terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

No. Look at the satirical drawing they made of Michel Houellebecq, the author of a very controversial novel about France going Sharia, and look at the picture of him further down the page in the article. Does his real life nose strike you as particularly big?
You seem to be speaking from the kind of sensibility that might read a fist bump between the Obamas on the cover of the New Yorker as possibly some sort of secret subversive sign (I forget what the right-wing nuts thought it was already...).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11329625/Islamophobic-Michel-Houellebecq-book-featured-by-Charlie-Hebdo-published-today.html

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

I think it depends on how all other groups are depicted. If everyone is in caricature, then who cares? Are the actual people being depicted and caricatured? If so, making a big-eared person have really big ears seems like what cartoonists do, not offensive. Not sure noses should be any different.
However, if all non-Muslims are portrayed with "normal" features and only one/two groups have features emphasized, that's more troubling.
But, again, I think we risk conflating two questions: 1) Should the free speech rights of these artists be defended and the killings unequivocally condemned? (Right answer: yes.); 2) Is this art offensive? (I don't know the right answer to that one.)
I think that we shouldn't even be discussing Question 2 at this point. It's irrelevant. It's a question for another day, because it doesn't impact the answer to Question 1, which is what's at issue today.

The two questions you pose exactly outline the distinction I suggested. I agree and concur with your answers to both. I disagree that this is not the time discuss the second question. Ironically, saying that we shouldn't discuss that question because doing so is insensitive or whatever is exactly the same as saying the magazine shouldn't have published the cartoons because they would upset people. I agree with the expression, "I don't agree with what you are saying, but defend your right to say it." Based on what I know about Charlie Hedbo, I think stressing the potential for not agreeing with the publication is probably important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/yy9vg6P.jpg

This is the best post. Thank you!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Jeff, you don't know much about CH. they did plenty of cartoons on Jews, as well as on catholic priests, the pope and so on. I am too dumb to be able to post images, otherwise I will post a few samples, but you can find them by yourself. maybe because I am from Europe I have a different sensiblity on satirical cartoons, but I certainly don'd find CH racist.

You are right. I never even heard of the publication until today. Doing some Googling, I see they do treat Jews the same way. Does everyone feel comfortable defending this and similar images:



Perhaps a French-speaker can comment, but according to the page on which I found this picture, the cover is parodying the Holocaust.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

To this date, only a couple of people in DCUM have vehemently protested the posters, magazines, and websites of African Americans with unrealistic large lips, noses unusually wide, and other physical features along with ridiculous adornments to emphasize the cartoons. The President is the usual target but guaranteed there is not one AA who doesn't take offense. However, I hear or see no protests against those who find it amusing or in some cases a belief that this factually represents African Americans.

I consider you a fair moderator but I don't think I've ever heard your outrage over this depiction of African Americans. Apology in advance if I missed your indignation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Jeff, you don't know much about CH. they did plenty of cartoons on Jews, as well as on catholic priests, the pope and so on. I am too dumb to be able to post images, otherwise I will post a few samples, but you can find them by yourself. maybe because I am from Europe I have a different sensiblity on satirical cartoons, but I certainly don'd find CH racist.

You are right. I never even heard of the publication until today. Doing some Googling, I see they do treat Jews the same way. Does everyone feel comfortable defending this and similar images:



Perhaps a French-speaker can comment, but according to the page on which I found this picture, the cover is parodying the Holocaust.

I feel just as comfortable defending that as the Jewish attorney from the ACLU who defended Neo-Nazis in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).

Jeff I think you are missing the point here.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!

While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.

I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.

Muslima, while I mostly agreed with your posts so far, I strongly desagree with this. you seem to imply that the journalists should have somehow censored themselves, and did something wrong what they published what you defined before as "filth" (I strongly desagree with your judgemnt on CH's work also). but this is the heart of freedom of speech and of expression, which apparently is lost on some people. the coward murders of 12 people took place in France this morning because some terrorists decided to impose with violence they twisted values and points of view on others, not because the victims chose to write satirical cartoons and did not respect their murders sensibilities and beliefs. if we all want to live in a better world, we should most of all stop killing people because they say something we don't like.

Again, I did not say they published filth. If you read my following post, I indicated that that was from my friend. I'm responding from my phone and can't always use quotations appropriately but those were my friend'words as indicated in the paragraph. As for me personally, I think some of their cartoons were distasteful and I think they have a right to publish whatever they want , just like you and I do. What I mean by my judgment comment is, we live in a world full of hate already, what does it say about anyone to go to great lengths mocking people's beliefs, especially in the current state of wield affairs? ( not just Islam). Satire can exist without getting to that level. If I were to create a newspaper and call it Retard for the sake of satire and publish pictures of disabled kids, and make fun of their disabilities , what would that make me? Is this really the legacy we want? Now I will repeat it again, that doesn't justify their killings.

I agree with this " Now, I think there's a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow 'legitimate targets', and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication.  I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that - irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes - the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist." Full article here : http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/charlie-hebdo.html?m=1

Muslima, there is really a fundamental difference between us. I would not only express solidarity to a journalists, but also to a "racist publication" in an event like this. I also find these kinds of distinctions, hours after a massacre with the bodies still there, quite distasteful.

BTW, I strongly desagree that CH is a racist publication and that represent Islam in a racist way. CH is a satirical magazine that pokes fun at everything and everybody, including politicians in France of all types and colors, including religions. more than Islam, the cartoons I saw were poking fun at idiots like the ones who most likely are responsible for the attack, people who use Islam to justify their ideology of violence .

And that is okay, we can agree to disagree. I do not follow CH and only saw the few cartoons that are circulating right now and I find those distasteful. Just because it is satire, doesn't mean it isn't offensive!

[Anonymous]

Here are hideous caricatures from three major religions: http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/80/67/177230/63901176.jpg

Here's a fat pope, complete with double chins (the title says "The French are as stupid as the blacks"): http://www.une-autre-histoire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg

Here's France's unknown soldier being sodomized by some really ugly french military dude: http://www.le-livre.fr/photos/ROD/ROD0070635.jpg

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

I think it depends on how all other groups are depicted. If everyone is in caricature, then who cares? Are the actual people being depicted and caricatured? If so, making a big-eared person have really big ears seems like what cartoonists do, not offensive. Not sure noses should be any different.
However, if all non-Muslims are portrayed with "normal" features and only one/two groups have features emphasized, that's more troubling.
But, again, I think we risk conflating two questions: 1) Should the free speech rights of these artists be defended and the killings unequivocally condemned? (Right answer: yes.); 2) Is this art offensive? (I don't know the right answer to that one.)
I think that we shouldn't even be discussing Question 2 at this point. It's irrelevant. It's a question for another day, because it doesn't impact the answer to Question 1, which is what's at issue today.

The two questions you pose exactly outline the distinction I suggested. I agree and concur with your answers to both. I disagree that this is not the time discuss the second question. Ironically, saying that we shouldn't discuss that question because doing so is insensitive or whatever is exactly the same as saying the magazine shouldn't have published the cartoons because they would upset people. I agree with the expression, "I don't agree with what you are saying, but defend your right to say it." Based on what I know about Charlie Hedbo, I think stressing the potential for not agreeing with the publication is probably important.

PP you're responding to here: No, it's not the same as saying they shouldn't have published the cartoons. Again, the questions is "rights" versus "should". You and I agree that there's no question the killings are wrong and that the journalists don't deserve any punishment. And we probably agree on whether the cartoons were offensive (which is to say, we both have misgivings but aren't sure). We disagree as to whether the question of whether the cartoons are offensive is relevant right now. I think it isn't. That doesn't mean I don't think you have a free speech right to discuss it. But I also have a free speech right to say I think it's irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

25 years ago, there was an art exhibit called 'Piss Christ' which as Christ on a crucifix emerged in a cup of urine (hence the name). As a Christian, I found it deeply offensive but no way would I have sacrificed my free speech to have it shut down. I wanted the right to speak out against it. Nor was the artist executed in the name of Christ.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:Here are hideous caricatures from three major religions: http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/80/67/177230/63901176.jpg

Here's a fat pope, complete with double chins (the title says "The French are as stupid as the blacks"): http://www.une-autre-histoire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg

Here's France's unknown soldier being sodomized by some really ugly french military dude: http://www.le-livre.fr/photos/ROD/ROD0070635.jpg

Honestly, some of their cartoons are offensive. Satire can and is hurtful sometimes. I will say it again, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it! Should you get killed for it? No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are at war. Its not going away. Face it.

I agree. And at the end of the day, it is a war of ideas. Every Muslim in the world does not want to kill people. A minority of people who are disaffected and looking for someone to blame do. Instead of focusing on the utter and complete failure of their countries' governments to provide economic freedom and opportunity, they turn their anger outward on a scapegoat. It is impossible to fight this "war" with weapons - it has to be fought with steadfast principles, diplomacy, economic pressure, etc. This is a plague that will continue for generations to come while we chip away at this ideology year by year.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are hideous caricatures from three major religions: http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/80/67/177230/63901176.jpg

Here's a fat pope, complete with double chins (the title says "The French are as stupid as the blacks"): http://www.une-autre-histoire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg

Here's France's unknown soldier being sodomized by some really ugly french military dude: http://www.le-livre.fr/photos/ROD/ROD0070635.jpg

Honestly, some of their cartoons are offensive. Satire can and is hurtful sometimes. I will say it again, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it! Should you get killed for it? No

Of course I agree that just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it. But I'm wondering why you feel the need to say that on a day when those people were killed for saying the thing you find offensive. Maybe just because you have the right to say that doesn't mean you should say it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/yy9vg6P.jpg

This is the best post. Thank you!

And heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I feel just as comfortable defending that as the Jewish attorney from the ACLU who defended Neo-Nazis in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).

Jeff I think you are missing the point here.

Agree. This thread seems to be about reasons for the attack. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Going down the rabbit hole of asking "were the cartoons offensive?" implies there might be a legitimate discussion to be had about these stereotypes as possible reasons for the attack. IMO, there's not. I think we all agree that these particular caractures might be offensive. But, satire is by definition offensive, and at least CH offends everybody (I posted the three links to CH cartoons above). Also, whether we like it or not, satire often goes beyond somebody's political stance to the point of mocking W's big ears or Boehner's yellow skin. Finally, freedom of speech. So, if you want to have a discussion about whether satire should be limited to somebody's political or religious views, and cartoonists should leave out the size of the nose (Muslims or Jews) or ears (W), that seems like a very different discussion.