General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharlie Hebdo Is Heroic and Racist
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/charlie_hebdo_the_french_satirical_magazine_is_heroic_it_is_also_racist.htmlAt a memorial in New York Citys Union Square, a Charlie Hebdo cover that reads Love is stronger than hate.
The editors and cartoonists murdered in yesterdays attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo are now martyrs for the cause of free speech. Threatened with death for publishing drawings of the prophet Mohammed meant to mock Islamic radicals, they refused to censor themselves, and so were gunned down. They died bravely for an ideal we all treasure.
But their work featuring Mohammed could be sophomoric and racist. Not all of it; a cover image of the prophet about to be beheaded by a witless ISIS thug was trenchant commentary on how little Islamic radicalism has to do with the religion itself. But often, the cartoonists simply rendered Islams founder as a hook-nosed wretch straight out of Edward Saids nightmares, seemingly for no purpose beyond antagonizing Muslims who, rightly or wrongly, believe that depicting Mohammed at all is blasphemous.
This, in a country where Muslims are a poor and harassed minority, maligned by a growing nationalist movement that has used liberal values like secularism and free speech to cloak garden-variety xenophobia. France is the place, remember, where the concept of free expression has failed to stop politicians from banning headscarves and burqas. Charlie Hebdo may claim to be a satirical, equal-opportunity offender. But theres good reason critics have compared it to a white power mag. As Jacob Canfield wrote in an eloquent post at the Hooded Utilitarian, White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire.
So Charlie Hebdos work was both courageous and often vile. We should be able to keep both of these realities in our minds at once, but it seems like we cant.
randome
(34,845 posts)Is Seth McFarlane 'courageous'?
The writers at Charlie Hebdo are stupid and sophomoric. And they did not deserve to die.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Denzil_DC
(7,250 posts)and numerous death threats could probably be classed as courageous.
But I agree with the point quoted in the OP: White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire.
Michael James Cobb
(5 posts)Unlike most politicians, journalists, lawyers and other members of our ruling classes, this fearless magazine dared to mock Islam in the way the Left routinely mocks Christianity. Unlike much of our ruling class, it refused to sell out our freedom to speak.
Its greatest sin to the Islamists was to republish the infamous cartoons of Denmarks Jyllands-Posten which mocked Mohammed, and then to publish even more of its own, including one showing the Muslim prophet naked.
Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/are-we-really-all-charlie-no-no-and-shamefully-no/story-fni0ffxg-1227180871950?nk=5ebd99ed00a5ad333213b9582b297e7d
Real easy to stand up and be counted when it's safe.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)That looks like a pathetic attempt to further demonize the actual Left from what used to BE the Left, before the Third Way sank its fangs into it.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)Je suis Charlie!!!
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)So is drawing the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram as welfare mothers screaming for their checks.
Charlie Hebdo did both, and there are a lot if other examples.
Michael James Cobb
(5 posts)Freedom of speech is not negotiable.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)they have the right to ignore it, write a letter to the editor, or organize a protest. They don't have the right to firebomb an office or shoot up the place. The minute they resort to those tactics to shut up the cartoonists, they lose all legitimacy, and nothing they feel or say matters in the least.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)Do you have the links or sources?
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ddd3904e07d024cc09ecc4d76145f73d?convert_to_webp=true
Which depicts pregnant girls saying "Touchez pas a nos allocs!", which translates to something like "Don't touch our (welfare) allocations!"
http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-context-of-Charlie-Hebdos-cartoon-depicting-Boko-Haram-sex-slaves-as-welfare-queens
Coventina
(27,159 posts)are pointing fingers at racist attitudes.
In the minds of right-wingers, the kidnapped girls are "welfare queens" because as slaves they don't have to take responsibility for their position or their offspring. It's the sick conflation of poverty, gender, and class discrimination that Charlie is poking fun at.
With the Marie Le Pen monkey parody, it is again turning the tables of their racist ideology against them. Made clear by using the National Front's symbol right beside the figure.
I think it's pretty obvious (if you look at the cultural context of these images, which the French would) that these images are decrying racism and bigotry.
JE SUIS CHARLIE!!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)and people who yell racism don't "get it" like many thought Stephen Colbert was an actual conservative. I personally haven't read any Charlie so i can't pick a side yet. Others say that depiction of Charlie is a crock of shit. This discussion where leftists take either side like here on DU is going on everywhere. I am facebook "friends" with Doug Henwood of the Nation and there is a huge thread on his page about this, people taking either side, YES charlie is racist or NO charlie isn't.. i find it interesting.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)they used cultural references we don't understand when they drew their cartoons.
Satire without context of the culture means we are certainly wrong in our interpretation.
Assuming your interpretation is correct only makes you an ugly American.
brush
(53,815 posts)They, imo, are disgusting and racist as it gets.
How the hell do you depict 12 and 14-year-olds as butt ugly, welfare queens and it not enter your mind that it might be offensive to black people, then say "oh, it's satire"? Perhaps some editing was in order before printing that cover. I'm not saying anyone should have been shot over it though.
A good rule of thumb before declaring that cartoon not racist, think about the reaction that would get if printed here in this country where blacks have a history of protesting racist crap.
FYI, France has a huge racial problem itself, which of course they deny those that are not white are shunted out to the distance suburbs with little opportunity or avenue to improve their lot and it's been going on for generations.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)notion that "welfare queens" even exist!
Charlie was pointing out that people heartless enough to think that the very poor should have their benefits cut (because the poor have it soooo easy) would project those same judgmental, ugly attitudes onto the young rape victims depicted.
brush
(53,815 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 04:26 PM - Edit history (5)
That cover is very reminiscent of hateful, racist black memorabilia produced in this country in the past. Here are a couple of links for you to look at:
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=racist+black+memorabilia+photos&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
http://abhmuseum.org/2012/05/hateful-things-an-exhibit-from-the-jim-crow-museum-of-racist-memorabilia/
Scroll down on the first one for disgusting images like the ones on that cover.
I suggest in the future that you might want to consult a black person before you pronounce something as not racist towards blacks.
And FYI, on the progressive satellite radio "Charlie Hebdo" is depicted as being akin to Fox News in Paris as it targets and ridicules the downtrodden (people of color African immigrants, Muslim immigrants, Jews, etc.). Satire usually works when it "punches up", not down as "Charlie Hebdo" does.
They still didn't deserve to be attacked like they were though.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)The point of the cartoon was STILL to lampoon those who see the world that way - in a bigoted fashion that would think of rape victims as "entitled."
And, no, Charlie Hebdo is left-wing and anti-racist.
Which progressive satellite radio person is saying it's Paris' Fox News?
(Sorry it takes me so long to reply, I'm very busy with work and have very little DU time).
brush
(53,815 posts)of not just blacks but Muslims and others just as well without the negativity which is why many are taking a second look at their agenda. They have to know the impact of those images, and that they have the power to negate their alleged progressive message. Those are not stupid people running that magazine, they have to know that.
I listen to Thom Hartman, Micheangelo Senorele [sic], and Marc Thompson and they've all had on guests and discussed with them "Charlie Hebdo" as seeming to 'punch down" instead of up with their satire, kind of the powerful ridiculing the powerless.
And again, of course they shouldn't be attacked because of it.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)The classic example being Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in which he seemingly quite seriously advocates butchering children for their meat.
But, to call Charlie Hebdo racist is like calling Swift a cannibal. It just simply isn't true.
brush
(53,815 posts)I can't agree.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)The caption there was conflating two then-current news stories. It was a timely pun that is only racist if one is cherry picking things to be offended at, out of context.
The covers of Charlie both the week before AND the week after were shots at Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigrant movement in France.
Charlie Hebdo has a long, proud tradition of being pro-immigrant, far-left extremists (more to the left of many DUers). Most of the "racist" allegations are coming from foreigners taking it out of context or seeking to blame the victims.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Great find.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And regarding the Boko Haram cartoon:
Charlie Hebdo covers often combined two unrelated stories to make a satirical point. In the context of the magazine's leftist politics, this seems to be about spoofing not Nigerian trafficking victims, but French welfare critics, who have argued that France should cut welfare programs to prevent immigrant women from exploiting them. The cover, in this view, seems to say, "Hey, welfare critics, you're so heartless that you probably think that even Nigerian sexual slavery victims are money-grubbing 'welfare queens.'"
http://www.vox.com/cards/charlie-hebdo-attack/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-covers
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)So does depicting black women and girls as fecund welfare moochers.
That's not exactly breaking news.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And has been for decades.
I am sure she appreciates that you were offended on her behalf.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Conventina did a good job explaining them in their proper context.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They're judging the cartoons from their own perspective, not the French perspective. I've explained a couple on other threads but nobody appears to want to change their minds about them.
Its also demonstrating a disappointing lack of knowledge about global affairs...
I keep trying to break through the DU truism (that's now grown calcified) that the cartoons are racist but its a minority position. And I'm not on here enough to change anything.
Alas.
But props to you for trying!
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Pissing in the wind, probably.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6072598
brush
(53,815 posts)with blacks, Roma, Muslims and others ghettoized in outer, outer suburbs with very little opportunity to improve their lives, so these negative images are more about the powerful punching down at the powerless.
And I know all about the French arguing that everyone in France is French and that there is no racism, but that's just not the reality that generation after generation of non-whites have found.
Lack of opportunity in education and employment and integration into society is glaring so the pretense that if you've not "French" you don't get it should probably read, if you're not "French" French you don't get it.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)that they were equal opportunity offenders is a lie. They fired a reporter over what they deemed to be anti-semitism.
Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html
Sad that some nut attacked them but I cannot get myself to sympathize with people who purposely offend minority or even any group for that matter just because they can. I will not march in their support and I am definitely no Charlie.
Michael James Cobb
(5 posts)I sympathize with people who were murdered for their words. Hurt feelings come in a distant second. The point is that something will be deeply offensive to someone and we cannot afford to worry about feelings. Look at where it has gotten to in the US with nonsense about "micro-aggression" and so on.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)This case is different, the journalists involved knew they were being offensive and in fact wanted to offend people. Maybe they want to desensitize the population so they have thicker skin. I dunno why they did what they did but to me it seems like they were being offensive solely because they can.
You know, it would be one thing if it was govt agencies or the courts coming after them. That would actually get me to care a little but seeing as it the 3 a**holes coming after them, I just can't be bothered to care. I also ask myself if I would be saying "I am Charlie" if their target had been poor, pregnant women suffering from cancer or even if it was something just personally offensive to me as them making fun of my mum and the answer is no. If your life revolves around being offensive and being a dick to people not like you then please don't expect me to sympathize with you when the offended party comes around to hurt you.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)do it intentionally, constantly and so regularly that such hate speech seems to be a central aspect of Christianity and Islam. Both faiths seem to revolve around contempt for others, gay people, maybe Jews for some Christians African Americans....it's all very offensive. Denigrating.
Perhaps religious folks should ponder the outcomes of their offensive behavior toward others?
And I wonder how you explain away the victims who were not involve in the magazine? Can't be bother to care about them either?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)pass for insulting and denigrating those who do not pass their acid test? It seems to be very one sided. They can be offensive, but others can only dare offend them at their peril.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)was homophobic which is also a shitty lie, as they were champions of equality, anti racists, and critics of both homophobes and racists. They stood with my people against shitty, bigoted, ignorant religious idiots, and I thank them for it. Those who slander them with lies and seek to limit the rights of artists to speak out while they protect the rights of bigoted clergy to spew venomous hate against anyone they wish to attack can go fuck themselves.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)is being bigoted. I am sure many here who are howling about the bigoted cartoonists are fucking POPE apologists!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)"courageous and often vile" - I'll go along with that.
brooklynite
(94,679 posts)Islam is a world-encompassing religion of Arabs, Africans, central and south Asians and even some caucasians.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)lineage to North Africa.
Others have questioned the supposed relationship between Islamophobia and racism. Jocelyne Cesari writes that "academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term and questioning how it differs from other terms such as racism, anti-Islamism, anti-Muslimness, and anti-Semitism." Erdenir finds that "there is no consensus on the scope and content of the term and its relationship with concepts such as racism ... and Shryock, reviewing the use of the term across national boundaries, comes to the same conclusion. On occasion race does come into play. Diane Frost defines Islamophobia as anti-Muslim feeling and violence based on race and/or religion. Islamophobia may also target people who have Muslim names, or have a look that is associated with Muslims. According to Alan Johnson, Islamophobia sometimes can be nothing more than xenophobia or racism "wrapped in religious terms."
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) defines Islamophobia as the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them (ECRI 2006). Whether it takes the shape of daily forms of racism and discrimination or more violent forms, Islamophobia is a violation of human rights and a threat to social cohesion". It has also been defined as "fear of Muslims and Islam; rejection of the Muslim religion; or a form of differentialist racism" (Helbling 2011).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Racism
Just as anti-Semitism is now considered a form of racism (despite Judaism's multi-racial demographics), so too Islamophobia is increasingly conceived of as a form of racism, semantic sophistry notwithstanding.
uppityperson
(115,678 posts)"We should be able to keep both of these realities in our minds at once, but it seems like we cant."
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Can't, or don't want to, as the case may be.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 11, 2015, 05:11 PM - Edit history (2)
Which among other things enshrines "Laicité" meaning that, because of the bloody wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants during their history, the Republic created after the 1789 French Revolution codified into the government the principle of "Laicité". Citizens may practice whatever religion they choose, but obvious displays of religious appearance are blocked from the public sphere - meaning if you work in the government, you can't show obvious signs of your religious affiliation while at work.
So a public schoolteacher cannot wear a cross or a star of David while exercising her duties, and a schoolchild profiting from her free public education cannot wear a Muslim head scarf WHILE AT SCHOOL.
The Burka is illegal because, in France, women MUST SHOW their faces, because of the principal of "Egalité". There is no equality in a society where some female citizens must cover their faces and bodies due to Sharia law, based on the belief that women are such provocative creatures, they must be hidden from view.
The burka therefore cannot be allowed anywhere, if the society is to function according to the Republic. The French Burka law was challenged in the EU courts and was held up. In France and in the EU, the right of the society to function in accord with its principals outweighs the individual's right to do whatever the hell they want. Unlike in the USA.
France isn't an American colony, and they don't need to follow American ideals about how the world should work. France doesn't need to follow Sharia Law, or allow Muslim women to wear Burkas. This is neither "rascist" nor "harassment". The French are a FREE people who have the right to preserve their Republic. Much blood was spilled for them to earn it.
The ignorance shown by the author of this newspaper article just eats me up. I've had it with the "Poor French Muslims" angle I've been seeing everywhere in the USA press.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)For some, promoting secularism is somehow "racist".
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)(iirc, it's almost 90% of the French Muslim population) also embrace the laws against religious symbols and face covering because they see it as a bulwark against extremism as well.
France is not the US. They have a very different culture that has centuries of dark satire skewering the religious and power brokers, stemming from their revolution, and they also take public secularism extremely seriously.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Everything about France that the American press has been slagging since this tragedy occurred has very clear historical reasons for being so.
However American "journalists" go about throwing around the "racism" meme and the "harassment of the poor French Muslims" meme without bothering to try and figure out why a sovereign foreign country, only about 1,500 years older than the USA, has a different idea about how to do things.
840high
(17,196 posts)Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Understanding their commentary in context has proven this over and over again. It's distressing to see people ignorant of how the French view Charlie Hebdo bending over to defend the violent acts of Al-Qaeda.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Arabs come in all colors of the rainbow (just look at the three dead murderers, for example)--they're united by language and culture (but not religion, necessarily--though many are Muslims, many are also Christians and other faiths).
That said, the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are designed to be offensive. Not just a little offensive--a LOT offensive.
That is what they're going for--they're not drawn up to be cute, they want to push buttons. They do it rather artfully, too, they slice right to the heart of an issue.
Now, the usual caveats: Does that make it "OK" for the response to the cartoons to be violent? Of course not. If the response is violent, is saying "That's not a surprise" somehow "victim blaming?" No, that's not accurate either--there are people out there, and we've seen them in action down the years, who do respond violently to situations like these. Pretending that those who prefer slaughter to a strongly worded letter are somehow going to rein it in because that's the decent thing to do isn't going to happen in the real world--the only way to stop that kind of thing is with policing--INTRUSIVE policing, which people have a problem with, for other reasons.
You can trot out the usual garbled versions of the liberty and security/Ben Franklin quotes, but I imagine the families of those dead cartoonists would have preferred a bit more security, at least when it came to protecting their loved ones.
And that's a debate for another day...
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)I'm reminded of this exchange which took place on last Thursday's Democracy Now, between Art Spiegelman and Tariq Ramadan:
TARIQ RAMADAN: We are talking here about a policy that was said by Charlie Hebdo over the last years that is mainly targeting the Muslims. My point here is, once again, Im not
ART SPIEGELMAN: But why?
TARIQ RAMADAN: Im not
ART SPIEGELMAN: Why were they targeting Muslims? Do you think its
TARIQ RAMADAN: Im notyou know why? You know what? You know why? Its mainly a question of money. They went bankrupt, and you know this. They went bankrupt over the last two years. And what they did with this controversy is that Islam today and to target Muslims is making money. It has nothing to do with courage. It has to do with making money and targeting the marginalized people in the society.
The point for me now is just to come with you, as somebody who is involved in this, and to come with the principles that you are making now, and to come and to say, look, now, in the United States of America as well as in the West, everywhere, we should be able to target the people the same way and then to find a way to talk to one another in a responsible way, not by throwing on each other our rights, but coming together with our duties, our responsibilities to live together.
I think that what you are saying now could be dangerous if you are not coming to the facts, but just with the impression that their past is similar to the present. Charlie Hebdo is not the satirical magazine of the past. It is now ideologically oriented. And Philippe Val, who was a leftist in the past, now is supporting all the theses of the far-right party, very close to the Front National. So, dont come with something which is politically completely not accurate.
The leaps and contortions taking place in this thread in a effort to put a good face on what Charlie Hebdo was doing is making me nauseous. The idea that because of their horrific mass murder we must now pretend Charlie Hebdo was doing something noble and heroic is ABSURD.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)so he doesn't understand the context either.
The rush to pretend Charlie Hebdo was doing something monstrous is a problem Imho when someone who isn't French tries to process these images without context.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)He's a highly respected scholar. He's on the faculty at Oxford.
You are perfectly demonstrating the contortions I was talking about.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)the naked Muhammed pic with his dick hanging dripping? That's parodying a popular French film. Same thing with the one where he's asking if the film director likes his ass - a parody of a French film.
Have you seen these films?
I haven't.
You're perfectly demonstrating the ugly American who doesn't try to understand that different cultures are different than the U.S. And that's a GOOD thing.
Not everything revolves around us and our way of seeing things.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)There is so much wrong with your logic, I would be careful about other people "ugly Americans".
What if the KKK put out racist cartoons and said "you Northerners just don't understand our culture down here"? Does that magically make them not racist?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I made a point to try to discover the provenance of the cartoons. Why they drew them and what the global influences were at the time of their publication. Have you? Or have you simply jumped on the DU bandwagon that's screeching about their heinousness without any context?
The KKK headquarters are in Indiana fyi. So yeah. It's way too simplistic to say they're "southern". And yes, they are racist unlike Charlie Hebdo.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)Then by your own skewed logic, we should not listen to you. Remember, you said Tariq Ramadan, being Swiss and of Egyptian ancestry, was not qualified to weigh in.
DU bandwagon my ass. If there's a DU bandwagon at all, I'd say it's more of a selective outrage party than anything else.
And your nitpicking quibble about the location of KKK headquarters is ridiculous.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)because I experience it daily.
So I make the supposition that you don't understand context. Because of my experience.
And fine. So it's a selective outrage party. I'm okay with that.
As for the KKK, I don't claim to believe that racism only exists in the south. I know it's everywhere. My point was simply to demonstrate its origins in counterpoint to you post.
Not racist.
What bullshit.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Melissa Perry-Harris quoted someone (if you saw it, please help) who said something like (paraphrasing):
Blasphemous satire comes from inside an institution and is intended to shake up the institution. Bigoted satire comes from outsiders deriding the institution.
That was the gist of it, anyway.
Nope, doesn't justify murder.
Nope, shouldn't use bigotry to drive profits.
AllenVanAllen
(3,134 posts)"Blasphemy is the practice of questioning a tradition from within. In contrast, bigotry is an assault on hat tradition from the outside. If blasphemy is an attempt to speak truth to power, bigotry is the reverse: an attempt by power to instrumentalize truth. A defining feature of the cartoon debate is that bigotry is being mistaken for blasphemy" ~ Dr.Mahmood Mamdani
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)AllenVanAllen
(3,134 posts)it wasn't to hard to track down.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)from outside sources. That's not bigotry
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What if my someone's tradition says that you can't speak ill of Republicans? How would that go over here?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Since we are attacking the Republican philosophy from the outside.
Or do religious ideologies have special rules different from other ideologies?
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Otherwise you're engaging in bigotry. How nice and neat for Dr. Mahmood Mamdani. What defines a 'tradition'? Does anyone else see the intellectual problem, here? Freedom of expression can only exist within one's own tradition? So French Muslims are off the table to French atheists. I don't agree. What an absolute crock of shit.
Both parties were French citizens - both the Islamic terrorists and the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo - and thus hold a common tradition of mutual citizenship in a Western democracy with its rights and responsibilities. Both parties share a cultural 'tradition' of free expression guaranteed by their government the French Republic.
Let's remember that Muslim organizations had already sued the magazine in the French courts and LOST. Catholic organizations had also taken the magazine to court and LOST. Any French Muslim is free to sue any organization, such as a magazine, in the French court for bigotry. The French courts found no bigotry in this case.
In the cartoon debate now linked to a brutal terrorist attack, there has been a neat exchange of ideas between citizens of a free society. The cartoonists expressed their ideas artistically. The terrorists expressed their ideas using murderous violence and mayhem.
I conclude by saying "WTF???!!!"
Professor Pooka Fey
Coventina
(27,159 posts)My critique of the Catholic Church for its misogyny is not "bigoted."
Calling a wrong "wrong" is not bigotry.
That's just crazy talk.
Coventina
(27,159 posts)I'll deride the Catholic church all I want for being misogynistic, authoritarian, and hypocritical.
I'm not Catholic, so I'm a BIGOT?!?!?
Screw that!!
Evil is evil, wrong is wrong.
Not pointing it out wrong. One doesn't need the "permission" of membership to say something is wrong.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)pokerfan
(27,677 posts)PERIOD. No ifs, ands or buts required.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Voltaire
Guns do not dispense free speech.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm going to ignore the people claiming that Islamophobia isn't racist. Islamophobia is frequently racist because when people picture a Muslim, they are almost always picturing a particular ethnicity. Moving on...
People (and publications) are rarely entirely black or white. Jimmy Carter is someone I like and admire. He's also flat wrong on same-sex marriage. Bill Clinton is someone I generally like. He signed into law a bill that disgracefully gutted welfare. Some DUers are ignorant or Islamophobic or militant anti-theists. Hell, the ultimate example: Adolf Hitler ordered the deaths of eleven million or so people, including half-a-million of my kinfolk. He was also an animal lover and, according to his WWI superiors, personally courageous. Life isn't tidy, almost no-one is entirely bad or good.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)There is hardly a race, religion, creed, nationality, or political persuasion that they have not skewered.
Their stated mission is to provoke, put down, and push the envelope--which they have done with relish and abandon. "Blasphemy" is their middle name.
I live in France and can honestly say that I've never appreciated their brand of "humour". But, their existence in a pluralistic, multi-cultural republic is essential and must never be infringed.
As so many headlines are proclaiming, "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T READ IT!"