Today, the interdiction against images of Muhammad – designed to prevent worship of Muhammad, rather than God – is much more strictly observed in Sunni Islam (85%–90% of Muslims) and Ahmadiyya Islam (1%) than among Shias (10%–15%). While both Sunnis and Shias have created images of Muhammad in the past, Islamic depictions of Muhammad are rare. They have, until recently, mostly been limited to the private and elite medium of the miniature, and since about 1500 most depictions show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame.

That's my assumption of largely what this is about. That's similar to what got Muslims up in arms about Salman Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses, where there were many things considered to be blasphemy rather than just poor taste or simply racist.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if they were to write about these types of things versus draw the image, would there be the same reaction? Maybe, but maybe not.

[Guest]

That was my initial point, however long-winded my posts might have been. If we focus on the cartoons as only images, and the response as the response to the cartoons only, aren't we ignoring the underlying reasons that set the table for this exchange to occur? I don't even mean to go to back to Ottoman Empire or Algeria, as much as the current day tensions between the Muslim immigrant populations and the French. Germany is on its way to boiling over soon as well, as is Belgium. It's very current.

Ok fair enough. I agree with the essence of this post on all counts, though I doubt this level of discourse can be achieved on CDC - myself included, as I certainly don't have all the answers.

Economic marginalization and geopolitical circumstance certainly magnify the cultural differences. People cling to unifying features in an attempt to explain macro conditions imposed on them without their consent. Flushing this out is not an easy task.

That's my take at least.

[elvis15]

What a crock. This sounds like the crap politicians are spewing ATM.

They died because they took the piss outa people who do not seem to have a sense of humour regarding their religion.

Don't get me wrong I think it is a tragedy but they knew the risks involved weighed up those risks and decided to take the piss anyway, I am kinda reminded of the immortal words of Steve Irwin , " I probably shouldn't do this ...But....."

I am willing to admit I am very similiar to them , I like to take the piss and stir the pot but I also take responsibility for my actions , when you take the piss there is gonna be a certain type of person who gets pissed with you , my particular motivation for taking the piss with religious people is because the actions of people who were driven by their religious beliefs have had a very negative impact on my life and i find one of the best ways to deal with this is to have a laugh at their expense, pretty frackin harmless IMO , in fact a lot less harmless than relgious people were to me and mine.

And whether millions of people have died or not trying to defend free speech people are still gonna type their comments misinformed or not on the internet and there would still be an internet for them to do this on.

What is really sad is we have lost people who made us laugh , my response to this is to keep taking the piss , every person should the bad MFers cannot kill us all and if we stop taking the piss they win.

I'm not sure if Irwin would have said the day he was stung would have been the most dangerous thing he'd ever done, but the people publishing these cartoons had to know it was pretty high on their lists if it wasn't surely at the very top.

I'd liken it more to that guy who picks on the biggest guy in the bar and hopes having all his friends there is enough to keep him from a beating. That big guy might be a cocky son of a bitch, but you can bet the guy picking the fight knows full well what he's doing and enjoys the attention if he gets away with it.

Challenge the norms and all that, but pick your battles as well - and sure as hell make sure the battle you're fighting is worth the losses you might incur.