ADK Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 Looking through a few Charlie Hebdo editions on the net, the irony is, I really don't think it would be well looked upon if it were published here. We are a nation full of groups that think they have a right not to be offended. Gays Blacks Feminists Jews Muslims People on Benefits etc.
leicsmac Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 Looking through a few Charlie Hebdo editions on the net, the irony is, I really don't think it would be well looked upon if it were published here. We are a nation full of groups that think they have a right not to be offended. Gays Blacks Feminists Jews Muslims People on Benefits White guys who think they're being marginalised etc. FYP. Back to the original point, I'm not sure about that. Given we practically gave the world satire and that Charlie Hebdo runs on it I think most would be welcoming and take it in the spirit of how it's intended. But of course you would get some across all demographics who would take it personally.
Simi Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 Can't quite believe one of Cameron's quotes off the back of all this. "In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?” Any excuse ay Dave...
Dr The Singh Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 Looking through a few Charlie Hebdo editions on the net, the irony is, I really don't think it would be well looked upon if it were published here. We are a nation full of groups that think they have a right not to be offended. Gays Blacks Feminists Jews Muslims People on Benefits etc. Maybe you should go to India http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-30791795
Guest MattP Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 Here's the actual cover "All is forgiven" New editor has probably signed his own death warrant but fair play to him. Hope other publications help him out and underline his bravery now by printing it themselves across Europe. Presuming Sky and the BBC have decided against it, both ran the story but didn't show the cover on screen.
z-layrex Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 New editor has probably signed his own death warrant but fair play to him. Hope other publications help him out and underline his bravery now by printing it themselves across Europe. Presuming Sky and the BBC have decided against it, both ran the story but didn't show the cover on screen. Spineless as ever.
Buce Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 New editor has probably signed his own death warrant but fair play to him. Hope other publications help him out and underline his bravery now by printing it themselves across Europe. Presuming Sky and the BBC have decided against it, both ran the story but didn't show the cover on screen. It has been shown, but it was preceded by a warning that they were going to do so, presumably so anybody who was likely to be offended can look away. The grauniad website has taken the same approach.
Guest MattP Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 It has been shown, but it was preceded by a warning that they were going to do so, presumably so anybody who was likely to be offended can look away. The grauniad website has taken the same approach. Didn't show it at all when I watched them this morning. Was an interesting article in the times on Saturday about 'Charb' the editor of Charlie Hebdo - the magazine is certainly not something to hold up as a bastion of free speech, they once had a petition trying to ban the Front National from French politics and society.
Buce Posted 13 January 2015 Posted 13 January 2015 Didn't show it at all when I watched them this morning. Was an interesting article in the times on Saturday about 'Charb' the editor of Charlie Hebdo - the magazine is certainly not something to hold up as a bastion of free speech, they once had a petition trying to ban the Front National from French politics and society. Yeah, I've just re-read the article: apparently the bbc showed it 'briefly' during a newspaper review on Newsnight. The guardian, as mentioned, has printed it (though on the grounds of it being 'newsworthy', it seems, not as a statement of solidarity), preceded by a warning.
Grewks Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 I thought Charlie Hebdo stood for democracy and free speech? So why...when given the perfect opportunity to create an image of solidarity and unification do they decide again the use a single religion as the basis for their front cover. I mean, all week people have been constantly trying to get the message across that this will not weaken the multi-cultural state of France but in fact unify it, then Charlie Hebdo again decides to single out the Prophet mohammed and target Islamic culture again. All week Muslims have been trying to get the message across that what these people did, has no relation to the islamic religion whatsoever....and then they go and put the prophet Mohammed on the front again, which will only alienate islam further. Charlie Hebdo should have been preaching a message of togetherness, like the people of France did during their march with many world leaders coming together, some whom are even fighting wars against each other this very minute. An image of all the different world cultures representd by iconic figures (such as the pope, propher mohammed, god etc) standing in unison with interlinking arms just like the world leaders would have been, would in my opinion have been a far better iconic image, which would have included and not alienated the islamic people. I'm not trying to say that Charlie Hebdo should now refrain from their satarical views on islam, as they target all religions. But they have betrayed their fellow dead colleagues in my opinion. They wasted an opportunity to unify, and have instead, alienated.
Guest MattP Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 I thought Charlie Hebdo stood for democracy and free speech? So why...when given the perfect opportunity to create an image of solidarity and unification do they decide again the use a single religion as the basis for their front cover. I mean, all week people have been constantly trying to get the message across that this will not weaken the multi-cultural state of France but in fact unify it, then Charlie Hebdo again decides to single out the Prophet mohammed and target Islamic culture again. All week Muslims have been trying to get the message across that what these people did, has no relation to the islamic religion whatsoever....and then they go and put the prophet Mohammed on the front again, which will only alienate islam further. Charlie Hebdo should have been preaching a message of togetherness, like the people of France did during their march with many world leaders coming together, some whom are even fighting wars against each other this very minute. An image of all the different world cultures representd by iconic figures (such as the pope, propher mohammed, god etc) standing in unison with interlinking arms just like the world leaders would have been, would in my opinion have been a far better iconic image, which would have included and not alienated the islamic people. I'm not trying to say that Charlie Hebdo should now refrain from their satarical views on islam, as they target all religions. But they have betrayed their fellow dead colleagues in my opinion. They wasted an opportunity to unify, and have instead, alienated. Has anyone ever really said Hebdo stands for free speech? As I said earlier they have in the past campaigned to get political groups they oppose banned. As for the bolded bits, you do realise that drawing the prophet Muhammed is actually the problem don't you? They'll be just as mad drawing him hugging the pope as they would sucking his cock.
Grewks Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Has anyone ever really said Hebdo stands for free speech? As I said earlier they have in the past campaigned to get political groups they oppose banned. As for the bolded bits, you do realise that drawing the prophet Muhammed is actually the problem don't you? They'll be just as mad drawing him hugging the pope as they would sucking his cock. I think you are missing the point..... By isolating the Prophet Muhammed by again using him on the front cover, Charlie Hebdo are alienating everyday ordinary non-extremist muslims. It is these everyday law obiding, other culture respecting muslims who will suffer as a result and will continue to further alienate themselves from other cultures as a result. The Jews fear for their own safety, the muslim community fear a backlash from idiots who fail to see that these extremists hold no traditional islamic values at all, whilst all other world cultures hold their breath and hope that these two rival groups do not results in civil war breaking out in europe. Charlie Hebdo had a responsibility to unify both groups who have become victims as a result of this, the jewish and islamic communities. They have only widened the gap with their image.
ozleicester Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Charlie Hebdo are not necessarily a group who should be respected for what they do, they have often been racist and offensive and i disagreed with them many times (from the little i understand or am told about). The cover and support for them in the past week is not about CH, it is about FREE SPEECH. In regards to those outlets that choose not to show the cover, it is an incredibly hard situation to be in... You as editor/manager have to decide, do my beliefs about free speech give me the right to put my staff at (very real) risk? Major media organisations have thousands of staff spread across the country and world and we cannot protect them, how will i stand before the grieving partner of a journalist that has been killed as a result of my beliefs. A VERY hard decision for all in the media. and rare credit to News Lmtd for... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/muslim-leaders-support-charlie-hebdos-right-to-offend/story-fnpdbcmu-1227183948638?nk=7154d6b0897666afbb5c46f29dcaa52d
Harry - LCFC Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Here's Davis showing the cover. He didn't look very confident doing it but he did do it and that's what matters. Well done, BBC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNcOEOXH9cU What a great response! At times being brash like that can be so much more effective than a carefully worded statement. Charlie Hebdo are not necessarily a group who should be respected for what they do, they have often been racist and offensive and i disagreed with them many times (from the little i understand or am told about). The cover and support for them in the past week is not about CH, it is about FREE SPEECH. I'm not sure they were. The accusations of Islamophobia are completely wrong IMO, Christianity was just as much a target for satire as Islam. There was no concerted campaign against Muslims. The Boko Haram cover is the one that gets used to accuse CH of racism but it's misunderstood. The point of it is to show the sex slaves in the eyes of the far right where every migrant is coming here to get welfare and nothing else. We hear similar jokes in spoken form in the UK. If you have time this article offers a good defence of the publication by analysing things in context rather than at face value. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lliana-bird/charlie-hebdo_b_6461030.html
Jon the Hat Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Here's Davis showing the cover. He didn't look very confident doing it but he did do it and that's what matters. Well done, BBC. What a great response! At times being brash like that can be so much more effective than a carefully worded statement. I'm not sure they were. The accusations of Islamophobia are completely wrong IMO, Christianity was just as much a target for satire as Islam. There was no concerted campaign against Muslims. The Boko Haram cover is the one that gets used to accuse CH of racism but it's misunderstood. The point of it is to show the sex slaves in the ideas of the far right where every migrant is coming here to get welfare and nothing else. We hear similar jokes in spoken form in the UK. If you have time this article offers a good defence of the publication by analysing things in context rather than at face value. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lliana-bird/charlie-hebdo_b_6461030.html Great article. You simply cannot look at these cartoons without the context and judge them as racist. They are the opposite! My favourtie quote in there too "you have the right to be offended, but you don't have the right NOT to be offended".
z-layrex Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Charlie Hebdo are not necessarily a group who should be respected for what they do, they have often been racist and offensive and i disagreed with them many times (from the little i understand or am told about). The cover and support for them in the past week is not about CH, it is about FREE SPEECH. In regards to those outlets that choose not to show the cover, it is an incredibly hard situation to be in... You as editor/manager have to decide, do my beliefs about free speech give me the right to put my staff at (very real) risk? Major media organisations have thousands of staff spread across the country and world and we cannot protect them, how will i stand before the grieving partner of a journalist that has been killed as a result of my beliefs. A VERY hard decision for all in the media. and rare credit to News Lmtd for... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/muslim-leaders-support-charlie-hebdos-right-to-offend/story-fnpdbcmu-1227183948638?nk=7154d6b0897666afbb5c46f29dcaa52d I'm so tired of giving a shit about people's feelings and whether they're offended or not by something I think or say. Organised religion offends me because it is detrimental to mankind, does anyone care? No.
Harry - LCFC Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 I'm so tired of giving a shit about people's feelings and whether they're offended or not by something I think or say. Organised religion offends me because it is detrimental to mankind, does anyone care? No. This is an important point that I think everyone knows but nobody seems to recognise. We, the secularists, have far more reason to be offended by the ideas put forward by religion than the religious have to be offended by us.
Jon the Hat Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 This is an important point that I think everyone knows but nobody seems to recognise. We, the secularists, have far more reason to be offended by the ideas put forward by religion than the religious have to be offended by us. I quite agree. I wouldn't waste your breath trying to argue the point though - you can't win an argument against someone who doesn't use reason. Faith trumps reason just like stupid trumps reason. They don't get it, or choose not to.
leicsmac Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 This is an important point that I think everyone knows but nobody seems to recognise. We, the secularists, have far more reason to be offended by the ideas put forward by religion than the religious have to be offended by us. I think it's best summed up like this: Militant Christians: shoot doctors, blow up clinics, beat up gays Militant Muslims: blow up scores of innocent people, shoot cartoonists Militant Atheists: write sarcasm and satire on the Internet. And for all their claims of discrimination, the organised religious lobby still has enormous power and influence over nearly all the nation states on the planet.
James. Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Militant atheists are generally fúcking insufferable (and largely hypocritical). Albeit less likely to blow you up.
Rincewind Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 The pen might be mightier than the sword but it can only take SOH away rather than a life.
leicsmac Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Militant atheists are generally fúcking insufferable (and largely hypocritical). Albeit less likely to blow you up. Exactly this. In pretty much all of history, behind every major piece of death and destruction by humans upon themselves there has been a god, or a man who thinks he is one, or both.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.