Just that the OP is talking about a situation where he thinks a certain sector of the population will take offense…

exactly my point….there will be a certain sector of the population that will take offence…even if they get the point the cartoon is trying to make. they knew this after the last time…11 people lost their lives and a further 11 were injured…producing more cartoons that is going to incite the same amount of anger is only going to lead to the potential repeat of that incident

exactly my point….there will be a certain sector of the population that will take offence…even if they get the point the cartoon is trying to make. they knew this after the last time…11 people lost their lives and a further 11 were injured…producing more cartoons that is going to incite the same amount of anger is only going to lead to the potential repeat of that incident

You reaslise that CH have been producing magazines and pictures the entire time since the ‘first time’ (that you presumably heard about them) and had been doing that for quite a while before someone decided to take offence?

if you insult someone, you’re likely to get punched in the face

I know it’s the usual reaction but it’s a bit, y’know, childish and all. Sticks and stones etc.

If someone called me a **** I’d have to agree with them TBH…

Yes.. it should be known that mocking a silly religion should result in murder.
I’m guessing you’re a believer in silly made up stories and you can understand how people decided to murder those people.. am I right?

and what if i am…what is your point here? what if i wasnt and i was christian, jewish or hindu and i had made the same comment?

I don’t GAS what made-up book you read.. I find your original post very very offensive. Sympathising with extremists of what ever BS religion is not a sensible position to take.
The 11 were murdered by nutjobs and I find it very offensive to imply otherwise.

How about ‘you’ help stop the nutjobs not the drawing of cartoons. You actually believe those people sort of deserved it don’t you??

I think they sort of had it coming yes..

Shame on you then chap!

even before they drew the cartoons, they knew it was forbidden to draw them

Really? Forbidden by whom? Is the logic: you draw that and I will punish you because I/we have forbidden it but I cannot be held to account for my violence because it was in retaliation? What utter tosh.
CH is not particularly well drawn (it reminds me of Punch magazine) and it doesn’t make me laugh like Private Eye but it has become a symbol of resistance to the censorious religious nutters and liberal apologists and to that extent it should be defended.

but not that you took umbrage at what i said

at which, ironically, you seem determined to take offense. It doesn’t say everyone who doesn’t get the Cartoons is any of those things

Yes that is a fair point, my error.

And the analogy of going upto someone in the street and telling them they were fat was a poor one.

OH my favourite then

What if i turn up at a wedding and shout the bride is a fat slag
I am able to do this legally but it is unlikely that the people will react well to this

Whether i care about a picture of the prophet [ I dont] it is clearly haram in Islam and one of the most offensive things you can do to a Muslim. to do this and show him as suicide bomber is almost definitely going to lead to the reaction it got in the same way as insulting anyone , enough, can lead to violence. In this case those insulted are nutters and I dont wish to defend them but its naive to not forse the reaction be it CB or the wedding guests.

We need to work on stopping people from punching people in the face when words or pictures or thoughts upset them, and get them to respone with words, with cartoons, with arguments. We shouldn’t cave to their sensitivities, or yours.

Will you let the guests and the bride know this and let us how well it goes

One of those your behaviour can elicit violence in much the same way as my every posts elicits teasels respect and admiration 😉

It really depends you cannot have you can do anything and its all free speech. Even if we do certain reactions will likely befall those who choose to test their right to say whatever and argue that its the offended persons fault.
We need to decide on a case by case basis IMHO- alomst everyone agrees with “censorship” we just debate where the line is
Charlie are usually over the line IMHO

I find your original post very very offensive. Sympathising with extremists of what ever BS religion is not a sensible position to take.
The 11 were murdered by nutjobs and I find it very offensive to imply otherwise.

How about ‘you’ help stop the nutjobs not the drawing of cartoons. You actually believe those people sort of deserved it don’t you??

why dont you show me where in my posts i sympathised with the actions of the extremists who killed those people and that i said that they deserved it?

you should try reading what is written properly…or do you want me to draw you a cartoon of it?

why dont you show me where in my posts i sympathised with the actions of the extremists who killed those people and that i said that they deserved it?

like it or not, it’s the way “I’m sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this…” comes across. Maybe you communicated your point badly but I have to admit my first thought was that it was an idiotic thing to say.

why dont you show me where in my posts i sympathised with the actions of the extremists who killed those people and that i said that they deserved it?

I’m sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this.

but not that you took umbrage at what i said

I didn’t, petal, hence the emoticon use.

like it or not, it’s the way “I’m sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this…” comes across.

how does that imply that i said that they deserve to be killed?
if the response is for someone to throw rotten eggs at the cartoonists in retaliation to the drawings i would still say they only have themselves to blame for it.

Junkyard makes good points. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Regardless of whether the drowned boy is not the one being mocked, its still crass in the extreme. Did the cartoonist feel it appropriate to draw images of their murdered colleagues lying in a pool of blood and riddled with bullets, all in the name of satire*, or is it only ok when its someone they don’t know?

*(to be fair they may have known how tasteless they are)

Honeypot operation on the part of the french security services.
CH get the blessing to say something controversial and they use them to flush out the next batch of snack bar lunatics.

how does that imply that i said that they deserve to be killed?

It absolves the shooters of any blame.

tpbiker Good points, but I’d argue that single image has already become totemic in a way similar to the girl running from napalm, the monk on fire etc from Vietnam days. But what we have had is partly a death-of-Diana type mass hand-wringing, which may only last a few weeks before business and apathy as usual, and I think work like the CH cartoon might encourage a deeper look at our own values and attitudes. And to get that across needed a certain shock value.

We have dozens of religions and political ideas in the world with conflicting views and rules. They should all be accorded equal lack of respect. The correct response to a cartoon is not a mass murder, and the OP still doesn’t get how the “they’ve got it coming” is a cowardly self-censoring stance.

For those of you who are getting very emotional about that pic / cartoon whatever …

Yes, it is sad that a kid died due to the parents taking risks but why go into emotional overdrive?

Remember this …

Children die all over the world everyday in all forms.

Yes, they do! Children do die everyday. Fact!

What’s the big deal?

You want to see pics of child’s death? Google it there are plenty.

Also you may find one idiot actually eating foetus (more like several weeks old baby/ foetus apparently … I mean I could not believe what I saw … told you human are all ZMs … Remember, I told you so!)

But what we have had is partly a death-of-Diana type mass hand-wringing, which may only last a few weeks before business and apathy as usual,

I think its already passed in the general public tbh. Already news has moved on to managing the numbers, the human face of it has been lost.

and I think work like the CH cartoon might encourage a deeper look at our own values and attitudes. And to get that across needed a certain shock value.

I think its just lead to a small amount of grumbling, while missing the point and seemingly (in 3 pages on STW) gone completely past the key point, which is the desperate need for action by those who can (i.e. government).

It absolves the shooters of any blame.

taken from my second and fifth post on this thread…

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…

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

my support for the killers is overwhelming(!)

The deadliest weapon in the world, every time I will stand with people who provoke, think and question ahead of those who can only react with guns and swords.

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

Did you post similar in the rape thread the other day?

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

Well, sadly, that’s a decent portion of their output. You’d probably never have heard of them if it wasn’t for some of their more blatant works and a few nutters with automatic weapons. Other than the issue after the attack, Hebdo has vanished into the back of most newspaper racks in Francophone countries.

In this case those insulted are nutters and I dont wish to defend them but its naive to not forse the reaction be it CB or the wedding guests.

The staff of Charlie Hebdo DID foresee the potential for violent response. In 2012 Charb said that he would rather die than live like a rat (I think) and they continued down their dangerous path, doing what they believed in (and what those living still believe in). Whilst I can guarantee I wouldn’t be that brave, voices that constantly challenge “accepted wisdom” or push the buttons of people who don’t like their buttons pushed and respond with violence against those they disagree with should be applauded.

Back to these cartoons, when I first saw them I could understand why people might find it offensive if they glanced at it and moved on but if you spend more than a second looking at it, it’s clear it’s not mocking a dead kid. Their goal, however, like those people who published the original photo is to get a reaction to what is obviously just one tiny part of a humanitarian tragedy. By the amount of press it’s getting, it may have had that result but I am sure they’d prefer that the crisis was the focus not the cartoonists.

taken from my second and fifth post on this thread…

So you communicated badly. You don’t think they have only themselves to blame if they’re killed, you just wouldn’t be surprised if it happens. Good to know.

mikewsmith – Member
The deadliest weapon in the world, every time I will stand with people who provoke, think and question ahead of those who can only react with guns and swords.

^^^ This. 😛

on the going up to people and abusing them and calling the bride fat analogy , it does not really work. Charlie Hebro is and was a limited circulation magazine in France only popular with a small section of the community nobody was forced to read it and any one who did probably had an idea what they were letting themselves in for . As I remember the original Mo cartoons passed without much comment but were dredged up a year later when some islamist nutter clerics went on a world tour with them trying successfully to fan some anti western outrage. Short point, if you don’t like satire don’t read a satirical magazine, the cartoonists were not walking up to muslims in the street or mosque saying “look at this what I drew.”

We have dozens of religions and political ideas in the world with conflicting views and rules. They should all be accorded equal lack of respect. The correct response to a cartoon is not a mass murder, and the OP still doesn’t get how the “they’ve got it coming” is a cowardly self-censoring stance.

They should be accorded a lack of intellectual respect and held to account for their stupid views and challenged.
it does not mean I should turn up at Mecca for the Haj with cartoons of Mohammed as a suicide bomber.

Whilst I can guarantee I wouldn’t be that brave, voices that constantly challenge “accepted wisdom” or push the buttons of people who don’t like their buttons pushed and respond with violence against those they disagree with should be applauded.

Like the drunk calling the bride a fat slag at her wedding? Its accepted wisdom you dont do that

Its still a balance some of what you say is legitimate and some of it is just abuse.

on the going up to people and abusing them and calling the bride fat analogy , it does not really work.

People always say this its because they dont really want to defend the right to free speech nor think it unrealistic to expect violence if you say this so they say its different.
Either you support free speech and the right to do this or , like me, you agree with , to some degree, censorship. Pick a side but you cannot have it both ways.
Sometimes offensive stuff is a noble point made in the pursuit of free speech and sometimes its just a drunken nobhead being offensive

CH is often the later IMHO

the cartoonists were not walking up to muslims in the street or mosque saying “look at this what I drew.

If i take a picture and the publish it in a small circulation magazine with the headline fat slag bride is it then her fault if she chooses to read it?
Odd to blame the person who reads it rather than person who publishes it
I dont think it would carry much weight as a legal defence

IMHO publishing it is worse than doing it privately as clearly you mean for many to see it and not just a few.

Charlie Ebdo being sold in Paris today, pretty sure the cartoon on the front page is as per the link. I don’t see how any of us who don’t really understand French culture and the language can say we are capable of judging the cartoons with any integrity.

@gonzy the family where close to their dream in terms of being just a few miles from Greece. One great tragedy is the family where safe in Turkey and their aunt in Canada sent the money to pay the smugglers after Canada rejected their asylum appeal sponsored by year aunt (I believe as Syrian Kurds are not on the UN’s list of “approved refugees”)

The magazine is fiercely anti religion and very left wing. There was a comment above about France and Christianity, France is absolutely secular in terms of government and administration and has Europe’s largest Muslim population. It prides itself on pushing the boundaries and on causing offence. I would wager the magazine’s stance is very pro refugee.

being just a few miles from Greece

his body washed up on the beach in Bodrum Turkey, the Greek mainland is nearly 500km away…hardly a few miles is it?

I don’t see how any of us who don’t really understand French culture and the language can say we are capable of judging the cartoons with any integrity.

The magazine is fiercely anti religion and very left wing. There was a comment above about France and Christianity, France is absolutely secular in terms of government and administration and has Europe’s largest Muslim population. It prides itself on pushing the boundaries and on causing offence. I would wager the magazine’s stance is very pro refugee.

@jambalaya i totally understand where you;re coming from with this and agree that those who dont understand the culture wont fully understand the message portrayed…but given the recent events surrounding CH, they now have a larger audience and there will be people who will see the cartoons and not understand them and will be offended. then it only takes one nutcase or a group of them to take matters into their own hands.
if as a result one of the cartoonists is assaulted in the street then they have only themselves to blame for it. in a more extreme case we could see a repeat of last time…if this was to happen i’m not going to stand there and say they deserved it…no-one deserves to die (apart for ISIS and their ilk)
any act of violence in response should be rightly condemned but whatever the response is CH have to accept responsibility that what they published may cause offence and the backlash could be a repeat of last time.
if you look at the initial visual impact of the 2 cartoons..the first one uses Aylan’s body…whatever the message is, to use his image for satirical purposes is in very poor taste and show IMO arrogance, insensitivity and a lack of respect for that boy and his family.
the second shows Jesus walking on water and again the drowned body of a child (possibly a depiction of Aylan) and the captions translate as Christians walk on water and muslim kids sink…to anyone who doesnt understand the culture will see this as offensive.
if they are left wing and pro-refugee this isnt the way they should have demonstrated it.

Hang on, you’re saying that if you draw a cartoon and somebody misunderstands it and then assaults you it’s your fault?

I have a lot of sympathy for your reaction and think the cartoon is in appalling taste but you are wrong.

Pendantic point: they were headed for Lesbos – a few miles from the Turkish coast.

Hang on, you’re saying that if you draw a cartoon and somebody misunderstands it and then assaults you it’s your fault?

if you’ve done it before and that was the response and then you do it again and get a similar response then you should have known better than to do it again. therefore you would have to take responsibility for your own actions and the consequences they bring…i’m not saying that the response may be the right one or justifiable in any way

When the Satanic Verses (another dreadful piece of work) was published, a couple of imams left Scandinavia and spent months and months going round the Muslim world trying to stir up anger and outrage. Eventually their efforts led to a good bit of book burning (often by illiterate people) and a few murders and for internal political reasons, a fatwa was declared by Iran. We need to be measured in our response to people being ‘offended’ etc, there is always a hidden agenda.

Personally I’m offended by people who demand that women should be covered or even shaved head-to-toe when women in this country fought for the right to be free to wear ‘rational dress’ (on bicycles, incidentally) in the 1890s. However I don’t go round killing them and claiming that they’re to blame for my violence.

Edited: not an appropriate example.

The world’s just not that simple Gonzy and you know it.

JY producing or displaying an image of the Phophet is forbidden in Saudi, as is having a picture of a bottle of booze. I’ve been travelling to Saudi for 30 years and Western newspapers are censored, each and every copy and that’s fine as its their law. That’s the point here. These things are not illegal in France or the UK so the magazine is perfectly entitled to do so if it wishes. The fact that you or I may not do such a thing is irrelevant, it’s perfectly legal not least as blasphemy laws where abolished years ago. We live in a society which has made an explicit decision to allow such things. This extends to same sex relationships and even marriage which is regarded as abhorrent in most Muslim countries as cause for a violent response. I’m quite clear that if you wish to live in the UK or France you accept the laws of the country, one issue with Islam is that the Koran says the opposite, that it’s law overrides that of the country. The Old Testament by the way explicitly states Christains (and Jews) should abide by the laws of the host country. The Austrians actually passed an explicit law around this which impacts only Muslims.

Gonzy there is no reason for these cartoons to incite an aggressive response, if they do its not because of the cartoon but IMO as the reader has a predetermined desire for a violent response. The divisions and violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims is often put down to Shia producing images which Sunni regard as unacceptable, to the extent Sunnis are prepared to murder Shia by suicide bombing markets and mosques. We have secular bloggers being hacked to death in Bangladesh even though what they are posting is entirely legal there even under the laws of.a Muslim country Like it or not UK and European law allows images to be made and displayed of the Phrophet and this cartoon is supportive of the refugees in any case. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees are seeking to live in Europe a region which allows images of the Prophet so I would imagine they are doing so on the basis they accept the laws and customs of those societies.

gonzy They are taking a risk for sure, but it is a risk we need people to take. People need to speak out and challenge this stuff. Society benefits and you should be supporting their right to do this, even if, once you’ve actually understood their point, you disagree with them.

They are taking a risk for sure, but it is a risk we need people to take. People need to speak out and challenge this stuff. Society benefits and you should be supporting their right to do this, even if, once you’ve actually understood their point, you disagree with them.

Yeah, what we really need is for people to be gratuitously offensive unfunny dicks. That’s the way to a better society.

gratuitously offensive unfunny dicks

That charge could be laid against anything. You recommending yourself as the arbiter of good taste?

Nope, and I’m not suggesting banning Charlie Hebdo. I don’t however think they should be held up as some kind of noble bastion of liberty.

That’s the point, they are not a noble bastion of liberty. Liberty and democracy can be very messy, that’s not to say you shouldn’t defend them.