But they have mocked 9/11, a mass murder that is far more recent and more visceral to many living today, even if the number of victims is much different.
1 Like
I know weâre all infidel gay communists over here, but according to the doctrine Catholics purportedly believe in (even though they usually donât really know in its entirety), the two are one and the same. There ainât no Catholicism without a Catholic Church, so criticising one implicitly criticises the other.
I personally find the opposite is true, at least in Europe. You only have to glance at XVIII or early-XIX century newspaper illustrations to find quite a lot of offensive material, which has all but disappeared from mainstream publications as years passed by and European understanding of the Islamic faith grew. In fact, ever since the fatwa against Rushdie came to be, most European publications self-censored even the smallest hints of anti-Islamism in unprecedented ways. In fact, this is the wave that brought us the âracial and religious hatredâ laws, which have further chilled most debates around the role of religions in the modern world. This is why violence like this keeps happening: because in the long run, it forces society to âunderstandâ religious fanatics on their terms, i.e. it bloody well works, sad as that is.
The trend you perceive is the actual backlash to this original wave, initiated by some sectors of the far right and then adopted by people who strive to appear âfreer than thouâ, like Houellebecq or Hebdo. Itâs particularly significant in the graphic arts because Islamic doctrine is particularly averse to them (which IMHO is one of the worst mistakes pope-warlord Muhammad introduced, back in his days, but there you go).
4 Likes
I canât find any reference to that. Did they mock the victims of 9/11? Or give any serious credence whatsoever to the fools who deny the reality of 9/11? Otherwise I donât see how that would compare to holocaust denial.
If the idea of religious satire offends you, fine. As @funruly points out itâs been a staple of literary satire since antiquity and itâs probably offended people since day one. I just donât get this fixation on âhow dare they publish something offensive to people who hold certain religious beliefs without also publishing something offensive to victims of the holocaust!â
7 Likes
I donât know if itâs natural, in the âhuman natureâ sense
But it is a cultural tradition older than God*
*for quite a few values of [god]
5 Likes
Thatâs a gross misstatement of what theyâre saying. Itâs more âif they really care about mocking all religions equally, why do they keep picking on Islam in a way even more insulting than the way they treat everyone else?â
Nevermind the fact that, as usual, many people are blaming all Muslims for this (seriously #killallmuslims is trending on twitter today) for this but giving Christians a pass on all the shit that has been done and is being done in their religionâs name.
2 Likes
Just putting it out there that anyone who thinks thereâs ever a justification for any speech being legally actionable at all on account of itâs offending someoneâs religion, including under the guise of hate speech laws, is fundamentally on the same side as these terrorists.
7 Likes
Oh, dear me. Merciful Allah Allahuâs again. When will people get on the train and figure out that the FIRST half of the Koran is all-wise, all-knowing, and all-merciul, but some microcephalic cretin went and wrote the SECOND half of the Koran.
They may SEEM to be the same book, but what youâre really getting is a Rom-com in the first half and a Snuff film in the second.
Do yourselves a favor. Read it. All of it.
2 Likes
You are all very brave. I will pray for you.
I know a lot of Catholics who disagree with the Catholic Church who would disagree with you pretty strongly. And do you mean to say that you believe that Catholicism supports pederasty?
I think itâs pretty clear that for the most part the racial and religious hatred laws, like holocaust denial laws, were more a reaction to WW-II and the holocaust than an effort to be sensitive to Islam.
Iâm not sure how relevant 18th and 19th century newspaper illustrations are, but youâre obviously right that Iâm looking at a more recent time-frame. A retreat from total ignorance about Islam doesnât mean that most people are aware of the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, or the different strands of Islamic faith, as they are about different strains of Christianity. And I think thereâs more of a trend to simply clump all Muslims into the same group, as though they all believe the same things, in a way they simply wouldnât do with Christians.
I have read reference to 9/11 cartoons, and one was described as having a trader inside one of the towers shouting âSell!â
Did the holocaust-related cartoons you earlier attributed to Charlie Hebdo mock the victims of the holocaust or deny it existed? If not, why not run them?
Iâm not sure if youâre purposefully misreading me, but its the idea of being gratuitously offensive that offends me. In my opinionâand as Iâve said earlier in this threadâmuch of the most controversial work is exactly that: gratuitously offensive.
Again, I havenât tied my holocaust comparison to equal-opportunity insulting of religion: Iâve tied it to the âfree speechâ and âno sacred pigsâ mantra. If you want to claim youâre making a bold stand for free speech, why not publish something thatâs actually illegal and highly taboo, instead of simply piling on to what is an easy and popular target?
1 Like
-
Muslims are confused about their own teachings, so no.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/ -
If peaceful muslims are aggravated by people expressing their freedoms in their own countries then they need a fucking reality check. This isnât Pakistan. Blasphemy is a load of shit. I let the religious exist without constantly telling them their beliefs are fucking nonsense (which they are) as that would be impinging on their right to their own beleifs, so peaceful muslims can shut the fuck up if theyâre offended by me employing my freedom of expression.
9 Likes
Smoking the devilâs advocate crack again? They wonât publish holocaust-denying material because the holocaust FUCKING HAPPENED. Secondly, they do⊠just so you know.
Yes, but their response to this is to push the envelope and redouble their efforts at making cartoons that Muslims will find offensive
What is your proof of this? Because every time you hear about Charlie Hebdo itâs in English-language media articles on the subject? They offend everyone, and itâs not a some abstract masturbation over free speech principles, itâs them saying âwe will publish the message we want toâ.
Edit: I also donât believe the 9/11 claim to be true, unless you can find it. Iâd be amazed if itâs true and not part of the fairly comprehensive history of the publication on Wikipedia: Charlie Hebdo - Wikipedia
5 Likes
Thatâs open to debate. Is a cartoon of the Prophet in an undignified situation inherently more insulting than a cartoon of the Pope molesting a child? It might create more offense or spark a more violent reaction, sure. But thatâs not because the magazine was trying to be more deferential to the Catholics.
6 Likes
What? No.
You all realise that the criminalisation of antisemitism and holocaust-denial is a European Union law thing, right? Itâs not like France just unilaterally made that law. Furthermore, criticising judaism doesnât automatically constitute as antisemitism.
Saying something like âjews are money-grubbing and stingyâ obviously constitutes antisemitism as itâs a blanket criticism based in historical stereotype that attacks all, without proof or evidence. If, however, I was to say âhassidic communities are fucked up because some of their traditions sweep child sexual abuse under the rug for the purpose of continuing self-policing and not bringing disrepute to the community and its leadersâ Itâs entirely not antisemitism - especially since articles like this shine a depressing light on the matter (itâs long and doesnât have a happy ending):
4 Likes
I certainly donât read french and Iâd say youâd actually have to RTFA to find out their message, instead of guessing what these comics mean independently of knowing who these people depicted are supposed to be⊠irrespective you could read (a translation) of this article penned by the now deceased Charb which responds to the criticism that Charlie hebdo is a racist publication: http://fabrice-nicolino.com/index.php/?p=1639
I donât believe that the women pictured in the cover you posted are women taken as slaves, I believe them to be depictions of French muslim women who have gone to Syria/Iraq by choice to be âwivesâ and/or baby factories to assholes in IS. There are many documented cases of this taking place. If they are not supposed to be French women who went there by choice then what âwelfareâ would be being touched by whom? It doesnât make sense outside of the context of someone from a developed nation (with welfare) going to be there.
This pdf is posted as the only material on their site at the moment and as an act of solidarity Iâm for anyone who wants to use the slogan as thatâs clearly what is intended.
1 Like
As I said earlier, a braver and more principled defense of âfree speechâ would be to deny the holocaust.
No. Because there is actual evidence of the Holocaust having occurred. There is no evidence for any person being a prophet of any god or if any gods in fact exist in the first place. Thatâs kind of a big difference â denying actual truth versus being forced to indulge a fantasy without evidence.
4 Likes
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were marked by an image of a broker in one of the Twin Towers yelling, âSell!â as a plane approached.
Obviously, a citation in The National Post would be sufficient âproofâ to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, so I trust that takes care of that.
Yes, satirical publications have never been counterfactual before. In fact, I believe that Charles de Gaulle did die in a fatal dance, just as claimed in 1970. And Iâm not sure how your picture illustrates the holocaust denial you pretend it does.
As you would say:âWhat is your proof of this?â
Actually, Iâm not sure we disagree so much on this. Publishing things that are intentionally offensive in reaction to protests over offensive material is a pretty good way to say that youâll do whatever you want to.
Itâs not an EU thing. Itâs very much a country-specific thing.
1 Like
Freedom of speech doesnât apply only to things that are true. Freedom of speech, in the broader US interpretation of it, applies to true speech, false speech, hate speech, and pretty much every other kind of speech. If the US made it illegal to claim the world was flat, those who actually stand for free speech would probably publish things saying the world is flat.
I mean, by your reckoning saying something like âJews eat babies,â or showing the Pope abusing children, isnât a free-speech issue because itâs false.
1 Like
Itâs a stupid law no matter where it comes from, and France has its own. Neo-nazis and their ilk still exist, meanwhile painting Muslims with a broad brush is a popular pastime in France. People can and are prosecuted in practice for spreading nonsense about Jews and the Holocaust, but thereâs a lot of stuff that crosses the legal line about Muslims in France that just doesnât get the same scrutiny. Iâm saying that these laws get blurry at their edges, not their delicious creamy centers, and frankly the world is better off without them. Iâm also saying that when youâre 5% of the population and people are going on and on about the âcultural threatâ you present, itâs really hard to see these laws in place and then be told that they were never intended to protect you.
Itâs not about who deserves to be criticized. Itâs about taking that decision out of the equation entirely. Letâs do away with the idea that you can be restricted from expressing any political belief.
2 Likes
I mean, by your reckoning saying something like âJews eat babies,â or showing the Pope abusing children, isnât a free-speech issue because itâs false
Even in the US free speech doesnât include the right to make defamatory statements like those freely. Although the target has to bring suit, and it is harder to prove defamation than in other countries such as the UK.
1 Like
Such holocaust denial provisions are included in EU law and have been a problem for new additions to the EU. The page you linked to says nothing about holocaust denial laws in France, it talks about hate speech laws from 1881. Try again.
I donât accept the 9/11 thing because, despite extensive searching, I have not seen a single image of the alleged cartoon which to me says it doesnât exist. The internet doesnât forget. Iâve seen the Michael Jackson one but thereâs no trace of the 9/11 one.
Nice generalisation, by the way⊠have Charlie Hebdo been counter-factual about world events? Kind of important since thatâs the subject.
My proof of my point that you inexplicably agree with is the article I posted with the papers editor. Are the words of the man in question proof enough for you?
I was not specific in my first response to you, but this stems from your own (IMO deliberate) tendency to litter your comments with multiple topics and then answer as if my reply relates to one specific topic in your comment. Dishonest. You mentioned both holocaust denial and anti-semetism. While the cover I posted doesnât relate to holocaust denial it could obviously fall somewhere on the spectrum of antisemetism.
PS a llittle off-topic, but I did find this while looking for the alleged 9/11 Charlie Hebdo comic. This is in far worse taste than the claimed Charlie Hebdo comic (which, by the way, is actually a commentary on the soullessness of financial traders, and I think quite funny) and this gem supposedly comes from Americaâs Finest News Source - The Onion.
Edit 2: the 9/11 cover did happen:
4 Likes
