Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.
Don't like it? Don't read it.
I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.
the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
its all just a distraction by supporters to ease the attention towards the the shit bag group of people that did this...stop the media circus and wipe these fools out ! and that douch bag that claimmed repobsibilty for the attack should be ........well never mind. rant rant rant rant
Godfather.
who are "all these fools" you wish to eradicate?
all muslims? please no.
all extremists? how do you find them? do they congregate in one big gymnasium every friday after work?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.
Don't like it? Don't read it.
I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.
the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.
Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.
Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.
Don't like it? Don't read it.
I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.
the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.
Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.
but don't you think by adopting the moniker "I am Charlie" that means they are defending the content, and not just free speech?
journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive. that's how you get the point across. otherwise you are just going to be hit back with blind rage.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
fair enough, callen. I obviously could be wrong on this. I don't know enough about the magazine though. and I assume if I tried to research it now, everything would be biased.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.
Don't like it? Don't read it.
I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.
the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.
Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.
but don't you think by adopting the moniker "I am Charlie" that means they are defending the content, and not just free speech?
journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive. that's how you get the point across. otherwise you are just going to be hit back with blind rage.
I take "I am Charlie" to mean "I stand with Charlie". Meaning that someone supports the magazine's right to publish. I don't think it is inappropriate given what happened, but I don't think it necessarily means someone is defending the content. I'm not big on monickers though so it is not a phrase I have used.
Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.
Don't like it? Don't read it.
I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.
the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.
Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.
but don't you think by adopting the moniker "I am Charlie" that means they are defending the content, and not just free speech?
journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive. that's how you get the point across. otherwise you are just going to be hit back with blind rage.
I take "I am Charlie" to mean "I stand with Charlie". Meaning that someone supports the magazine's right to publish. I don't think it is inappropriate given what happened, but I don't think it necessarily means someone is defending the content. I'm not big on monickers though so it is not a phrase I have used.
Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
I agree that journalism not only should, but actually has a reponsibility to, push the envelope. but from what I've seen of what they've published, it just seems they are trying to just piss everybody off just for the sake of it.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Tangential to the main topic, it's interesting the discussion between paulonius and jimmyv about je suis charlie. Apparently in French it can mean either i am charlie or im with charlie. The precision of the language is falling (like all languages) and it's unclear if the ambiguity was intentional or a result of the decline in written French.
Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
*insert thumbs-up dude*
welp, if the reprinting of the dutch cartoon was offensive enough to get someone to firebomb the CH offices in 2011, I would personally think I wouldn't keep poking that particular bear.
From my seat, if they continue to poke at this, then next time(there will be a next time) I will have zero empathy or sympathy.
And drowned? Did you read the entire article? GG seems to point out rather plainly the hypocrisy of western media. this last part of the article illustrate this very well. note that the middle section of the article or top part of the quoted post was deleted to fit.
...continued:
So it’s the opposite of surprising to see large numbers of westerners celebrating anti-Muslim cartoons - not on free speech grounds but due to approval of the content. Defending free speech is always easy when you like the content of the ideas being targeted, or aren’t part of (or actively dislike) the group being maligned.
Indeed, it is self-evident that if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in “solidarity” with their free speech rights. In fact, Douthat, Chait and Yglesias all took pains to expressly note that they were only calling for publication of such offensive ideas in the limited case where violence is threatened or perpetrated in response (by which they meant in practice, so far as I can tell: anti-Islam speech). Douthat even used italics to emphasize how limited his defense of blasphemy was: “that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended.”
One should acknowledge a valid point contained within the Douthat/Chait/Yglesias argument: when media outlets refrain from publishing material out of fear (rather than a desire to avoid publishing gratuitously offensive material), as several of the west’s leading outlets admitted doing with these cartoons, that is genuinely troubling, an actual threat to a free press. But there are all kinds of pernicious taboos in the west that result in self-censorship or compelled suppression of political ideas, from prosecution and imprisonment to career destruction: why is violence by Muslims the most menacing one? (I’m not here talking about the question of whether media outlets should publish the cartoons because they’re newsworthy; my focus is on the demand they be published positively, with approval, as “solidarity”).
When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words. Why aren’t Douthat, Chait, Yglesias and their like-minded free speech crusaders calling for publication of anti-Semitic material in solidarity, or as a means of standing up to this repression? Yes, it’s true that outlets like The New York Times will in rare instances publish such depictions, but only to document hateful bigotry and condemn it – not to publish it in “solidarity” or because it deserves a serious and respectful airing.
With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.
To see how true that is, consider the fact that Charlie Hebdo – the “equal opportunity” offenders and defenders of all types of offensive speech - fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic (the writer was then charged with a hate crime offense, and won a judgment against the magazine for unfair termination). Does that sound like “equal opportunity” offending?
Nor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offensive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, was repeatedly cancelled by theaters due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt was paralyzed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologize out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religious sectarianism.
The New York Times‘ David Brooks today claims that anti-Christian bias is so widespread in America – which has never elected a non-Christian president – that “the University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.” He forgot to mention that the very same university just terminated its tenure contract with Professor Steven Salaita over tweets he posted during the Israeli attack on Gaza that the university judged to be excessively vituperative of Jewish leaders, and that the journalist Chris Hedges was just disinvited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.
That is a real taboo – a repressed idea – as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticizing Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles – including the U.S. Congress – that one barely notices it any more.
This underscores the key point: there are all sorts of ways ideas and viewpoints are suppressed in the west. When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication of those ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offensive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
*insert thumbs-up dude*
I agree, too. JimmyV expressed my views in his last 2 updates. We don't have to like the speech, but we should defend the right to publish. And we should be free to defend the content, criticize the content, debate the value, etc..., but not call for any censorship just because it might offend someone, or some group. The problem with trying to not offend anyone is that there is no good bar or definition that works universally. Any time any of us here make blanket statements about a religion or all religions in general (as an example) we are Charlie. We will offend someone with that exercise of free speech, but it should be tolerated and allowed (and debated or criticized, but not suppressed).
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
found this in researching what CH is actually about. seems very relevant. In particular the different schools of thought between Shia /Sunni on depictions of The Prophet. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30814555
The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has published an issue which commemorates the victims of last week's shootings in France - using an image of the Prophet Muhammad on the cover. Most Muslims say that pictorial depictions of the founder of Islam are forbidden - but has that always been the case in all of the Muslim world?
(This article contains a historical image of the Prophet Muhammad)
If you set aside for a moment the issue of whether satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad are insulting, there's a separate and complicated debate about whether any depiction - even a respectful one - is forbidden within Islam.
For most Muslims it's an absolute prohibition - Muhammad, or any of the other prophets of Islam, should not be pictured in any way. Pictures - as well as statues - are thought to encourage the worship of idols.
This is uncontroversial in many parts of the Islamic world. Historically, the dominant forms in Islamic art have been geometric, swirling patterns or calligraphic - rather than figurative art.
Muslims point to a verse in the Koran which features Abraham, whom they regard as a prophet:
"[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"
Yet there's no ruling in the Koran explicitly forbidding the depiction of the Prophet, according to Prof Mona Siddiqui from Edinburgh University. Instead, the idea arose from the Hadiths - stories about the life and sayings of Muhammad gathered in the years after his death.
Siddiqui points to depictions of Muhammad - drawn by Muslim artists - dating from the Mongol and Ottoman empires. In some of them, Muhammad's facial features are hidden - but it's clear it is him. She says the images were inspired by devotion: "The majority of people drew these pictures out of love and veneration, not intending idolatry."
At what point then, did depictions of Muhammad become haram, or forbidden?
Many of the images of Muhammad which date from the 1300s were intended only to be viewed privately, to avoid idolatry, says Christiane Gruber, associate professor of Islamic Art at Michigan University. "In some ways they were luxury items, perhaps in libraries for the elite."
Such items included miniatures which showed characters from Islam.
Gruber says the advent of mass-circulation print media in the 18th Century posed a challenge. The colonisation of some Muslim lands by European forces and ideas was also significant, she says.
The Islamic response was to emphasise how different their religion was to Christianity, with its history of public iconography, Gruber argues. Pictures of Muhammad started to disappear, and a new rhetoric against depictions emerged.
But Imam Qari Asim, of Leeds Makkah Mosque, one of the largest in the UK, denies there has been a significant change. He maintains that the effect of the Hadiths, with their injunctions against any images of living things, is automatically a prohibition on depictions of Muhammad.
He says the medieval images have to be understood in context. "The majority of these images relate to this particular Night Journey and the ascension to Heaven. There is a ram or a horse. He is on the horse or something like that.
"The classical scholars have very strongly condemned those depictions as well. But they do exist."
A key point is that they are not simple portraits of Muhammad. Asim also argues that the subject of many of the images is unclear. There is a question of whether all of these depictions actually intended to portray the Prophet or a close companion involved in the same scene, he suggests.
Prof Hugh Goddard, director of the Alwaleed Centre for the Study of Islam in the Contemporary World in the University of Edinburgh, says that there has been a change.
"There isn't unanimity in either of the foundational sources - the Koran and the Hadiths. The later Muslim community has tended to have different views on this question as on others."
The Arab scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, whose teachings paved the way for Wahhabism, the dominant form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia, was a key figure.
"The debate has become much more vigorous - particularly associated with the movement of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. You had suspicion of veneration of anything other than God. That included the Prophet.
"There has been a significant change over certainly the last 200 years, but probably 300 years."
The situation is different with sculpture or any other kind of three-dimensional representation, notes Goddard, where the prohibition has always been clearer.
Image from a 16th Century Iranian manuscript showing the ascension to Heaven Image from a 16th Century Iranian manuscript showing the ascension to Heaven
For some Muslims, says Siddiqui, the aversion to pictures has even extended to a refusal to have pictures of any live being - human or animal - in their homes.
The prohibition against depiction didn't stretch everywhere though - many Shia Muslims appear to have a slightly different view. Contemporary pictures of Muhammad are still available in some parts of the Muslim world, according to Hassan Yousefi Eshkavari, a former Iranian cleric, now based in Germany. He told the BBC that today, images of Muhammad hang in many Iranian homes: "From a religious point of view there is no prohibition on these pictures. These images exist in shops as well as houses. They aren't seen as insulting, either from a religious or cultural viewpoint."
Differences in approach among Muslims can be seen along traditional Shia/Sunni lines, but Gruber says that those who claim a historical ban has always existed are wrong.
It's an argument that many Muslims would not accept.
"The Koran itself doesn't say anything," Dr Azzam Tamimi, former head of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought told the BBC, "but it is accepted by all Islamic authorities that the Prophet Muhammad and all the other prophets cannot be drawn and cannot be produced in pictures because they are, according to Islamic faith, infallible individuals, role models and therefore should not be presented in any manner that might cause disrespect for them."
He is not convinced by the argument that if there are medieval depictions of Muhammad that suggests there is no absolute prohibition. "Even if it were that would have been condemned by the scholars of Islam."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And drowned? Did you read the entire article? GG seems to point out rather plainly the hypocrisy of western media. this last part of the article illustrate this very well. note that the middle section of the article or top part of the quoted post was deleted to fit.
Sure did, why do you ask? Not sure if/why you're asking me, or if your comment was directed at someone else...?
That newspaper made fun and disrespect of all religions.
Have you done a google search of their cartoons? I’ve managed to find two that attack Judaism, and only one that attacks Christianity. This was addressed in the Greenwald article I posted. Printing the odd cartoon in protest of the other side does not mean there was not malicious intent toward the main/usual target - Islam. Maligning a marginalized minority with intentional provocation is not cool, and should not become 'the new PC’ as it has, in the name of solidarity. Mohammed being sodomized is not funny under any context I can think of to anyone with an IQ over 12, and aside from highlighting the fact that it may offend some people more than it should – it has no value as social commentary. It’s in bad taste and bigoted, period. Does that mean it should be illegal? No. Does refusing to publish them mean we’ve compromised our right to free speech? No. Does the French government arresting 54 people in the last week for social media posts they deem 'support for terrorism' compromise their right to free speech? Yes. And there are many other examples of this free speech we all pretend to value being extremely selective. I could go on and on about Israel in this regard for hours. And that is just one of the countries whose leaders used these attacks to bolster their own images in a sham of a free speech march, before returning home to subjugate their own dissidents. Fuck this whole situation. Islamophobia peaks every time this shit happens….bonus for the oppressors.
I am still not convinced that this was not all contrived beyond what we’re told. Way too many glaring contradictions in the official story, as usual.
And drowned? Did you read the entire article? GG seems to point out rather plainly the hypocrisy of western media. this last part of the article illustrate this very well. note that the middle section of the article or top part of the quoted post was deleted to fit.
Sure did, why do you ask? Not sure if/why you're asking me, or if your comment was directed at someone else...?
That newspaper made fun and disrespect of all religions.
Have you done a google search of their cartoons? I’ve managed to find two that attack Judaism, and only one that attacks Christianity. This was addressed in the Greenwald article I posted. Printing the odd cartoon in protest of the other side does not mean there was not malicious intent toward the main/usual target - Islam. Maligning a marginalized minority with intentional provocation is not cool, and should not become 'the new PC’ as it has, in the name of solidarity. Mohammed being sodomized is not funny under any context I can think of to anyone with an IQ over 12, and aside from highlighting the fact that it may offend some people more than it should – it has no value as social commentary. It’s in bad taste and bigoted, period. Does that mean it should be illegal? No. Does refusing to publish them mean we’ve compromised our right to free speech? No. Does the French government arresting 54 people in the last week for social media posts they deem 'support for terrorism' compromise their right to free speech? Yes. And there are many other examples of this free speech we all pretend to value being extremely selective. I could go on and on about Israel in this regard for hours. And that is just one of the countries whose leaders used these attacks to bolster their own images in a sham of a free speech march, before returning home to subjugate their own dissidents. Fuck this whole situation. Islamophobia peaks every time this shit happens….bonus for the oppressors.
I am still not convinced that this was not all contrived beyond what we’re told. Way too many glaring contradictions in the official story, as usual.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Telling that our resident fox news champ doesn't know who Rupert Murdoch is....tough to find any mention of him that isn't critical, so his own empire is not likely to even speak his name.
And drowned? Did you read the entire article? GG seems to point out rather plainly the hypocrisy of western media. this last part of the article illustrate this very well. note that the middle section of the article or top part of the quoted post was deleted to fit.
Sure did, why do you ask? Not sure if/why you're asking me, or if your comment was directed at someone else...?
That newspaper made fun and disrespect of all religions.
Have you done a google search of their cartoons? I’ve managed to find two that attack Judaism, and only one that attacks Christianity. This was addressed in the Greenwald article I posted. Printing the odd cartoon in protest of the other side does not mean there was not malicious intent toward the main/usual target - Islam. Maligning a marginalized minority with intentional provocation is not cool, and should not become 'the new PC’ as it has, in the name of solidarity. Mohammed being sodomized is not funny under any context I can think of to anyone with an IQ over 12, and aside from highlighting the fact that it may offend some people more than it should – it has no value as social commentary. It’s in bad taste and bigoted, period. Does that mean it should be illegal? No. Does refusing to publish them mean we’ve compromised our right to free speech? No. Does the French government arresting 54 people in the last week for social media posts they deem 'support for terrorism' compromise their right to free speech? Yes. And there are many other examples of this free speech we all pretend to value being extremely selective. I could go on and on about Israel in this regard for hours. And that is just one of the countries whose leaders used these attacks to bolster their own images in a sham of a free speech march, before returning home to subjugate their own dissidents. Fuck this whole situation. Islamophobia peaks every time this shit happens….bonus for the oppressors.
I am still not convinced that this was not all contrived beyond what we’re told. Way too many glaring contradictions in the official story, as usual.
Drowned out ... The following link shows Jesus getting buttfucked by an angle and a bunch of bishops in a daisy chain! And a reference as Obama as a monkey! Published by Gawker which is a liberal media site. I won't even get into Jewish defamation as I'm no expert. But to say they only did a one or two offensive things against other religions is insane.
No, I don't subscribe to them. But that is as disrespectful as one could expect. Only an insane faction would issue and pull of a death warrant because for perceived blasphemy, that would be goddamn insane.
Yet, I wonder why Charlie paid a Muslim off-duty (now dead) cop was hired to provide protection? Was it against The followers of the Spaghetti Monster?
All bless his merciful Noodleness! He is all powerful!
(wait, what? the followers of His Noodleness now want me dead?! I said that shit like 7 minutes ago! I'm a changed man! Please forgive and show mercy, my Spaghetti Monster Lord! I beg of you!)
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And drowned? Did you read the entire article? GG seems to point out rather plainly the hypocrisy of western media. this last part of the article illustrate this very well. note that the middle section of the article or top part of the quoted post was deleted to fit.
Sure did, why do you ask? Not sure if/why you're asking me, or if your comment was directed at someone else...?
That newspaper made fun and disrespect of all religions.
Have you done a google search of their cartoons? I’ve managed to find two that attack Judaism, and only one that attacks Christianity. This was addressed in the Greenwald article I posted. Printing the odd cartoon in protest of the other side does not mean there was not malicious intent toward the main/usual target - Islam. Maligning a marginalized minority with intentional provocation is not cool, and should not become 'the new PC’ as it has, in the name of solidarity. Mohammed being sodomized is not funny under any context I can think of to anyone with an IQ over 12, and aside from highlighting the fact that it may offend some people more than it should – it has no value as social commentary. It’s in bad taste and bigoted, period. Does that mean it should be illegal? No. Does refusing to publish them mean we’ve compromised our right to free speech? No. Does the French government arresting 54 people in the last week for social media posts they deem 'support for terrorism' compromise their right to free speech? Yes. And there are many other examples of this free speech we all pretend to value being extremely selective. I could go on and on about Israel in this regard for hours. And that is just one of the countries whose leaders used these attacks to bolster their own images in a sham of a free speech march, before returning home to subjugate their own dissidents. Fuck this whole situation. Islamophobia peaks every time this shit happens….bonus for the oppressors.
I am still not convinced that this was not all contrived beyond what we’re told. Way too many glaring contradictions in the official story, as usual.
Comments
I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.
the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.
-EV 8/14/93
who are "all these fools" you wish to eradicate?
all muslims? please no.
all extremists? how do you find them? do they congregate in one big gymnasium every friday after work?
-EV 8/14/93
Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
news.yahoo.com/two-dead-police-raid-terror-suspects-belgium-195405277--abc-news-topstories.html
but don't you think by adopting the moniker "I am Charlie" that means they are defending the content, and not just free speech?
journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive. that's how you get the point across. otherwise you are just going to be hit back with blind rage.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
I take "I am Charlie" to mean "I stand with Charlie". Meaning that someone supports the magazine's right to publish. I don't think it is inappropriate given what happened, but I don't think it necessarily means someone is defending the content. I'm not big on monickers though so it is not a phrase I have used.
Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I agree that journalism not only should, but actually has a reponsibility to, push the envelope. but from what I've seen of what they've published, it just seems they are trying to just piss everybody off just for the sake of it.
-EV 8/14/93
welp, if the reprinting of the dutch cartoon was offensive enough to get someone to firebomb the CH offices in 2011, I would personally think I wouldn't keep poking that particular bear.
From my seat, if they continue to poke at this, then next time(there will be a next time) I will have zero empathy or sympathy.
And drowned? Did you read the entire article? GG seems to point out rather plainly the hypocrisy of western media. this last part of the article illustrate this very well. note that the middle section of the article or top part of the quoted post was deleted to fit.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree, too. JimmyV expressed my views in his last 2 updates. We don't have to like the speech, but we should defend the right to publish. And we should be free to defend the content, criticize the content, debate the value, etc..., but not call for any censorship just because it might offend someone, or some group. The problem with trying to not offend anyone is that there is no good bar or definition that works universally. Any time any of us here make blanket statements about a religion or all religions in general (as an example) we are Charlie. We will offend someone with that exercise of free speech, but it should be tolerated and allowed (and debated or criticized, but not suppressed).
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30814555
The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has published an issue which commemorates the victims of last week's shootings in France - using an image of the Prophet Muhammad on the cover. Most Muslims say that pictorial depictions of the founder of Islam are forbidden - but has that always been the case in all of the Muslim world?
(This article contains a historical image of the Prophet Muhammad)
If you set aside for a moment the issue of whether satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad are insulting, there's a separate and complicated debate about whether any depiction - even a respectful one - is forbidden within Islam.
For most Muslims it's an absolute prohibition - Muhammad, or any of the other prophets of Islam, should not be pictured in any way. Pictures - as well as statues - are thought to encourage the worship of idols.
This is uncontroversial in many parts of the Islamic world. Historically, the dominant forms in Islamic art have been geometric, swirling patterns or calligraphic - rather than figurative art.
Muslims point to a verse in the Koran which features Abraham, whom they regard as a prophet:
"[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"
Yet there's no ruling in the Koran explicitly forbidding the depiction of the Prophet, according to Prof Mona Siddiqui from Edinburgh University. Instead, the idea arose from the Hadiths - stories about the life and sayings of Muhammad gathered in the years after his death.
Siddiqui points to depictions of Muhammad - drawn by Muslim artists - dating from the Mongol and Ottoman empires. In some of them, Muhammad's facial features are hidden - but it's clear it is him. She says the images were inspired by devotion: "The majority of people drew these pictures out of love and veneration, not intending idolatry."
At what point then, did depictions of Muhammad become haram, or forbidden?
Many of the images of Muhammad which date from the 1300s were intended only to be viewed privately, to avoid idolatry, says Christiane Gruber, associate professor of Islamic Art at Michigan University. "In some ways they were luxury items, perhaps in libraries for the elite."
Such items included miniatures which showed characters from Islam.
Gruber says the advent of mass-circulation print media in the 18th Century posed a challenge. The colonisation of some Muslim lands by European forces and ideas was also significant, she says.
The Islamic response was to emphasise how different their religion was to Christianity, with its history of public iconography, Gruber argues. Pictures of Muhammad started to disappear, and a new rhetoric against depictions emerged.
But Imam Qari Asim, of Leeds Makkah Mosque, one of the largest in the UK, denies there has been a significant change. He maintains that the effect of the Hadiths, with their injunctions against any images of living things, is automatically a prohibition on depictions of Muhammad.
He says the medieval images have to be understood in context. "The majority of these images relate to this particular Night Journey and the ascension to Heaven. There is a ram or a horse. He is on the horse or something like that.
"The classical scholars have very strongly condemned those depictions as well. But they do exist."
A key point is that they are not simple portraits of Muhammad. Asim also argues that the subject of many of the images is unclear. There is a question of whether all of these depictions actually intended to portray the Prophet or a close companion involved in the same scene, he suggests.
Prof Hugh Goddard, director of the Alwaleed Centre for the Study of Islam in the Contemporary World in the University of Edinburgh, says that there has been a change.
"There isn't unanimity in either of the foundational sources - the Koran and the Hadiths. The later Muslim community has tended to have different views on this question as on others."
The Arab scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, whose teachings paved the way for Wahhabism, the dominant form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia, was a key figure.
"The debate has become much more vigorous - particularly associated with the movement of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. You had suspicion of veneration of anything other than God. That included the Prophet.
"There has been a significant change over certainly the last 200 years, but probably 300 years."
The situation is different with sculpture or any other kind of three-dimensional representation, notes Goddard, where the prohibition has always been clearer.
Image from a 16th Century Iranian manuscript showing the ascension to Heaven Image from a 16th Century Iranian manuscript showing the ascension to Heaven
For some Muslims, says Siddiqui, the aversion to pictures has even extended to a refusal to have pictures of any live being - human or animal - in their homes.
The prohibition against depiction didn't stretch everywhere though - many Shia Muslims appear to have a slightly different view. Contemporary pictures of Muhammad are still available in some parts of the Muslim world, according to Hassan Yousefi Eshkavari, a former Iranian cleric, now based in Germany. He told the BBC that today, images of Muhammad hang in many Iranian homes: "From a religious point of view there is no prohibition on these pictures. These images exist in shops as well as houses. They aren't seen as insulting, either from a religious or cultural viewpoint."
Differences in approach among Muslims can be seen along traditional Shia/Sunni lines, but Gruber says that those who claim a historical ban has always existed are wrong.
It's an argument that many Muslims would not accept.
"The Koran itself doesn't say anything," Dr Azzam Tamimi, former head of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought told the BBC, "but it is accepted by all Islamic authorities that the Prophet Muhammad and all the other prophets cannot be drawn and cannot be produced in pictures because they are, according to Islamic faith, infallible individuals, role models and therefore should not be presented in any manner that might cause disrespect for them."
He is not convinced by the argument that if there are medieval depictions of Muhammad that suggests there is no absolute prohibition. "Even if it were that would have been condemned by the scholars of Islam."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I am still not convinced that this was not all contrived beyond what we’re told. Way too many glaring contradictions in the official story, as usual.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
(democracynow! did a good piece on this too)
Telling that our resident fox news champ doesn't know who Rupert Murdoch is....tough to find any mention of him that isn't critical, so his own empire is not likely to even speak his name.
No, I don't subscribe to them. But that is as disrespectful as one could expect. Only an insane faction would issue and pull of a death warrant because for perceived blasphemy, that would be goddamn insane.
Yet, I wonder why Charlie paid a Muslim off-duty (now dead) cop was hired to provide protection? Was it against The followers of the Spaghetti Monster?
http://flyingfrenchy.kinja.com/charlie-hebdo-and-why-its-always-been-an-anti-racist-ne-1678770097/1678993766/+maxread
Yeah, I said it.
His Noodliness will forgive you. I think.
All bless his merciful Noodleness! He is all powerful!
(wait, what? the followers of His Noodleness now want me dead?! I said that shit like 7 minutes ago! I'm a changed man! Please forgive and show mercy, my Spaghetti Monster Lord! I beg of you!)
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
:P
-Voltaire
Haha, I'm confused now too.
-EV 8/14/93
I agree. But just because one has the right to print anything they want, doesn't mean they ought to.
-EV 8/14/93