[Closed] Charlie Hebdo at it again....

Ooof. I'm not sure that machine gunning them is the right thing to do, but that is near the knuckle.

The original photo was shocking enough. If they wanted to make a point then the best thing to do would have been to reprint it without any annotation.

Bad taste maybe but not as bad taste as wishing someone to be gunned down in cold murder.

The cartoons are not mocking the dead child.

what MSP said - I don't think they mean what people think they do.

The cartoons are not mocking the dead child.

I didn't think they were either. Mind you I'm not sure what their point is exactly.

That's the trouble with publications like charly hebdo - a lot of people just react rather than understanding their point

probably will get them some unwelcome attention though, hopefully not the same as last time

[i]Mind you I'm not sure what the point is exactly either. [/i]

The first one, maybe the vacuity of European life and culture and is it worth risking your childs life to reach?

I'm not wishing anyone to be gunned down...but going off the last time they insulted the muslim world...some nutcases decided to do just that. All I'm saying is that you would have thought they would have learnt from the last time that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed even if it is supposed to be satirical...if they havent learnt and decide that they need to further insult the muslim world and the family of that popr boy...then they inly have themselves to blame if some other nutcases come and carry out a repeat of last time
I dont agree with what happened last time but neither do i agree with insulting racial and religious hatred being spouted by such publications whilst hiding behind a thin excuse that its satire...

Good Lord! That's not mocking the poor boy. It's tough to look at, but I think it is about the stark contrast between a sort of decadent affluence, and the losses that have been suffered to reach it.

To be honest, I think Charlie Hebdo, filled as it is with left-of-centre intelligencia/artistic-types is highly unlikely to take the piss out of a dead child, especially in light of their own horrible losses.

of course their at it again, its their thing, hardly a surprise

these jackasses

Eh? You don't think they're allowed a voice, an opinion, a comment?

Long live free speech is what I say, and a reduction in limited views..

...and that's the whole point of the Charlie Hebdo brand of satire. They want to challenge you to see beyond the obvious. You can certainly argue that this is insensitive but in this case, it's our reaction that is being mocked, not the migrants/refugees/Aylan.

They aren't satirising a dead child they are satirising the situation that created a dead child. Pretty valid IMO and well done to them.

The photo in the paper seemed to stir a few people into action and bring the issues to a wider public but kids are still dying, the subject hasn't gone away.

I'm not wishing anyone to be gunned down.

Ah! Sorry. You just think they deserve it. Well that's a lot better then.

.some nutcases

Exactly. Nutcase they could be from any background and triggered from anything they decide to 'mock'.

Still don't think they deserve to be gunned down though.

MSP is right the critics are missing the target here spectacularly.

The cartoon features Aylan lying face down on the sand near a publicity board of a 2-for-1 McDonald Happy Meal saying what translates into: “Two menus of children for the price of one.”

That's the trouble with publications like charly hebdo - a lot of people just react rather than understanding their point

Eh? You don't think they're allowed a voice, an opinion, a comment?

So Eh? You don't think they're allowed a voice, an opinion, a comment?

Entitled “The Proof that Europe is Christian,” the cartoon shows the little child drowning in the waters. On the left side, a man, supposedly Jesus, stands on the water while saying “Christians walk on waters… Muslims kids sink

I'm with MSP, both cartoons are 100pc sympathetic, and not mocking the lad at all. Someone's misunderstood, probably deliberatly.

“Two menus of children for the price of one.”

the critics are missing the target here spectacularly

Never mind that! All aboard the outrage bus!

It seems to be willfully vague to me, could be look how our shallow consumerism lured the poor boy to his death or is it suggesting they are economic migrants and whether a big mac is worth dying for when the reality is anything better than being barrel bombed or 3 years in a refugee camp.

I'm reminded of the tabloid reaction to Brass Eye's paedophilia special which was, all at the same time, infuriating, stupid, inevitable, and the perfect denouement for the whole thing.

I'm glad it's offensive. That's their shtick. It's the only French topical political cartooning getting discussed on stw today, or ever. And in a few posts people are discussing the heavy, heavy issues.

Brilliant. Oh, and they know they're risking morons with machine guns murdering then, and they've got a pretty real grasp on what that looks like. Brilliant, and courageous.

I think they're taking the mick out of the attitude some of the west have; that these people are coming over for a holiday, not to escape cruel hardships. Remember all those newspaper stories about how refugees are coming here for the luxuries (like, er a theme park for example)? They're mocking US not the tragic child.

To say we should learn our lessons from terrorists and change how we act is a little retarded and more than a little un-English, if I may say so. Up Charlie! And may we all think a little harder before choosing to be offended.

I'm with MSP, both cartoons are 100pc sympathetic, and not mocking the lad at all. Someone's misunderstood, probably deliberatly.

I don't know about deliberately, it wouldn't surprise me that a Moroccan news outlet could miss the intention of the message. I am a little more surprised that someone from a European background could.

But then again I agree with junkyard find CH make their point in a really poor way that is cheap tacky and crass, but I still think their intention isn't hard to spot.

Still don't think they deserve to be gunned down though

I never said they deserved to be gunned down
I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this...if the reaction is a violent ine the yes it should be condemned
And there lies the problem...it could have been avoided if they had shown a bit more respect and sensitivity

It is clumsy and crude though and draws more attention the Charlie Hebdo than it does to the plight of the poor souls involved.

And all so dad could have new teeth...

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this

No. People shouldn't gun down other humans.

And there lies the problem...it could have been avoided if they had shown a bit more respect and sensitivity

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this.

Rubbish! It is never you to blame if someone responds to a cartoon with guns.

[img] [/img]

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this...if the reaction is a violent ine the yes it should be condemned

If some ultra-insulted, religious zealot numbskulls decide to go on another shooty trip then I hope there's somebody waiting for them.

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this

Its one of those
try walking down the street and insulting people as horribly and offensively as you can and see what happens. Its obvious what will happen

Stating what will happen when you behave in certain way is not condoning what will happen

EDIT:

It is never you to blame if someone responds to a cartoon with guns.

the consequences are somewhat predictable.

* I dont even know what that would mean in this context do we really have the right to be offensive and tbh I cannot be bothered doing this no one has the right to be not offended v no one has the right just to be offensive again

Gonzy you almost word for word quote with approval the line of the Islamist "insult my faith and it is your fault if a kill you " personally I have no respect or sensitivity for the nutter who murders to protect his belief from satire.

No. People shouldn't gun down other humans

Middle lane hoggers?

To be honest (and a little bit cold), I think it pretty poor work. The original photo was so strong, that's the best they could with it? A pretty ambiguous commentary, not very hard hitting or edgy. I'm not even sure it makes sense. Clearly they lost their finer minds in the shooting if this the best they can do with such a ripe bit of material.

I saw something I didn't understand. The content was challenging and it wasn't spelled out for me how I should react. It made me angry. I am offended.

I saw something I didn't understand. It made me "stupid". I am offended.

yes if you poke the lion it will eat you, we arent animals and live and abide by laws of the country apparently. Although some try to justify their actions through their beliefs but ultimately are just doing it for themselves.
I'm watched the documentary about Farkunda ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33810338 ) . Make of it what you will but I felt shocked and ill at the injustice and inequality of it all.

The first cartoon (Mcdonalds one) seems to be a poke at western consumerism more than at syrian refugees. Horrible, but I don't see that it's mocking Aylan Kurdi.

The second one is just awful. Not something to be machine gunned over, but I wouldn't mind seeing them get a reasonable kicking in the street over it tbh. I can't understand why anyone would think that's alright to publish. "Because free speech", no, piss off, free speech gives you the right to be a ****, it doesn't justify you being a ****, or excuse the fact that you're a ****. It certainly doesn't mean that we should celebrate that you were a ****.

I couldn't give a monkeys if the intention was to mock or to make a serious point about the handling of the refugee crisis, I think the use of Aylan's haunting image was quite frankly tasteless. And claiming that it's only "satire" doesn't make it any more acceptable imo.

Charlie Hebdo - what a load of shite. Being controversial just for the sake of it without being witty, funny or clever.

The second one is just awful.

Well it certainly doesn't give the impression that artist is primarily motivated by a genuine concern for muslim refugees.

Perhaps the BNP and EDL have missed a trick in not employing more cartoonists?