French left wing satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo attacked by extremists
January 7, 2015 7:26 AM Subscribe
The French left wing satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (currently blank, Wikipedia entry) was attacked by extremists this afternoon. At least 12 people were killed.
Among those killed are the cartoonists Wolinski, Cabu, Charb and Tignous.
Previously: the firebomb attack on Charlie Hebdo in 2011.
.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:29 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Navelgazer at 7:29 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:31 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by haiku warrior at 7:31 AM on January 7, 2015
Related: 'Islamophobic' Michel Houellebecq book featured by Charlie Hebdo published today
posted by chavenet at 7:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 7:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh no.
posted by jokeefe at 7:34 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jokeefe at 7:34 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
My condolences, Berend.
posted by jokeefe at 7:35 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by jokeefe at 7:35 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
.
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:35 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:35 AM on January 7, 2015
............
#jesuischarlie
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:36 AM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
#jesuischarlie
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:36 AM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
.
posted by tychotesla at 7:37 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by tychotesla at 7:37 AM on January 7, 2015
Be rend, I'm so sorry. This is such a tragedy.
posted by dejah420 at 7:38 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dejah420 at 7:38 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
This really hard to take in.
posted by Nevin at 7:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Nevin at 7:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Vile and horrifying.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 7:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 7:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
.
posted by triage_lazarus at 7:39 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by triage_lazarus at 7:39 AM on January 7, 2015
I saw the headline immediately after reading an article about growing anti-immigrant marches in Germany, so it was a poor start to the day. This is terrible news and for what little it is worth I hope they catch the perpetrators.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:41 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 7:41 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Salman Rushdie with the Twitter tag #JeSuisCharlie.
Of course, he very nearly was ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Of course, he very nearly was ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
This photo from Agence France-Press is hard to bear: the gentle faces of people whose only aim in life was to draw laughs. Meanwhile, those who only wanted to draw blood hid theirs.
posted by rory at 7:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by rory at 7:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [26 favorites]
Absolutely horrendous, both for the victims and the response this will likely provoke.
Be warned, the Guardian is currently headlining with a graphic (though slightly edited) video of a police officer being shot on the street. They cut away before the attackers walk up and shoot the man on camera, but he is pictured rolling on the ground after being shot in the initial volley.
posted by Happy Dave at 7:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Be warned, the Guardian is currently headlining with a graphic (though slightly edited) video of a police officer being shot on the street. They cut away before the attackers walk up and shoot the man on camera, but he is pictured rolling on the ground after being shot in the initial volley.
posted by Happy Dave at 7:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Happy Dave, MSNBC has been showing that video as well, right up until the moment where the terrorist pulls the trigger. Extremely irresponsible, IMHO.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:44 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:44 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
.
I fear that this will only stoke anti-immigrant sentiments. I just don't get this sort of action by extremists. Their religion is mocked as violent so to prove the falsity of that, they murder a bunch of cartoonists?
posted by freecellwizard at 7:45 AM on January 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
I fear that this will only stoke anti-immigrant sentiments. I just don't get this sort of action by extremists. Their religion is mocked as violent so to prove the falsity of that, they murder a bunch of cartoonists?
posted by freecellwizard at 7:45 AM on January 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
Thanks to the Guardian for blurring the video of the cop being killed on their site. No thanks to CNN for showing it, unedited, to my wife before she could look away and presumably rerunning it over and over again for months.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
So, so sickened by this. France has such a rich history of political cartooning going back to the revolution (and, of course, earlier still with a bit of digging). The idea that drawing funny pictures that mock people might be dangerous to your health needs to fuck right off back to the 18th century.
posted by the bricabrac man at 7:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [46 favorites]
posted by the bricabrac man at 7:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [46 favorites]
I think it does the victims a disservice to say that they only wanted to draw laughs. They were political satirists who were trying to make people think.
.
posted by ChuraChura at 7:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [82 favorites]
.
posted by ChuraChura at 7:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [82 favorites]
Happy Dave, I saw that video on CNN this morning before they edited it and I was absolutely appalled at the lack of empathy for that man and his family and loved ones, never mind the general viewing public.
It might be a lack of character on my part but watching (and hearing, which was actually the hardest part) a man suffer is not something I can carry with me in any semblance of a healthy way.
posted by lydhre at 7:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
It might be a lack of character on my part but watching (and hearing, which was actually the hardest part) a man suffer is not something I can carry with me in any semblance of a healthy way.
posted by lydhre at 7:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:47 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:47 AM on January 7, 2015
fear that this will only stoke anti-immigrant sentiments. I just don't get this sort of action by extremists.
Because they want more of that, because they want people to hate Muslims, because that furthers their goals.
The extremists on both sides are on collusion against the middle.
posted by Artw at 7:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [96 favorites]
Because they want more of that, because they want people to hate Muslims, because that furthers their goals.
The extremists on both sides are on collusion against the middle.
posted by Artw at 7:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [96 favorites]
.
This is horrific. What the hell is wrong with people?
posted by arcticseal at 7:48 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is horrific. What the hell is wrong with people?
posted by arcticseal at 7:48 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
> The idea that drawing funny pictures that mock people might be dangerous to your health needs to fuck right off back to the 18th century.
Extremists of most stripes seem to want to go further back than that.
.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Extremists of most stripes seem to want to go further back than that.
.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Very sorry for your loss Berend.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
............
posted by Going To Maine at 7:52 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by Going To Maine at 7:52 AM on January 7, 2015
I just don't get this sort of action by extremists.
Remember. The enemy of the extremist isn't the opposite extremist, it's the moderate. This sort of thing is done to provoke an extreme reaction to move the moderates to the extreme. These guys *actively want* war, but they're not going to get it with "Great Satan" talk. They are banking on an overreaction, which will drive more Islamic moderates towards the extremist position, and more French moderates to the "Islam is Evil Must Destroy" extreme.
When everybody's an extremist, then you can start really fighting.
The right answer is to handle this as a police matter. The wrong answer is to handle it as a military matter and create ISIS mark II.
posted by eriko at 7:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [203 favorites]
Remember. The enemy of the extremist isn't the opposite extremist, it's the moderate. This sort of thing is done to provoke an extreme reaction to move the moderates to the extreme. These guys *actively want* war, but they're not going to get it with "Great Satan" talk. They are banking on an overreaction, which will drive more Islamic moderates towards the extremist position, and more French moderates to the "Islam is Evil Must Destroy" extreme.
When everybody's an extremist, then you can start really fighting.
The right answer is to handle this as a police matter. The wrong answer is to handle it as a military matter and create ISIS mark II.
posted by eriko at 7:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [203 favorites]
Reaction from Australian cartoonist David Pope.
posted by jokeefe at 7:56 AM on January 7, 2015 [45 favorites]
posted by jokeefe at 7:56 AM on January 7, 2015 [45 favorites]
The right answer is to handle this as a police matter.
I agree with this approach. Treat them as common criminals and murders, deny them the excuse of their religion.
posted by arcticseal at 7:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [58 favorites]
I agree with this approach. Treat them as common criminals and murders, deny them the excuse of their religion.
posted by arcticseal at 7:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [58 favorites]
I'll never understand why people who are convinced that they have an omnipotent deity on their side would care in the least about mockery or piss-taking. Surely it should be a matter of - literally - supreme indifference.
What a tragedy.
posted by sobarel at 7:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
What a tragedy.
posted by sobarel at 7:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
My condolences Berend for your losses.
An excellent post by the way, thank you.
posted by infini at 7:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
An excellent post by the way, thank you.
posted by infini at 7:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
France has such a rich history of political cartooning
Classic examples
posted by gimonca at 7:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Classic examples
posted by gimonca at 7:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Has anyone claimed responsibility yet?
posted by infini at 7:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 7:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hatred is still the best recruiting tool for war and barbarity still the best way to generate hate.
posted by fullerine at 8:00 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by fullerine at 8:00 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Salman Rushdie condemns the attack: ”I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity.”
posted by Termite at 8:00 AM on January 7, 2015 [37 favorites]
posted by Termite at 8:00 AM on January 7, 2015 [37 favorites]
.
LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ.
All three are needed more than ever today.
posted by kewb at 8:01 AM on January 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ.
All three are needed more than ever today.
posted by kewb at 8:01 AM on January 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
.
posted by thegirlwiththehat at 8:01 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by thegirlwiththehat at 8:01 AM on January 7, 2015
This was a very specifically political set of killings - Charlie Hebdo ran a long series of cariacatures of Mohammed, produced an issue supposedly edited by Mohammed, reprinted some of the Danish cartoons that caused so much controversy, etc. Charlie Hebdo is a left-wing and secular publication, enmeshed in a lot of conflict within France over Islam, French Muslims and secularism generally. This is an intentional escalation of an ideological conflict - it's not just hostility, it's saying "you have this secular and satirical critique of aspects of Islam* and instead of keeping this conflict at a verbal/political/intellectual/social level, we are escalating this to killing".
It's a terrible, terrible thing that is going to make things so much harder for Muslims in France, and also make it much harder to sustain a secular and anti-racist left. It's not just that these attacks are intended to exacerbate the divisions between Muslims and others in France; I think they're also intended (or at least very effective at) breaking up the left, making it much easier for the left to become racist and Islamophobic.
I don't understand any of this at an emotional level, why anyone would ever want to do such a thing.
*I am uncomfortable with what has been Charlie Hebdo's approach, especially in the very particular context of French Islamophobia.
posted by Frowner at 8:04 AM on January 7, 2015 [111 favorites]
It's a terrible, terrible thing that is going to make things so much harder for Muslims in France, and also make it much harder to sustain a secular and anti-racist left. It's not just that these attacks are intended to exacerbate the divisions between Muslims and others in France; I think they're also intended (or at least very effective at) breaking up the left, making it much easier for the left to become racist and Islamophobic.
I don't understand any of this at an emotional level, why anyone would ever want to do such a thing.
*I am uncomfortable with what has been Charlie Hebdo's approach, especially in the very particular context of French Islamophobia.
posted by Frowner at 8:04 AM on January 7, 2015 [111 favorites]
Here's a longer Rushdie quote in case Termite's link doesn't work for you either:
"Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today.
I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity.
‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion’. Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."
posted by mareli at 8:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [87 favorites]
"Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today.
I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity.
‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion’. Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."
posted by mareli at 8:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [87 favorites]
freecellwizard: "I fear that this will only stoke anti-immigrant sentiments. I just don't get this sort of action by extremists. Their religion is mocked as violent so to prove the falsity of that, they murder a bunch of cartoonists?"I sadly haven't been able to find it again, but a while back I saw a satirical cartoon (sic) depicting a radical islamist and a neo-nazi sitting down at a bar for an after-work pint. It's spot on - they feed off each other's hate, and no extremists are interesting in peace and tolerance.
(Edit: what Artw said.)
posted by brokkr at 8:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
La Trahison des Clercs:
Bruce Crumley (then Time's bureau chief in Paris) gave his thoughts on freedom of expression subsequent to the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo's offices in 2011. According to Wikipedia, Time was founded in 1923 and remains the most popular blog to be printed in hard copy.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
Bruce Crumley (then Time's bureau chief in Paris) gave his thoughts on freedom of expression subsequent to the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo's offices in 2011. According to Wikipedia, Time was founded in 1923 and remains the most popular blog to be printed in hard copy.
Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?Via Harry's Place.
[...]
But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
I would further add that "Les mères, les filles, les soeurs" are of course not excluded from the concept of common feeling and mutual dignity linked to that old word "fraternité," nor are any people of any culture or creed who support the other two terms.
posted by kewb at 8:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by kewb at 8:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'll never understand why people who are convinced that they have an omnipotent deity on their side would care in the least about mockery or piss-taking. Surely it should be a matter of - literally - supreme indifference.
Their beliefs must be secretly quite fragile, for them to fear dissent so much.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 8:07 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Their beliefs must be secretly quite fragile, for them to fear dissent so much.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 8:07 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'll never understand why people who are convinced that they have an omnipotent deity on their side would care in the least about mockery or piss-taking. Surely it should be a matter of - literally - supreme indifference.
because it has nothing to do with that deity and everything to do with humans using the specter of the supernatural to brainwash the weak and vulnerable to gain power, money and respect for themselves.
posted by any major dude at 8:08 AM on January 7, 2015 [33 favorites]
because it has nothing to do with that deity and everything to do with humans using the specter of the supernatural to brainwash the weak and vulnerable to gain power, money and respect for themselves.
posted by any major dude at 8:08 AM on January 7, 2015 [33 favorites]
Has anyone claimed responsibility yet?
Some of the French media are quoting witnesses at the scene as saying that the attackers claimed to be from Al Qaida in Yemen, but we should bear in mind the usual swirl of rumor and disinformation that surrounds the first few days after these sorts of high-profile attacks.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 8:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Some of the French media are quoting witnesses at the scene as saying that the attackers claimed to be from Al Qaida in Yemen, but we should bear in mind the usual swirl of rumor and disinformation that surrounds the first few days after these sorts of high-profile attacks.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 8:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Has anyone claimed responsibility yet?
If I had to guess,
I'm letting the professionals do that for me, for now.
Remember: Breaking News Consumer's Handbook
posted by chavenet at 8:11 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
If I had to guess,
I'm letting the professionals do that for me, for now.
Remember: Breaking News Consumer's Handbook
posted by chavenet at 8:11 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
via NYTimes: A Twitter user who calls himself Abu Obaida al-Libi, borrowing an alias used by militants who have been killed in Libya or Syria, shared a photograph that appeared to show one of the Paris attackers pointing an automatic rifle at a victim, with the hashtag in Arabic, #WeAvengedTheProphet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 AM on January 7, 2015
I think it does the victims a disservice to say that they only wanted to draw laughs. They were political satirists who were trying to make people think.
I agree with this. As terrible as these actions were, as reprehensible, as murderous, as criminal, they did not target cartoonists and humorists because the murderers' beliefs are fragile, but because humor is so powerful it can dismantle empires.
posted by maxsparber at 8:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [35 favorites]
I agree with this. As terrible as these actions were, as reprehensible, as murderous, as criminal, they did not target cartoonists and humorists because the murderers' beliefs are fragile, but because humor is so powerful it can dismantle empires.
posted by maxsparber at 8:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [35 favorites]
.
posted by Mister Bijou at 8:13 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by Mister Bijou at 8:13 AM on January 7, 2015
I have come to the conclusion that what the world needs is a Religious Extremist Olympics.
Every two years, religious extremists of all denominations will send their best and brightest to a global summit at which they will compete in various events such as literary criticism, gladiatorial combat, chess, the javelin, Team Fortress 2 and gurning. The winning factions get official My Deity's Genitals Are Larger And More Swollen Than Your Deity's points until the next REO, the losers swear revenge and have motivation to raise their game for the next time, and everyone else on the planet who is NOT sufficiently devolved as to believe that their religious beliefs are the only allowable way for others on the planet to live their lives can carry on with what they need to do.
.
posted by delfin at 8:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
Every two years, religious extremists of all denominations will send their best and brightest to a global summit at which they will compete in various events such as literary criticism, gladiatorial combat, chess, the javelin, Team Fortress 2 and gurning. The winning factions get official My Deity's Genitals Are Larger And More Swollen Than Your Deity's points until the next REO, the losers swear revenge and have motivation to raise their game for the next time, and everyone else on the planet who is NOT sufficiently devolved as to believe that their religious beliefs are the only allowable way for others on the planet to live their lives can carry on with what they need to do.
.
posted by delfin at 8:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
.
posted by a complicated history at 8:15 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by a complicated history at 8:15 AM on January 7, 2015
If I had to guess, I'd say it was a small group of lunk-headed tools looking to impress some other group of lunk-headed tools who wouldn't have given them the time of day before this went down.
The guns, however, imply connections and possibly training. This may be more than idiots indoctrinated via YouTube.
posted by Artw at 8:16 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
The guns, however, imply connections and possibly training. This may be more than idiots indoctrinated via YouTube.
posted by Artw at 8:16 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
A car reportedly exploded (caught fire?) outside a synagogue in Paris. It's being described as a mechanical failure, which must be one hell of a coincidence.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:17 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:17 AM on January 7, 2015
CNN blurs the cop once he's been shot at close range, but they're running a still of the gunman a frame or two before he executes the cop. Classy.
posted by Sunburnt at 8:18 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Sunburnt at 8:18 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
roomthreeseventeen: "via NYTimes: A Twitter user who calls himself Abu Obaida al-Libi, borrowing an alias used by militants who have been killed in Libya or Syria, shared a photograph that appeared to show one of the Paris attackers pointing an automatic rifle at a victim, with the hashtag in Arabic, #WeAvengedTheProphet."It's a still from the cop execution video discussed upthread.
posted by brokkr at 8:18 AM on January 7, 2015
We are all satirists now
posted by any major dude at 8:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by any major dude at 8:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Because they want more of that, because they want people to hate Muslims, because that furthers their goals.
That's the key point to remember: the people behind this do not care about French Muslims, or any other Muslims living in Europe, don't care that they endanger their co-religionists. Their only goal is to "heighten the tensions": the more islamophobia spreads through Europe and America, the stronger their movement will be, or so they believe.
It's scary and awful but what we've also seen, in Pakistan for example with their brand of the Taliban, is that such groups often only resort to such high profile and outrageous attacks when they're isolated and without broad support. As in any organisation group think sets in and wishful thinking takes over: if only we slaughter enough infidels our people will rise up in support.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:23 AM on January 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
That's the key point to remember: the people behind this do not care about French Muslims, or any other Muslims living in Europe, don't care that they endanger their co-religionists. Their only goal is to "heighten the tensions": the more islamophobia spreads through Europe and America, the stronger their movement will be, or so they believe.
It's scary and awful but what we've also seen, in Pakistan for example with their brand of the Taliban, is that such groups often only resort to such high profile and outrageous attacks when they're isolated and without broad support. As in any organisation group think sets in and wishful thinking takes over: if only we slaughter enough infidels our people will rise up in support.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:23 AM on January 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
Is Charlie Hebdo actually left-wing? I guess I mean, is that where it's positioned within the French social context? I suppose it must be, given that Berend is posting from within that social context.
The majority of their material I am seeing reposted today relies on the use of stereotype in ways that I associate with the right. It's unclear to me if that's because the reposters are selecting material that appeals to thier audience (The Independent, for example) or because it's representative of Charlie Hebdo's editorial sensibility.
posted by mwhybark at 8:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
The majority of their material I am seeing reposted today relies on the use of stereotype in ways that I associate with the right. It's unclear to me if that's because the reposters are selecting material that appeals to thier audience (The Independent, for example) or because it's representative of Charlie Hebdo's editorial sensibility.
posted by mwhybark at 8:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Remember: Breaking News Consumer's Handbook
What if there is a group of MeFites who are willfully colluding to ignore the handbook?
posted by stbalbach at 8:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
What if there is a group of MeFites who are willfully colluding to ignore the handbook?
posted by stbalbach at 8:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Poll: 27% of French age 18-24 support ISIS
posted by coffee and minarets at 8:26 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by coffee and minarets at 8:26 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
This seems a good time to recall the history of the Grande Mosquée de Paris, built as a token of gratitude to Muslims who died fighting for France in the First World War, and whose rector Si Khaddour Bengghrabit helped save Jewish people during the Nazi occupation in the next war. Its current rector, Dalil Boubakeur, is a moderate integrationist.
posted by kewb at 8:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by kewb at 8:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [25 favorites]
The majority of their material I am seeing reposted today relies on the use of stereotype in ways that I associate with the right.
If Seth Rogan's latest spectacle taught us anything, it's that racism and nationalism are subversive and hip.
posted by gorbweaver at 8:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
If Seth Rogan's latest spectacle taught us anything, it's that racism and nationalism are subversive and hip.
posted by gorbweaver at 8:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Is Charlie Hebdo actually left-wing?
Actual humour is unclassifiable and does not reside anywhere on the political spectrum. Dogma is not funny.
posted by Nevin at 8:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Actual humour is unclassifiable and does not reside anywhere on the political spectrum. Dogma is not funny.
posted by Nevin at 8:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
(unless you're making fun of it)
posted by Nevin at 8:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 8:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
.
The extremists on both sides are on collusion against the middle.
People like Marine Le Pen have been carefully drying and stacking tinder for years, just waiting for assholes like today's gunmen to show up with the matches.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:29 AM on January 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
The extremists on both sides are on collusion against the middle.
People like Marine Le Pen have been carefully drying and stacking tinder for years, just waiting for assholes like today's gunmen to show up with the matches.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:29 AM on January 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
Kirby Delauter, ‘Charlie Hebdo,’ and the Limits of Our Bravery
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
Is Charlie Hebdo actually left-wing?
The sense I've always had is that there are elements of "left" in it and it's put together by people who were of the sixties/seventies left. But the left in France groups together a different set of concerns than the Anglophone left, including things that we would not group with "left" ideas at all - I think that's where some confusion (for me, actually) always comes in. As I understand it, there's this strain of "secularism" that isn't what we associate with secularism, ie it's not mostly about getting the Christian right off people's backs, it's about creating a collective "French" identity that is supposed to be free of religion, or with religion kept private and rendered invisible. Unfortunately, this seems to be used either naively (by some) or intentionally (by others) as a way of attacking both Muslims and Jews. (When people say "French political cartoons", I think of the Dreyfus case.)
The French communist left has been very socially conservative since the fifties, too, which is part - I think - of the 1970s conflict between various other left formations (radical Marxists, continental philosophers) and the French CP and its followers. The communist part of the left has often been basically the right-wing part of the left in terms of tolerance for people of color, women's rights, immigration, GLBTQ stuff, etc, that we would normally associate with the left.
As I understand it, "secularism" in France is also interwoven with the French colonial project - so basically, people were taught to hate Muslims and Islam as part of colonial control of Algeria and other places. Islam was "barbaric" and "not modern" and so on - ostensibly because of a secularist/civic critique but really because it helped justify the exploitation of Muslim people.
This is why I am uncomfortable with the Charlie Hebdo/satire approach in this context - the very specific context of contemporary France. It's kicking people who are already being kicked by the rest of French society, and then saying "but I'm not kicking you because I hate Muslims, I'm kicking you because I hate religion".
Just to be clear since this is such a difficult issue: I would never, never think that this justifies violence or the suffering of those poor people who were killed and their friends and family - and violence only makes things much, much worse. This is such a terrible thing, done by terrible people.
posted by Frowner at 8:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [158 favorites]
The sense I've always had is that there are elements of "left" in it and it's put together by people who were of the sixties/seventies left. But the left in France groups together a different set of concerns than the Anglophone left, including things that we would not group with "left" ideas at all - I think that's where some confusion (for me, actually) always comes in. As I understand it, there's this strain of "secularism" that isn't what we associate with secularism, ie it's not mostly about getting the Christian right off people's backs, it's about creating a collective "French" identity that is supposed to be free of religion, or with religion kept private and rendered invisible. Unfortunately, this seems to be used either naively (by some) or intentionally (by others) as a way of attacking both Muslims and Jews. (When people say "French political cartoons", I think of the Dreyfus case.)
The French communist left has been very socially conservative since the fifties, too, which is part - I think - of the 1970s conflict between various other left formations (radical Marxists, continental philosophers) and the French CP and its followers. The communist part of the left has often been basically the right-wing part of the left in terms of tolerance for people of color, women's rights, immigration, GLBTQ stuff, etc, that we would normally associate with the left.
As I understand it, "secularism" in France is also interwoven with the French colonial project - so basically, people were taught to hate Muslims and Islam as part of colonial control of Algeria and other places. Islam was "barbaric" and "not modern" and so on - ostensibly because of a secularist/civic critique but really because it helped justify the exploitation of Muslim people.
This is why I am uncomfortable with the Charlie Hebdo/satire approach in this context - the very specific context of contemporary France. It's kicking people who are already being kicked by the rest of French society, and then saying "but I'm not kicking you because I hate Muslims, I'm kicking you because I hate religion".
Just to be clear since this is such a difficult issue: I would never, never think that this justifies violence or the suffering of those poor people who were killed and their friends and family - and violence only makes things much, much worse. This is such a terrible thing, done by terrible people.
posted by Frowner at 8:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [158 favorites]
I think it does the victims a disservice to say that they only wanted to draw laughs. They were political satirists who were trying to make people think.
Fair enough; I retract the "only". But first and foremost, their aim was drawing laughs, and drawing for laughs. Writers and performers can make people think, laugh, or both, but only cartoonists do both with a drawing. If all you're interested in is getting the laugh or airing the point, tweeting it is easier.
I was reacting instinctively to the look in their eyes, I admit. I've met a lot of cartoonists, and recognised it.
posted by rory at 8:40 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fair enough; I retract the "only". But first and foremost, their aim was drawing laughs, and drawing for laughs. Writers and performers can make people think, laugh, or both, but only cartoonists do both with a drawing. If all you're interested in is getting the laugh or airing the point, tweeting it is easier.
I was reacting instinctively to the look in their eyes, I admit. I've met a lot of cartoonists, and recognised it.
posted by rory at 8:40 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I like Salman Rushdie's statement at englishpen.org :
"Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today."
"I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity."
"‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion’. Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:41 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
"Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today."
"I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity."
"‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion’. Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:41 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
because it has nothing to do with that deity and everything to do with humans using the specter of the supernatural to brainwash the weak and vulnerable to gain power, money and respect for themselves.
Yeah. The actual shooters are likely jughead, macho idiots easily lead by cynical fanatics. Religion is their particular flavor of violence to secure their egos, bloodlust and unearned sense of superiority.
posted by spaltavian at 8:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah. The actual shooters are likely jughead, macho idiots easily lead by cynical fanatics. Religion is their particular flavor of violence to secure their egos, bloodlust and unearned sense of superiority.
posted by spaltavian at 8:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
We mourn those who were murdered, and we affirm our unwavering support for the freedom of of thought and expression without which civilization is not possible.
posted by VikingSword at 8:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by VikingSword at 8:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I am uncomfortable with what has been Charlie Hebdo's approach, especially in the very particular context of French Islamophobia.
Me too.
Charlie Hebdo is of course a product of what you might call the 1968 generation, secular, leftist and forged in the struggle to overcome the repressive Catholic climate that of postwar France. They've been just as insulting and shocking against Catholics and Jews over the decades, have been fiercely aggressive in defending secularism, but perhaps slow to recognise or wanting to recognise that using the same sort of weapon against Islam is likely to harm more innocent people than it offends those that need offending. However noble their intentions, Charlie Hebdo has played some role in helping fan the flames of Islamophobia.
But as far as I can tell, they've never acted out of Islamophobia themselves, but from the principle that nobody should be save from satire when they deserve it and personal safety be damned. They got firebombed back in 2011 after all and that didn't stop them.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:45 AM on January 7, 2015 [41 favorites]
Me too.
Charlie Hebdo is of course a product of what you might call the 1968 generation, secular, leftist and forged in the struggle to overcome the repressive Catholic climate that of postwar France. They've been just as insulting and shocking against Catholics and Jews over the decades, have been fiercely aggressive in defending secularism, but perhaps slow to recognise or wanting to recognise that using the same sort of weapon against Islam is likely to harm more innocent people than it offends those that need offending. However noble their intentions, Charlie Hebdo has played some role in helping fan the flames of Islamophobia.
But as far as I can tell, they've never acted out of Islamophobia themselves, but from the principle that nobody should be save from satire when they deserve it and personal safety be damned. They got firebombed back in 2011 after all and that didn't stop them.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:45 AM on January 7, 2015 [41 favorites]
This is why I am uncomfortable with the Charlie Hebdo/satire approach in this context - the very specific context of contemporary France. It's kicking people who are already being kicked by the rest of French society, and then saying "but I'm not kicking you because I hate Muslims, I'm kicking you because I hate religion".
No, let us be clear on this, satire hurts ideas, not people. People only feel hurt because they refuse to let go of ridiculous notions long after they have been exposed. A person is still a person with inherent value even if their beliefs are worthless.
posted by Thing at 8:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [48 favorites]
No, let us be clear on this, satire hurts ideas, not people. People only feel hurt because they refuse to let go of ridiculous notions long after they have been exposed. A person is still a person with inherent value even if their beliefs are worthless.
posted by Thing at 8:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [48 favorites]
fear that this will only stoke anti-immigrant sentiments. I just don't get this sort of action by extremists.
As someone said above, the extremists benefit from anti-immigrant sentiments because more young men will become marginalized and alienated and potentially drawn to their "cause", which as far as I can tell is to commit violence against unarmed civilians and look pathetic and disgusting.
I was not a fan of what Charlie Hebdo was doing with some of these cartoons. But this is just atrocious, and I hope 100 Charlie Hebdos sprout up out of this and continue on in that tradition.
posted by Hoopo at 8:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
As someone said above, the extremists benefit from anti-immigrant sentiments because more young men will become marginalized and alienated and potentially drawn to their "cause", which as far as I can tell is to commit violence against unarmed civilians and look pathetic and disgusting.
I was not a fan of what Charlie Hebdo was doing with some of these cartoons. But this is just atrocious, and I hope 100 Charlie Hebdos sprout up out of this and continue on in that tradition.
posted by Hoopo at 8:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is shocking.
posted by Carillon at 8:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Carillon at 8:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, let us be clear on this, satire hurts ideas, not people.
Thing, that's only true when people can tell it is satire. Unrecognizable satire can still hurt a repressed population if it reinforces the prejudices of the majority.
posted by maryr at 8:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Thing, that's only true when people can tell it is satire. Unrecognizable satire can still hurt a repressed population if it reinforces the prejudices of the majority.
posted by maryr at 8:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
maxsparber: I agree with this. As terrible as these actions were, as reprehensible, as murderous, as criminal, they did not target cartoonists and humorists because the murderers' beliefs are fragile, but because humor is so powerful it can dismantle empires.
Further in my defence, I didn't write "only wanted to draw laughs" to dismiss it as some silly, trivial thing. I grew up drawing cartoons and comics, tried to get somewhere it as a cartoonist before life took me in other directions, and see it as an important and worthwhile way to spend a life, not least for the very reason you've given.
Humour is even more powerful than that. Whether or not it brings down empires, it dismantles us as people. Every time we laugh, it's at something unexpected, some new idea that challenges our existing ones. Whether jokes are satirical or not, they help us see ourselves and the world in new ways.
posted by rory at 8:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Further in my defence, I didn't write "only wanted to draw laughs" to dismiss it as some silly, trivial thing. I grew up drawing cartoons and comics, tried to get somewhere it as a cartoonist before life took me in other directions, and see it as an important and worthwhile way to spend a life, not least for the very reason you've given.
Humour is even more powerful than that. Whether or not it brings down empires, it dismantles us as people. Every time we laugh, it's at something unexpected, some new idea that challenges our existing ones. Whether jokes are satirical or not, they help us see ourselves and the world in new ways.
posted by rory at 8:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
.
posted by What'sAPedantWalter? at 8:52 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by What'sAPedantWalter? at 8:52 AM on January 7, 2015
Charlie Hebdo's website is no longer blank — it is displaying a black square with the words "JE SUIS CHARLIE HEBDO". It can be posted as a Facebook or Twitter profile picture in solidarity.
posted by beagle at 8:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by beagle at 8:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, there was a lengthy discussion of Charlie Hebdo satire in the context of Islam, in the earlier thread mentioned in the FPP, and I continue to reject, absolutely, treating Islam any differently from other religions which were satirized by Hebdo. It strikes me that treating Islam like a special snowflake is exactly the wrong thing to do - it alienates it from the mainstream by implying that one needs to walk on eggshells when dealing with it, and therefore is not part of the European landscape on the same plane as any other religion. Islam is not some fragile faith that needs special handling, and Muslims are not ticking bombs one has to take special measures not to set off. The more we treat people differently, the more different they'll feel. And this was the ultimate aim of these terrorists - to make the French - or indeed everyone - feel differently about Muslims. They must not succeed.
posted by VikingSword at 8:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [50 favorites]
posted by VikingSword at 8:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [50 favorites]
This is shocking.
I think what's important here is that it's NOT shocking. France believed this was coming, and some of the journalists who died today believed this was coming. They had security detail.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
I think what's important here is that it's NOT shocking. France believed this was coming, and some of the journalists who died today believed this was coming. They had security detail.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
I would never, never think that this justifies violence or the suffering of those poor people who were killed and their friends and family
Frowner
But you implicitly are. You and MartinWisse and gorbweaver and that Bruce Crumley piece Joe in Australia link to above are all engaging in blaming the victim and tacitly saying Charlie Hebdo deserved what they got when you bemoan how horrid these publications were.
"Of course violence is bad, but really, what they were publishing was so coarse and offensive..."
Until the day anything can be published without fear of being murdered, what Charlie Hebdo does is badly needed. If that's "kicking" anyone, let them be kicked.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [87 favorites]
Frowner
But you implicitly are. You and MartinWisse and gorbweaver and that Bruce Crumley piece Joe in Australia link to above are all engaging in blaming the victim and tacitly saying Charlie Hebdo deserved what they got when you bemoan how horrid these publications were.
"Of course violence is bad, but really, what they were publishing was so coarse and offensive..."
Until the day anything can be published without fear of being murdered, what Charlie Hebdo does is badly needed. If that's "kicking" anyone, let them be kicked.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [87 favorites]
we should bear in mind the usual swirl of rumor and disinformation that surrounds the first few days after these sorts of high-profile attacks
Perhaps what's most disturbing here, in a large sense, is that these events happen so often that there is a usual pattern.
Their poor families, their friends. This is awful.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:57 AM on January 7, 2015
Perhaps what's most disturbing here, in a large sense, is that these events happen so often that there is a usual pattern.
Their poor families, their friends. This is awful.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:57 AM on January 7, 2015
No one murdered because of this image. (NSFW, Onion)
posted by empath at 8:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [68 favorites]
posted by empath at 8:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [68 favorites]
Fantastic, thoughtful answer, Frowner. Merci.
posted by mwhybark at 8:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by mwhybark at 8:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
But you implicitly are. You are and MartinWisse and gorbweaver and that Bruce Crumley piece Joe in Australia link to above are all engaging in blaming the victim and tacitly saying Charlie Hebdo deserved what they got.
I would rather not have a big ugly fight about this on such a sad day, so I guess the short form answer would be: no, trying to talk about the specific political context in which something happens is not the same as justifying it. It is very difficult to talk about specific political context in order to fully understand something precisely because discussing it is always seen as justifying events.
posted by Frowner at 9:01 AM on January 7, 2015 [79 favorites]
I would rather not have a big ugly fight about this on such a sad day, so I guess the short form answer would be: no, trying to talk about the specific political context in which something happens is not the same as justifying it. It is very difficult to talk about specific political context in order to fully understand something precisely because discussing it is always seen as justifying events.
posted by Frowner at 9:01 AM on January 7, 2015 [79 favorites]
I agree completely with the statement that "satire hurts ideas, not people", thanks for being so succinct Thing. If you're hushing up comics then you're a fascist. And arguably indirectly contributing to this sort of violence. And that applies equally to anyone complaining about Charlie Hebdo's satire of Islam, Dieudonné M'bala M'bala's mocking of Islam, Catholicism, Israel, etc., the Onion, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:02 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 9:02 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
It is very difficult to talk about specific political context in order to fully understand something precisely because discussing it is always seen as justifying events.
Maybe discussing the political context just hours after a massacre happens is inappropriate.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:04 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Maybe discussing the political context just hours after a massacre happens is inappropriate.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:04 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
They were political satirists who were trying to make people think.
If anything can be said to be universally true of human nature, it is that most if not all of us are afraid to think about things we hold dear.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:05 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
If anything can be said to be universally true of human nature, it is that most if not all of us are afraid to think about things we hold dear.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:05 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is one of the great issues facing the left - what passes for the left in the United States.
On one hand, being on the left means that you strongly support tolerance of people regardless of religion, race, gender... On the other hand, one of the great targets for intolerance in the West are Muslims, some prominent subset(*) of which is deeply and violently intolerant.
I don't see a good solution here.
But let me make one thing absolutely clear. Charlie Hebdo had and has my complete support for their work. If you live in a modern pluralist society, it is your responsibility NOT to get pissed off by words - no matter how extreme the words are.
This clip of an atheist comedian making fun of Christianity in a Swedish church is inspirational. The comic goes way over the top. I, a pretty hardcore atheist, find him pretty offensive - but the camera keeps cutting to the priest of the church, who's watching this and cracking up. That's confidence in your beliefs - that's tolerance. My hat is off to them. These cowardly, evil bombers have only my contempt.
(* - I have no idea of the size of this subset. I've met a very large number of Muslims, mostly NYC taxi drivers, and they have uniformly been civilized, educated and friendly people. The closest I ever came to anything in thousands of such encounters was one driver in the 80s who explained to me - politely - that all the bankers involved in the Ivan Boesky scandals were Jewish, which was a little disturbing but does run into the "truthfulness" defense.
But this is all anecdote. I really have no idea how widely supported violence against people who mock "the prophet" really is in the Muslim communities of the world.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
On one hand, being on the left means that you strongly support tolerance of people regardless of religion, race, gender... On the other hand, one of the great targets for intolerance in the West are Muslims, some prominent subset(*) of which is deeply and violently intolerant.
I don't see a good solution here.
But let me make one thing absolutely clear. Charlie Hebdo had and has my complete support for their work. If you live in a modern pluralist society, it is your responsibility NOT to get pissed off by words - no matter how extreme the words are.
This clip of an atheist comedian making fun of Christianity in a Swedish church is inspirational. The comic goes way over the top. I, a pretty hardcore atheist, find him pretty offensive - but the camera keeps cutting to the priest of the church, who's watching this and cracking up. That's confidence in your beliefs - that's tolerance. My hat is off to them. These cowardly, evil bombers have only my contempt.
(* - I have no idea of the size of this subset. I've met a very large number of Muslims, mostly NYC taxi drivers, and they have uniformly been civilized, educated and friendly people. The closest I ever came to anything in thousands of such encounters was one driver in the 80s who explained to me - politely - that all the bankers involved in the Ivan Boesky scandals were Jewish, which was a little disturbing but does run into the "truthfulness" defense.
But this is all anecdote. I really have no idea how widely supported violence against people who mock "the prophet" really is in the Muslim communities of the world.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'm glad that people are discussing it because it helps me understand the event better.
posted by Drexen at 9:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Drexen at 9:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
.
posted by From Bklyn at 9:08 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by From Bklyn at 9:08 AM on January 7, 2015
> Maybe discussing the political context just hours after a massacre happens is inappropriate.
I can't imagine the victims of this bombing would shrink from discussing the political context - if they weren't dead, that is.
Everyone supports appropriate speech. You're only really for free speech if you support inappropriate speech.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:08 AM on January 7, 2015 [80 favorites]
I can't imagine the victims of this bombing would shrink from discussing the political context - if they weren't dead, that is.
Everyone supports appropriate speech. You're only really for free speech if you support inappropriate speech.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:08 AM on January 7, 2015 [80 favorites]
It was a politically motivated crime.
.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:09 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:09 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've been trying to think about what to say — and there's so much to say — but I think tyllwin has it for today: Je suis Charlie.
posted by ob1quixote at 9:09 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by ob1quixote at 9:09 AM on January 7, 2015
> Unfortunately, this seems to be used either naively (by some) or intentionally (by others) as a way of attacking both Muslims and Jews. (When people say "French political cartoons", I think of the Dreyfus case.)
Yes, because laicity is very important in France. Militant Christianity has more or less been muzzled, and less than 10% of the population considers itself practicing. The Catholic demonstrations before the legalisation of same-sex weddings were surprising, not because anyone thinks there aren't fundamental Catholics, but because there was a public show of religion trying to influence lawmaking. I can only remember one other example of that, Christine Boutin in the parliament, and she was widely mocked for it. Now, militantism mostly comes from other religions, and will be equally mocked and satirised.
There are two ways of pushing equality, trying to make everyone a special snowflake, and making sure no one is. Charlie Hebdo exists in one form or the other since the 60s, I'm pretty sure they aren't in fact naive or racist. Please try to avoid patronising and imposing American-only ethics onto other countries, it smacks of imperialism.
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yes, because laicity is very important in France. Militant Christianity has more or less been muzzled, and less than 10% of the population considers itself practicing. The Catholic demonstrations before the legalisation of same-sex weddings were surprising, not because anyone thinks there aren't fundamental Catholics, but because there was a public show of religion trying to influence lawmaking. I can only remember one other example of that, Christine Boutin in the parliament, and she was widely mocked for it. Now, militantism mostly comes from other religions, and will be equally mocked and satirised.
There are two ways of pushing equality, trying to make everyone a special snowflake, and making sure no one is. Charlie Hebdo exists in one form or the other since the 60s, I'm pretty sure they aren't in fact naive or racist. Please try to avoid patronising and imposing American-only ethics onto other countries, it smacks of imperialism.
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
On one hand, being on the left means that you strongly support tolerance of people regardless of religion, race, gender... On the other hand, one of the great targets for intolerance in the West are Muslims, some prominent subset(*) of which is deeply and violently intolerant.
I don't think there's any conflict between standing up strongly for the right of people to be offensive, while also strongly condemning the offensive speech. Words should be opposed with words, not weapons.
posted by empath at 9:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
I don't think there's any conflict between standing up strongly for the right of people to be offensive, while also strongly condemning the offensive speech. Words should be opposed with words, not weapons.
posted by empath at 9:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
.
posted by Small Dollar at 9:12 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by Small Dollar at 9:12 AM on January 7, 2015
Maybe discussing the political context just hours after a massacre happens is inappropriate.
I think Frowner has been aware and careful in framing points — which hasn't been the case for everyone in this thread. There are a number of haphazard and sorely disappointing responses here, but it's not fair to group in responses which are clearly separating the context from being a justification or excuse for violence.
posted by pokermonk at 9:13 AM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
I think Frowner has been aware and careful in framing points — which hasn't been the case for everyone in this thread. There are a number of haphazard and sorely disappointing responses here, but it's not fair to group in responses which are clearly separating the context from being a justification or excuse for violence.
posted by pokermonk at 9:13 AM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
Mod note: A couple comments removed, please cool it a little. Making a hard thread harder by digging on why you don't like someone else's comment isn't helping anything.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:13 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:13 AM on January 7, 2015
A Pakistani cartoonist tries to keep up his craft in the face of rising restrictions
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Although Voltaire didn't really ever write "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.", its spirit is as important day as ever.
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:15 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:15 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Every newspaper in the world needs to reprint these cartoons and articles in solidarity. This is a clash of values, and the forces of theocratic fascism need to lose.
posted by shivohum at 9:16 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by shivohum at 9:16 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Charbonnier said he didn't fear retaliation for the magazine's controversial work. He explained to Le Monde in 2012, "I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. This may be a bit pompous what I'm saying, but I prefer to die standing up than live on my knees."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:17 AM on January 7, 2015 [41 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:17 AM on January 7, 2015 [41 favorites]
Voltaire didn't really ever write "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
No, it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:18 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
No, it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:18 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
You're only really for free speech if you support inappropriate speech.
Supporting someone's right to inappropriate speech is not the same thing as supporting that speech. I should be willing to support a Nazi's right to spew Nazi propaganda; I should also do everything in my power to encourage them to change their toxic beliefs and to cease (willingly) their propagandistic efforts.
Trying to excuse the deaths, which is what's happening here
No one in this thread is "trying to excuse the deaths." It's fair to ask if this is the right time or place to criticize Charlie Hebdo's publication record, but it's just a lousy ad hom to accuse anyone who has so far participated in this thread of deliberately seeking to excuse today's ghastly murders.
An event like this sets everyone's nerves on a raw edge; best if we all try to take it down a notch rather than seeking to ratchet everything up.
posted by yoink at 9:19 AM on January 7, 2015 [46 favorites]
Supporting someone's right to inappropriate speech is not the same thing as supporting that speech. I should be willing to support a Nazi's right to spew Nazi propaganda; I should also do everything in my power to encourage them to change their toxic beliefs and to cease (willingly) their propagandistic efforts.
Trying to excuse the deaths, which is what's happening here
No one in this thread is "trying to excuse the deaths." It's fair to ask if this is the right time or place to criticize Charlie Hebdo's publication record, but it's just a lousy ad hom to accuse anyone who has so far participated in this thread of deliberately seeking to excuse today's ghastly murders.
An event like this sets everyone's nerves on a raw edge; best if we all try to take it down a notch rather than seeking to ratchet everything up.
posted by yoink at 9:19 AM on January 7, 2015 [46 favorites]
Every newspaper in the world needs to reprint these cartoons and articles in solidarity.
yes, let's do something that the overwhelming majority of perfectly peaceful Muslims find offensive so that we can piss off a tiny fringe of radical extremist Islam, that's a brilliant goddamn idea, nothing like deciding to make this "media v. Islam," that's great
posted by mightygodking at 9:20 AM on January 7, 2015 [44 favorites]
yes, let's do something that the overwhelming majority of perfectly peaceful Muslims find offensive so that we can piss off a tiny fringe of radical extremist Islam, that's a brilliant goddamn idea, nothing like deciding to make this "media v. Islam," that's great
posted by mightygodking at 9:20 AM on January 7, 2015 [44 favorites]
The French military and intelligence organizations have in recent years been more active overseas (e.g. Mali, Libya). Which leads me to this prediction: France will spin up their own version of the "Wrath of God" group.
Unfortunately, we already know how this movie ends, and how tragic mistakes get made.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately, we already know how this movie ends, and how tragic mistakes get made.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I suspect t we are going to see a lot of jerky borderline-racist Dawkinist nonsense "in solidarity" from people who were prone to posting that kind of thing anyway.
posted by Artw at 9:22 AM on January 7, 2015 [28 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:22 AM on January 7, 2015 [28 favorites]
"Left" does not solely consist of identifying certain identity groups as more or less victimised than others (and restricting criticism to "punching up"). That's a recentish American innovation. France has a positive commitment to secularism.
I would like newspapers to print the cartoons, but not on the front cover: Mohammed pictures should have trigger warnings. The press demonstrates they're not cowed, but it's then open to people who would be hurt by seeing them not to do so.
posted by pw201 at 9:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
I would like newspapers to print the cartoons, but not on the front cover: Mohammed pictures should have trigger warnings. The press demonstrates they're not cowed, but it's then open to people who would be hurt by seeing them not to do so.
posted by pw201 at 9:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
I suspect we are going to see a lot of jerky borderline-racist Dawkinist nonsense
And a lot of other foolishness:
"If one way of stopping obscenities like today is providing the security services a bit more access to our e-mails, we must give it to them. If it means internet providers handing over their records, the records must be handed over. If it means newspapers showing restraint the next time an Edward Snowden knocks on their door, then restraint will have to be shown. Because look who came knocking at the door today. "
posted by longdaysjourney at 9:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
And a lot of other foolishness:
"If one way of stopping obscenities like today is providing the security services a bit more access to our e-mails, we must give it to them. If it means internet providers handing over their records, the records must be handed over. If it means newspapers showing restraint the next time an Edward Snowden knocks on their door, then restraint will have to be shown. Because look who came knocking at the door today. "
posted by longdaysjourney at 9:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
[T]here is already an enormous pressure, in this context, to defend Charlie Hebdo as a foreful exponent of 'Western values', or in some cases even as a brilliantly radical bastion of left-wing anti-clericalism. (This pressure will be even more keenly felt if, as I am hearing, some of the journalists are themselves members of the organised French left.) 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.Richard Seymour: Charlie Hebdo
[...]
We have been reminded of the perils of such "you're with us or against us" campism throughout the 'war on terror'. Now, unfortunately, I suspect we're going to see more of this, and many who know better capitulating to the political blackmail. The argument will be that for the sake of 'good taste' we need 'a decent interval' before we start criticising Charlie Hebdo. But given the scale of the ongoing anti-Muslim backlash in France, the big and frightening anti-Muslim movements in Germany, and the constant anti-Muslim scares in the UK, and given the ideological purposes to which this atrocity will be put, it is essential to get this right. No, Charlie Hebdo's offices should not be raided by gun-wielding fucknuggets, whatever the reason for the murder. No, journalists are not legitimate targets for killing. But no, we shouldn't line up with the inevitable statist backlash against Muslims, or the ideological charge to defend a fetishised, racialised 'secularism', or concede to the blackmail which forces us into solidarity with a racist institution.
posted by RogerB at 9:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [43 favorites]
What makes people change their mind about what's offensive is exposure. The more something is presented as normal, the more it is considered normal, so, yes, reprinting would be a good idea. And I strongly dispute your assertion that the overwhelming majority of peaceful Muslims is offended by cartoons mocking fundamentalism. Especially from a publication that has mocked just about everything trying to tell other people what to think.
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
Maybe discussing the political context just hours after a massacre happens is inappropriate.
Yes, and in this thread certainly. However, an FPP at a suitably appropriate later moment on this broad topic would be much welcome. Here, for example, are anecdotes and pointed commentary that touches upon the issue from a different perspective.
posted by infini at 9:29 AM on January 7, 2015
Yes, and in this thread certainly. However, an FPP at a suitably appropriate later moment on this broad topic would be much welcome. Here, for example, are anecdotes and pointed commentary that touches upon the issue from a different perspective.
posted by infini at 9:29 AM on January 7, 2015
yes, let's do something that the overwhelming majority of perfectly peaceful Muslims find offensive
If they're perfectly peaceful they're also plenty smart enough to understand why newspapers would take this action, peaceful enough to applaud this non-violent response to violence, and peaceful enough to understand that their notions of offensiveness do not trump free speech, particularly in non-theocratic countries.
Bill Maher looks righter every day. Either the West is going to stand up for Enlightenment values, or it's going to cower in fear and attempt to placate.
posted by shivohum at 9:30 AM on January 7, 2015 [30 favorites]
If they're perfectly peaceful they're also plenty smart enough to understand why newspapers would take this action, peaceful enough to applaud this non-violent response to violence, and peaceful enough to understand that their notions of offensiveness do not trump free speech, particularly in non-theocratic countries.
Bill Maher looks righter every day. Either the West is going to stand up for Enlightenment values, or it's going to cower in fear and attempt to placate.
posted by shivohum at 9:30 AM on January 7, 2015 [30 favorites]
But you implicitly are. You and ... [other names etc] ... are all engaging in blaming the victim and tacitly saying Charlie Hebdo deserved what they got when you bemoan how horrid these publications were.
"Of course violence is bad, but
Quoting some graffiti I noticed a long time ago, "It's all bullshit for the but."
posted by philip-random at 9:31 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Of course violence is bad, but
Quoting some graffiti I noticed a long time ago, "It's all bullshit for the but."
posted by philip-random at 9:31 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not sure how related this is, but security has in fact been beefed up in the US. My brother just texted there are police/military with M16s guarding the New York Fed, who are not normally there.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:32 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:32 AM on January 7, 2015
If they're perfectly peaceful they're also plenty smart enough to understand why newspapers would take this action
At best as a kind of jerky low grade collective punishment and at worst to fan the fires of racial hatred?
posted by Artw at 9:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
At best as a kind of jerky low grade collective punishment and at worst to fan the fires of racial hatred?
posted by Artw at 9:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
Either the West is going to stand up for Enlightenment values, or it's going to cower in fear and attempt to placate.
An interesting French look at the "clash of civilizations" bit
Where did you get the idea for a presidential election, in 2022, that came down to Marine Le Pen and the leader of a Muslim party?
Well, Marine Le Pen strikes me as a realistic candidate for 2022—even for 2017 … The Muslim party is more … That’s the heart of the matter, really. I tried to put myself in the place of a Muslim, and I realized that, in reality, they are in a totally schizophrenic situation. Because overall Muslims aren’t interested in economic issues, their big issues are what we nowadays call societal issues. On these issues, obviously, they are very far from the left and even further from the Green Party. Just think of gay marriage and you’ll see what I mean, but the same is true across the board. And one doesn’t really see why they’d vote for the right, much less for the extreme right, which utterly rejects them. So if a Muslim wants to vote, what’s he supposed to do? The truth is, he’s in an impossible situation. He has no representation whatsoever. It would be wrong to say that this religion has no political consequences—it does. So does Catholicism, for that matter, even if the Catholics have been more or less marginalized. For those reasons, it seems to me, a Muslim party makes a lot of sense.
posted by infini at 9:34 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
An interesting French look at the "clash of civilizations" bit
Where did you get the idea for a presidential election, in 2022, that came down to Marine Le Pen and the leader of a Muslim party?
Well, Marine Le Pen strikes me as a realistic candidate for 2022—even for 2017 … The Muslim party is more … That’s the heart of the matter, really. I tried to put myself in the place of a Muslim, and I realized that, in reality, they are in a totally schizophrenic situation. Because overall Muslims aren’t interested in economic issues, their big issues are what we nowadays call societal issues. On these issues, obviously, they are very far from the left and even further from the Green Party. Just think of gay marriage and you’ll see what I mean, but the same is true across the board. And one doesn’t really see why they’d vote for the right, much less for the extreme right, which utterly rejects them. So if a Muslim wants to vote, what’s he supposed to do? The truth is, he’s in an impossible situation. He has no representation whatsoever. It would be wrong to say that this religion has no political consequences—it does. So does Catholicism, for that matter, even if the Catholics have been more or less marginalized. For those reasons, it seems to me, a Muslim party makes a lot of sense.
posted by infini at 9:34 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
shivohum: Bill Maher looks righter every day. Either the West is going to stand up for Enlightenment values, or it's going to cower in fear and attempt to placate.
That's a rather Manichean and dogmatic viewpoint. Theocracies don't tend to see shades of gray, so the solution is... a false dichotomy between enlightenment values and Islam???
posted by tonycpsu at 9:35 AM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
That's a rather Manichean and dogmatic viewpoint. Theocracies don't tend to see shades of gray, so the solution is... a false dichotomy between enlightenment values and Islam???
posted by tonycpsu at 9:35 AM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
yes, let's do something that the overwhelming majority of perfectly peaceful Muslims find offensive so that we can piss off a tiny fringe of radical extremists Islam, that's a brilliant goddamn idea, nothing like deciding to make this "media v. Islam," that's great
The FT have an article up (surely soon to be widely excoriated) saying basically that murder is wrong (!) and that Charlie Hebdo had the right to print, but that they were stupid to do so. To which I would reply: so it would appear.
I would like newspapers to print the cartoons, but not on the front cover
I'm a consequentialist and Less Wrong reader myself, but the people this would attempt to protect from offence are neither. It's the publication rather than the actual viewing of blasphemy that offends them – and really, 'offence' is too Western-liberal a concept fully to cover their response.
posted by topynate at 9:35 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
The FT have an article up (surely soon to be widely excoriated) saying basically that murder is wrong (!) and that Charlie Hebdo had the right to print, but that they were stupid to do so. To which I would reply: so it would appear.
I would like newspapers to print the cartoons, but not on the front cover
I'm a consequentialist and Less Wrong reader myself, but the people this would attempt to protect from offence are neither. It's the publication rather than the actual viewing of blasphemy that offends them – and really, 'offence' is too Western-liberal a concept fully to cover their response.
posted by topynate at 9:35 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
RogerB,
From your link:
A detour. During the 'Troubles', one of Mrs Thatcher's most infamous acts was to send the SAS to shoot three unarmed IRA members in Gibraltar. Amnesty International considered this an outrageous case of extrajudicial killing and announced that it was launching a probe. The howls of scandal from the Tory benches were ably channeled by Mrs Thatcher, who sneeringly and cynically suggested from the dispatch box: ''I hope Amnesty has some concern for the more than 2,000 people murdered by the IRA since 1969".
Because the publication of objectionable, even racist material is exactly like the extra-judicial killing of three people. This is what I mean, these attempts to set up equivalence between what Charlie Hebdo did and what happened to them in the guise of "context" or analysis.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:36 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
From your link:
A detour. During the 'Troubles', one of Mrs Thatcher's most infamous acts was to send the SAS to shoot three unarmed IRA members in Gibraltar. Amnesty International considered this an outrageous case of extrajudicial killing and announced that it was launching a probe. The howls of scandal from the Tory benches were ably channeled by Mrs Thatcher, who sneeringly and cynically suggested from the dispatch box: ''I hope Amnesty has some concern for the more than 2,000 people murdered by the IRA since 1969".
Because the publication of objectionable, even racist material is exactly like the extra-judicial killing of three people. This is what I mean, these attempts to set up equivalence between what Charlie Hebdo did and what happened to them in the guise of "context" or analysis.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:36 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
NYPD "Hercules" unit outside French mission in Manhattan as a precaution following Paris terror attack
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:39 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:39 AM on January 7, 2015
"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you."
Jean-Paul Sartre
VIVE LA FRANCE!
posted by clavdivs at 9:41 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Jean-Paul Sartre
VIVE LA FRANCE!
posted by clavdivs at 9:41 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
If they're perfectly peaceful they're also plenty smart enough to understand why newspapers would take this action
These cartoons weren't published in the first place because Muslims need to grow up and learn about free speech. Ignoring the very obvious truth that white Europe is growing more anti-Islamic every day (and anti-Semitic, and anti-Roma, and basically anti-everything that isn't Old White Europe, more or less) ignores the fact that Charlie Hebdo printed a lot of cartoons that, while perhaps not malicious in intent, were still pretty goddamned racist and punch-down fodder in a country that's been treating Muslims like shit for decades regardless of whether said Muslims are extremists or the nice kind who run the kebab shop one likes.
Yes, the magazine had the right to print them; yes, nobody deserved to die over them. Those are obvious truths as well, which do not conflict with the additional truth that many of the cartoons themselves were racist, offensive, and more often than not unfunny as well. Republishing them because You Have Decided Islam Needs To Learn A Lesson About Tolerance is just putting the boot to Muslims in service of a paternalistic worldview.
posted by mightygodking at 9:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [84 favorites]
These cartoons weren't published in the first place because Muslims need to grow up and learn about free speech. Ignoring the very obvious truth that white Europe is growing more anti-Islamic every day (and anti-Semitic, and anti-Roma, and basically anti-everything that isn't Old White Europe, more or less) ignores the fact that Charlie Hebdo printed a lot of cartoons that, while perhaps not malicious in intent, were still pretty goddamned racist and punch-down fodder in a country that's been treating Muslims like shit for decades regardless of whether said Muslims are extremists or the nice kind who run the kebab shop one likes.
Yes, the magazine had the right to print them; yes, nobody deserved to die over them. Those are obvious truths as well, which do not conflict with the additional truth that many of the cartoons themselves were racist, offensive, and more often than not unfunny as well. Republishing them because You Have Decided Islam Needs To Learn A Lesson About Tolerance is just putting the boot to Muslims in service of a paternalistic worldview.
posted by mightygodking at 9:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [84 favorites]
.
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:44 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:44 AM on January 7, 2015
Republishing them because You Have Decided Islam Needs To Learn A Lesson About Tolerance is just putting the boot to Muslims in service of a paternalistic worldview.
How about republishing them because they are worthy of being seen?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:45 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
How about republishing them because they are worthy of being seen?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:45 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Toutes mes condoléances, Berend.
posted by fraula at 9:45 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Toutes mes condoléances, Berend.
posted by fraula at 9:45 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
. . . . . . . . . . . .
posted by So You're Saying These Are Pants? at 9:46 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by So You're Saying These Are Pants? at 9:46 AM on January 7, 2015
Arab Spring activist Iyad el-Baghdadi's statement is worth circulating: "As a Muslim, killing innocent people in the name of Islam is much, much more offensive to me than any cartoon can ever be." Not because it's unique, but because it's representative of many.
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [48 favorites]
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [48 favorites]
I'm a consequentialist and Less Wrong reader myself, but the people this would attempt to protect from offence are neither. It's the publication rather than the actual viewing of blasphemy that offends them – and really, 'offence' is too Western-liberal a concept fully to cover their response.
I suspect you're right about the matter of fact, but the point is for the newspapers to do what is moral. If some Muslims are foolish enough to get upset about Mohammed in the centrefold, that's no longer the papers' moral problem: they've gone to reasonable lengths to avoid hurting people while demonstrating their commitment to free speech (another moral value).
As a bonus, it also puts the "allies" in a bit more of a conundrum: what other publications whose contents (rather than covers) Muslims find blasphemous should be not/un-published, would they say? You can see why Rushdie has taken an interest.
posted by pw201 at 9:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I suspect you're right about the matter of fact, but the point is for the newspapers to do what is moral. If some Muslims are foolish enough to get upset about Mohammed in the centrefold, that's no longer the papers' moral problem: they've gone to reasonable lengths to avoid hurting people while demonstrating their commitment to free speech (another moral value).
As a bonus, it also puts the "allies" in a bit more of a conundrum: what other publications whose contents (rather than covers) Muslims find blasphemous should be not/un-published, would they say? You can see why Rushdie has taken an interest.
posted by pw201 at 9:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
How about republishing them because they are worthy of being seen?
I've seen them, because it's not hard to find them. They're not particularly clever, just as the last batch of cartoons that pissed off Muslims weren't particularly clever.
posted by mightygodking at 9:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
I've seen them, because it's not hard to find them. They're not particularly clever, just as the last batch of cartoons that pissed off Muslims weren't particularly clever.
posted by mightygodking at 9:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
How is 'Muslims have no agency' not the paternalistic worldview, again?
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:48 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:48 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
I suspect you're right about the matter of fact, but the point is for the newspapers to do what is moral. If some Muslims are foolish enough to get upset about Mohammed in the centrefold, that's no longer the papers' moral problem: they've gone to reasonable lengths to avoid hurting people while demonstrating their commitment to free speech (another moral value).
They are not upset about seeing images of the prophet, they are upset that they exist at all.
posted by ymgve at 9:48 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
They are not upset about seeing images of the prophet, they are upset that they exist at all.
posted by ymgve at 9:48 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Islam is a religion, not a race; doesn't make any sense to keep calling all secularist opponents of Islam racists.
posted by resurrexit at 9:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by resurrexit at 9:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
I've seen them, because it's not hard to find them. They're not particularly clever, just as the last batch of cartoons that pissed off Muslims weren't particularly clever.
The Cradle Will Rock wasn't particularly clever, either, but it's one of the most important pieces of theatre ever performed.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Cradle Will Rock wasn't particularly clever, either, but it's one of the most important pieces of theatre ever performed.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, part of the problem is one person's clever, biting satire is another person's gratuitous gut-punch, and there's no real empirical way to decide where on the continuum any particular work is other than getting a general sense of whatever audience is discussing it at the time.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
............
I'm most familiar with Wolinski, he was a gifted satirist.
posted by bouvin at 9:51 AM on January 7, 2015
I'm most familiar with Wolinski, he was a gifted satirist.
posted by bouvin at 9:51 AM on January 7, 2015
I don't know whether this is just too obvious to mention or whether I have a different perspective from living in Israel, but one reason to republish or publish this sort of material is to spread the risk. It's currently rare enough for any sizable publication to print images offensive to Islam that anyone who does is in a small and easily targetable group.
posted by topynate at 9:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by topynate at 9:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
yes, let's do something that the overwhelming majority of perfectly peaceful Muslims find offensive
Honestly, so what if they find it offensive? Being offended is not the worst thing in the world, not by a long shot. Violent religious extremists cannot be allowed to dictate what is and what is not acceptable to think and say. That the cartoons weren't clever or were offensive to people's sensibilities or whatever else is completely immaterial.
posted by seymourScagnetti at 9:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [56 favorites]
Honestly, so what if they find it offensive? Being offended is not the worst thing in the world, not by a long shot. Violent religious extremists cannot be allowed to dictate what is and what is not acceptable to think and say. That the cartoons weren't clever or were offensive to people's sensibilities or whatever else is completely immaterial.
posted by seymourScagnetti at 9:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [56 favorites]
Not sure how related this is, but security has in fact been beefed up in the US. My brother just texted there are police/military with M16s guarding the New York Fed, who are not normally there.
I'm not sure if the Federal Protective Service guards the Fed or not, but the FPS, the NYPD and other police agencies active in NYC have roving "show of force" patrols that means you might just have a coincidence here, where there was a preplanned show of force outside the Fed for today. This happens regularly at other federal office buildings at random, not in response to any threat.
Now the Hercules team outside the French Consulate that sounds like it might be security reaction.
posted by Jahaza at 9:53 AM on January 7, 2015
I'm not sure if the Federal Protective Service guards the Fed or not, but the FPS, the NYPD and other police agencies active in NYC have roving "show of force" patrols that means you might just have a coincidence here, where there was a preplanned show of force outside the Fed for today. This happens regularly at other federal office buildings at random, not in response to any threat.
Now the Hercules team outside the French Consulate that sounds like it might be security reaction.
posted by Jahaza at 9:53 AM on January 7, 2015
FWIW, Vox has republished a ton of the cartoons today.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:53 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:53 AM on January 7, 2015
Islam is a religion, not a race; doesn't make any sense to keep calling all secularist opponents of Islam racists.
The Venn diagram may be thin on one edge.
posted by Artw at 9:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
The Venn diagram may be thin on one edge.
posted by Artw at 9:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Spanner Nic: How is 'Muslims have no agency' not the paternalistic worldview, again?
You know what? A whole lot of the ones that end up getting radicalized don't have anything one could call true "agency". Many Muslim theocracies and tribal institutions radicalize the populace by subjugating them, so even if the inertia of centuries of doing things a certain way weren't enough, the threat of having their livelihood or life taken away from them by the theocractic power structures would be. That doesn't mean you give the radicals who do control the levers of power in these places a free pass, but it needs to be looked at more systemically than many including Bill Maher and Sam Harris are.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
You know what? A whole lot of the ones that end up getting radicalized don't have anything one could call true "agency". Many Muslim theocracies and tribal institutions radicalize the populace by subjugating them, so even if the inertia of centuries of doing things a certain way weren't enough, the threat of having their livelihood or life taken away from them by the theocractic power structures would be. That doesn't mean you give the radicals who do control the levers of power in these places a free pass, but it needs to be looked at more systemically than many including Bill Maher and Sam Harris are.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is frightening and terrible. We were in Paris a few months ago and currently live in Qatar. Expat teachers have already received one warning from the U.S. embassy. In 2010 an Egyptian programmer tried to drive a car bomb into a theater frequented by Westerners. My fear is that this will encourage other freelancers eager to align themselves with ISIS.
posted by craniac at 9:55 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by craniac at 9:55 AM on January 7, 2015
It would be a lot easier to swallow these "guys, violence is wrong and free speech is great but these comics are racist so let's take the high road" comments if there weren't a gun against the head of anyone who does publish them.
It seems like a pretty convenient rationalization for caving to a threat of violence.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [40 favorites]
It seems like a pretty convenient rationalization for caving to a threat of violence.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [40 favorites]
"Pierre, we face double average unemployment, widespread housing and employment discrimination, persecution from the state and beatings from neo-fascist thugs. What can we do?"
"Easy, Abdul, we kill some cartoonists!"
posted by klangklangston at 9:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Easy, Abdul, we kill some cartoonists!"
posted by klangklangston at 9:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Is Charlie Hebdo actually left-wing?
None of their Islam cartoons have ever been remotely left-wing, or indeed funny. They were awful, and that they are about to be held up as the reason why we should have a free press just makes all this terrible event even more depressing.
.
posted by colie at 10:00 AM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
None of their Islam cartoons have ever been remotely left-wing, or indeed funny. They were awful, and that they are about to be held up as the reason why we should have a free press just makes all this terrible event even more depressing.
.
posted by colie at 10:00 AM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
By contrast, the UK's 'Private Eye' magazine has consistently published cartoons that wittily mocked the craziness of fundamentalist Islam, with no trouble at all. Just this xmas they had one entitled 'Jihad-vent Calendar', which was an advent-calendar style card that just had a really angry bearded guy behind each flap.
Made Charlie Hebdo's cartoons look very much like the 30s anti-Jew cartoons we are all familiar with.
posted by colie at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
Made Charlie Hebdo's cartoons look very much like the 30s anti-Jew cartoons we are all familiar with.
posted by colie at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
No one deserves to die for a satirical cartoon, even if it's "awful".
posted by tommasz at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
But you implicitly are. You are and MartinWisse and gorbweaver and that Bruce Crumley piece Joe in Australia link to above are all engaging in blaming the victim and tacitly saying Charlie Hebdo deserved what they got.
Bollocks.
The idea that you should fully support whatever the loudest voices say is what the victims of a terrorist attack would've wanted is how we got the War on Iraq. That you can't criticise US foreign policy because 9/11.
I found the original 2005 Danish cartoons stunt juvenile and likely to do more harm than good, while Charlie Hebdo's jumping on that bandwagon a couple of years afterwards seemed to me at the time as a misguided attempt by an aging satirical magazine to become relevant again. There was a racist, Islamophobic undertone to their satire, their efforts made Islamophobia that little bit more respectable ("even the leftist Charlie Hebdo..") and this isn't changed because they were murdered.
It's not victim blaming to say this. I can be shocked and outraged by this atrocity and still dislike some of what Charlie Hebdo did.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [65 favorites]
Bollocks.
The idea that you should fully support whatever the loudest voices say is what the victims of a terrorist attack would've wanted is how we got the War on Iraq. That you can't criticise US foreign policy because 9/11.
I found the original 2005 Danish cartoons stunt juvenile and likely to do more harm than good, while Charlie Hebdo's jumping on that bandwagon a couple of years afterwards seemed to me at the time as a misguided attempt by an aging satirical magazine to become relevant again. There was a racist, Islamophobic undertone to their satire, their efforts made Islamophobia that little bit more respectable ("even the leftist Charlie Hebdo..") and this isn't changed because they were murdered.
It's not victim blaming to say this. I can be shocked and outraged by this atrocity and still dislike some of what Charlie Hebdo did.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [65 favorites]
I would like newspapers to print the cartoons, but not on the front cover: Mohammed pictures should have trigger warnings.
Oh man charlie hebdo would have run with that double entendre BIG TIME.
posted by lalochezia at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
Oh man charlie hebdo would have run with that double entendre BIG TIME.
posted by lalochezia at 10:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
This is such a terrible thing, done by terrible people.
Yeah, your posts probably need to be highlighted and have red circles drawn around them, as they summarize a lot of the context that the FPP and most comments are missing. Charlie Hebdo does have a history of being inflammatory/borderline-Islamophobic, the Houellebecq novel sounds intentionally inflammatory/borderline-Islamophobic and French society in general right now seems to lean a bit in that direction, so. Urk. Violence will only escalate the horribleness, but it's not exactly the US vs. Naked Lunch. I'm not really shocked that this happened; just vaguely fearful that it will of course result in more intense Islamophobia, and more intense reactions to same.
On satire, no. Satire can be hurful to people. It can harm groups of people. It very much depends on context, and is something that can be wielded to promote racism, sexism or any other sort of bigotry. We had a cool thread on turn of the century satire of the women's rights movement not that long ago. A lot of those have been reversed by the flow of time and now feel kind of awesome (all those la Maupin types sitting around smoking and playing cards? those are some role models!) but that's a clear example of satire aimed at not-good goals. Satire is not itself a good or on the side of justice. Sometimes, even if you have good intentions, your satire ends up damaging the cause you want to strengthen. It's fickle.
Also: I am so weary of people making dumb statements about "Religion." If your working definition is, "archaic unreason" or "some stupid way of explaining the world before we had Science™" or some other flavor of kneejerky and you have strong opinions on the role of religions within societies and you want to keep those opinions, you desparately need to actually do the work and study the history, thought and subtance of world religions. Stop pretending that an enormous part of human thought and history is somehow beneath you to know the first thing about. Because your concept of what religions are and what they are intended to do is foolish and inaccurate, and you blind yourself to the ways in which all human organizations--religious, secular, political, satirical--can be infected by institutionalism and dogma. You run the risk of emulating all the things you ostensibly hate about religions, but as atheists.
posted by byanyothername at 10:05 AM on January 7, 2015 [80 favorites]
Yeah, your posts probably need to be highlighted and have red circles drawn around them, as they summarize a lot of the context that the FPP and most comments are missing. Charlie Hebdo does have a history of being inflammatory/borderline-Islamophobic, the Houellebecq novel sounds intentionally inflammatory/borderline-Islamophobic and French society in general right now seems to lean a bit in that direction, so. Urk. Violence will only escalate the horribleness, but it's not exactly the US vs. Naked Lunch. I'm not really shocked that this happened; just vaguely fearful that it will of course result in more intense Islamophobia, and more intense reactions to same.
On satire, no. Satire can be hurful to people. It can harm groups of people. It very much depends on context, and is something that can be wielded to promote racism, sexism or any other sort of bigotry. We had a cool thread on turn of the century satire of the women's rights movement not that long ago. A lot of those have been reversed by the flow of time and now feel kind of awesome (all those la Maupin types sitting around smoking and playing cards? those are some role models!) but that's a clear example of satire aimed at not-good goals. Satire is not itself a good or on the side of justice. Sometimes, even if you have good intentions, your satire ends up damaging the cause you want to strengthen. It's fickle.
Also: I am so weary of people making dumb statements about "Religion." If your working definition is, "archaic unreason" or "some stupid way of explaining the world before we had Science™" or some other flavor of kneejerky and you have strong opinions on the role of religions within societies and you want to keep those opinions, you desparately need to actually do the work and study the history, thought and subtance of world religions. Stop pretending that an enormous part of human thought and history is somehow beneath you to know the first thing about. Because your concept of what religions are and what they are intended to do is foolish and inaccurate, and you blind yourself to the ways in which all human organizations--religious, secular, political, satirical--can be infected by institutionalism and dogma. You run the risk of emulating all the things you ostensibly hate about religions, but as atheists.
posted by byanyothername at 10:05 AM on January 7, 2015 [80 favorites]
None of their Islam cartoons have ever been remotely left-wing, or indeed funny. They were awful
Could someone link to a representative repository of these cartoons? I can't say I paid much attention to the magazine in the past and I really don't have that much of a sense of what the general tone of their comments on Islam was. I think some of the comments I've read are conflating their work with the Danish cartoons (which I think we've all seen), but I'd be interested to know what their own material actually was.
posted by yoink at 10:05 AM on January 7, 2015
Could someone link to a representative repository of these cartoons? I can't say I paid much attention to the magazine in the past and I really don't have that much of a sense of what the general tone of their comments on Islam was. I think some of the comments I've read are conflating their work with the Danish cartoons (which I think we've all seen), but I'd be interested to know what their own material actually was.
posted by yoink at 10:05 AM on January 7, 2015
I can be shocked and outraged by this atrocity and still dislike some of what Charlie Hebdo did
Absolutely, and that is an important opinion to try and keep alive during the media deafening we are about to go through.
posted by colie at 10:05 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
Absolutely, and that is an important opinion to try and keep alive during the media deafening we are about to go through.
posted by colie at 10:05 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
Statement from Maryam Namazie (who does good work with her colleagues in England opposing both xenophobic & racist anti-Muslim sentiment and those who undermine liberty in the name of Islam):
The Islamists who killed today said they were “avenging” Islam’s prophet but Mohammed cartoons are merely an excuse. The aim of such acts of terrorism – whether in Paris or Afghanistan – are to defend their theocratic and inhuman values. They must know that we too will defend our human values – secularism, equality, citizenship, the right to religion and to be free from religion, the right to criticise and mock religion… which are not “western” values but universal ones.posted by audi alteram partem at 10:08 AM on January 7, 2015 [33 favorites]
The people who did this heinous act were using "Islam" as a mask for their intolerance.
And the victims were using "satire" as a mask for theirs.
This should not have had a body count, and you just plain don't murder people you disagree with. But let's not pretend CH was gently poking fun at authority. This was a clash between two differen types of intolerant fervors.
posted by Legomancer at 10:11 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
And the victims were using "satire" as a mask for theirs.
This should not have had a body count, and you just plain don't murder people you disagree with. But let's not pretend CH was gently poking fun at authority. This was a clash between two differen types of intolerant fervors.
posted by Legomancer at 10:11 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Because your concept of what religions are and what they are intended to do is foolish and inaccurate, and you blind yourself to the ways in which all human organizations--religious, secular, political, satirical--can be infected by institutionalism and dogma. You run the risk of emulating all the things you ostensibly hate about religions, but as atheists.
You're wearing your indoctrination on your sleeve, and have a very interesting view of what "religions are intended to do" when they've been "intended" to do everything under the sun at one point or another by their adherents and leaders all throughout recorded human history. The "intended" use for religion has been for good, for evil, for the silly, the strange, the noble, the vain.
posted by chimaera at 10:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
You're wearing your indoctrination on your sleeve, and have a very interesting view of what "religions are intended to do" when they've been "intended" to do everything under the sun at one point or another by their adherents and leaders all throughout recorded human history. The "intended" use for religion has been for good, for evil, for the silly, the strange, the noble, the vain.
posted by chimaera at 10:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
And the victims were using "satire" as a mask for theirs.
Yo, hi, can we stop victim blaming here. Including the fact that two police officers who had nothing to do with the magazine were shot dead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [49 favorites]
Yo, hi, can we stop victim blaming here. Including the fact that two police officers who had nothing to do with the magazine were shot dead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [49 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo does have a history of being inflammatory/borderline-Islamophobic, the Houellebecq novel sounds intentionally inflammatory/borderline-Islamophobic and French society in general right now seems to lean a bit in that direction, so. Urk. Violence will only escalate the horribleness, but it's not exactly the US vs. Naked Lunch. I'm not really shocked that this happened; just vaguely fearful that it will of course result in more intense Islamophobia, and more intense reactions to same.
This really is victim blaming. And I think it might be nice to be also afraid that if these murderers get the reaction they want - even more Islamophobia - more and more of them will try this sort of specific actionbecause it worked. And it working also includes blaming people for publishing things that they have a perfect right to, even if you don't like it, and more or less implying that if you do that sort of thing this is the reaction you should expect.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 10:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
This really is victim blaming. And I think it might be nice to be also afraid that if these murderers get the reaction they want - even more Islamophobia - more and more of them will try this sort of specific actionbecause it worked. And it working also includes blaming people for publishing things that they have a perfect right to, even if you don't like it, and more or less implying that if you do that sort of thing this is the reaction you should expect.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 10:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
The people who did this heinous act were using "Islam" as a mask for their intolerance.
And the victims were using "satire" as a mask for theirs.
Yeah! It's kind of like when people make fun of David Foster Wallace on MetaFilter and cause a flame war!
posted by Nevin at 10:15 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
And the victims were using "satire" as a mask for theirs.
Yeah! It's kind of like when people make fun of David Foster Wallace on MetaFilter and cause a flame war!
posted by Nevin at 10:15 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
The people who did this heinous act were using "Islam" as a mask for their intolerance.
And the victims were using "satire" as a mask for theirs.
This should not have had a body count, and you just plain don't murder people you disagree with. But let's not pretend CH was gently poking fun at authority. This was a clash between two differen types of intolerant fervors.
Legomancer
At least you're open about blaming the victims for their deaths. A refreshingly honest post in this thread.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:17 AM on January 7, 2015 [23 favorites]
And the victims were using "satire" as a mask for theirs.
This should not have had a body count, and you just plain don't murder people you disagree with. But let's not pretend CH was gently poking fun at authority. This was a clash between two differen types of intolerant fervors.
Legomancer
At least you're open about blaming the victims for their deaths. A refreshingly honest post in this thread.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:17 AM on January 7, 2015 [23 favorites]
Legomancer, without any suggestion that you not make whatever argument about Charlie Hebdo that you want to, the parallelism between them and the people who murdered them is really ill-advised.
posted by topynate at 10:17 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by topynate at 10:17 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Personally, I think the most salient observation in the entire thread is that this attack by Islamic purists against a French satire magazine is actually a proxy attack on all liberal and moderate muslims, attempting (and we'll see how effective it is) to inflame and use the anti-Islam factions as their catspaw, with the purpose of bringing the liberals/moderates to heel and increasing the influence of the purists.
posted by chimaera at 10:18 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by chimaera at 10:18 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Agence France-Presse @afpfr ·
#JeSuisCharlie L'hommage des personnels de l'AFP #AFP
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
#JeSuisCharlie L'hommage des personnels de l'AFP #AFP
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yoink, Charlie Hebdo's take on Islam is indeed offensive. Their take on Christianity, Judaism, the far-right, capitalists, communists, drug-takers, anti-drug-takers, Gerard Depardieu, beauty shows, football, and everything else is offensive. They are an unbendingly anti-authoritarian, anti-ideological publication, deride everything, and love everyone. You can see a lot of recent covers with a simple Image Search. Anyone calling them 'racist' shows a flabbergasting ignorance of the context.
posted by Spanner Nic at 10:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [39 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 10:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [39 favorites]
I think there is a place for discussing the quality of satire the magazine produced, and the implications of their particular brand of satire. But I also think, just now, that this discussion is inevitably going to seem like victim blaming, and is, in fact, an entirely different discussion than the one concerning the shooting.
posted by maxsparber at 10:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 10:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
And the victims were using "satire" as a mask for theirs.
This should not have had a body count, and you just plain don't murder people you disagree with. But let's not pretend CH was gently poking fun at authority.
Of course they were poking fun at authority. Authority does not necessarily mean the government or the privileged majority group. "Authority" in this context is a nebulous group of fanatics who have expressed the desire and the capability to kill you for publishing things they don't like. The fact that Charlie was willing to stand up to these barbaric threats speaks to their extraordinary bravery and moral strength.
posted by seymourScagnetti at 10:23 AM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
This should not have had a body count, and you just plain don't murder people you disagree with. But let's not pretend CH was gently poking fun at authority.
Of course they were poking fun at authority. Authority does not necessarily mean the government or the privileged majority group. "Authority" in this context is a nebulous group of fanatics who have expressed the desire and the capability to kill you for publishing things they don't like. The fact that Charlie was willing to stand up to these barbaric threats speaks to their extraordinary bravery and moral strength.
posted by seymourScagnetti at 10:23 AM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
I think there is a place for discussing the quality of satire the magazine produced
Why not here? I think we all agree that tooling up with AK47s and blowing people away is wrong - but the media will give us nothing else but that for the next month.
posted by colie at 10:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why not here? I think we all agree that tooling up with AK47s and blowing people away is wrong - but the media will give us nothing else but that for the next month.
posted by colie at 10:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why not here?
For the same reason you don't discuss what somebody was wearing when they were assaulted, even when they could use a few fashion pointers.
posted by maxsparber at 10:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
For the same reason you don't discuss what somebody was wearing when they were assaulted, even when they could use a few fashion pointers.
posted by maxsparber at 10:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Why not here?
Maybe we could wait until the people killed were buried, or at least cold.
posted by zabuni at 10:26 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Maybe we could wait until the people killed were buried, or at least cold.
posted by zabuni at 10:26 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
One of the cartoonists killed, Cabu, wrote Mon Beauf, a comic so savagely skewering the average Frenchman's racism, pettiness, and self-satisfaction that the word 'Beauf' entered common language. Anyone calling him racist can only be referred to as an ignorant prick.
posted by Spanner Nic at 10:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [40 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 10:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [40 favorites]
It is an act of political violence rather than anything else. It is coated in religion, of course, but I read it as polical violence. And a dot from me before I say more..
.
It is an act designed to provoke even more polarisation which in turn will create further acts of political violence etc. It is a very sad spiral of events and one which the media coverage is perpetuating. I am yet again reminded of Charlie Brooker's take on responsible media coverage of mass shootings.
posted by kariebookish at 10:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
.
It is an act designed to provoke even more polarisation which in turn will create further acts of political violence etc. It is a very sad spiral of events and one which the media coverage is perpetuating. I am yet again reminded of Charlie Brooker's take on responsible media coverage of mass shootings.
posted by kariebookish at 10:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Maybe we could wait until the people killed were buried, or at least cold."
To be fair, these are cartoonists known for transgressive humor. Treating their deaths with too much solemn reverence seems to be out of character.
posted by klangklangston at 10:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
To be fair, these are cartoonists known for transgressive humor. Treating their deaths with too much solemn reverence seems to be out of character.
posted by klangklangston at 10:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Spanner Nic: Anyone calling them 'racist' shows a flabbergasting ignorance of the context.
QFT.
posted by bouvin at 10:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
QFT.
posted by bouvin at 10:28 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
21 responses to the shooting by fellow cartoonists.
At first I was reluctant to link this, but to their credit Buzzfeed doesn't appear to have placed any advertising on the page.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:29 AM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
At first I was reluctant to link this, but to their credit Buzzfeed doesn't appear to have placed any advertising on the page.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:29 AM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
To be fair, these are cartoonists known for transgressive humor. Treating their deaths with too much solemn reverence seems to be out of character.
Exactly - and if you want hand-wringing, you'll get that 24/7 everywhere else.
posted by colie at 10:31 AM on January 7, 2015
Exactly - and if you want hand-wringing, you'll get that 24/7 everywhere else.
posted by colie at 10:31 AM on January 7, 2015
Former ‘Onion’ editor: Freedom of speech cannot be killed
posted by josher71 at 10:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by josher71 at 10:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
There's a big difference between solemn reverence and victim blaming.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
They are not upset about seeing images of the prophet, they are upset that they exist at all.
Yeah, I know, and I said that's just bad luck for them, because free speech is also a good.
I agree that the cartoons should be republished not because they're particularly amazing examples of satire, but in an "I'm Spartacus!" way (though hopefully not with the same outcome).
As to whether criticism of Islam is racist, I liked Russell Blackford's take:
Yeah, I know, and I said that's just bad luck for them, because free speech is also a good.
I agree that the cartoons should be republished not because they're particularly amazing examples of satire, but in an "I'm Spartacus!" way (though hopefully not with the same outcome).
As to whether criticism of Islam is racist, I liked Russell Blackford's take:
After all, there are reasons why extreme-right organizations have borrowed arguments based on feminism and secularism. These arguments are useful precisely because they have an intellectual and emotional appeal independent of their convenience to extreme-right opportunists. Regardless of who uses these arguments, they plausibly apply to certain elements of Islam, or at least to attitudes and practices associated with it. Whether or not they are put in good faith by organizations such as the BNP, nothing precludes them being put sincerely, and perhaps cogently, by others who are genuinely passionate about the issues.posted by pw201 at 10:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
There is a difference between blaming the victims and pointing out that what they were publishing was not pointed satire but outright racist caricature. Should they have died for it? Not at all. Did they have a right to publish it? Sure. They are the victims of this crime, full stop.
But that also doesn't make them Mark Twain or Salman Rushdie. They were not taking shots at the entrenched majority to the benefit of a voiceless minority. They were not putting a fine point of criticism on Islam as a way to start a discussion. They were basically punching down with the majority on a widely hated group using ugly, racist stereotypes.
I am not sentencing them to death for doing so. I'm not saying they deserved what they got. By all means we need to condemn the crime. But getting unjustly murdered does not suddenly elevate this stuff into nuanced satirical art.
But hey, keep talking about the savage barbarians who did this. There's no racist element at all.
posted by Legomancer at 10:36 AM on January 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
But that also doesn't make them Mark Twain or Salman Rushdie. They were not taking shots at the entrenched majority to the benefit of a voiceless minority. They were not putting a fine point of criticism on Islam as a way to start a discussion. They were basically punching down with the majority on a widely hated group using ugly, racist stereotypes.
I am not sentencing them to death for doing so. I'm not saying they deserved what they got. By all means we need to condemn the crime. But getting unjustly murdered does not suddenly elevate this stuff into nuanced satirical art.
But hey, keep talking about the savage barbarians who did this. There's no racist element at all.
posted by Legomancer at 10:36 AM on January 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
What I'm not seeing mentioned, and AM seeing overlooked, is that this is a bit more nuanced than a simple matter of "it was a mocking/satirical/offensive picture" - because in Islam, it was a problem that there was a picture at all, as I understand it. It is considered blasphemous to make any kind of graphic representation of Muhammed, even a flattering one.
I keep seeing responses like the Onion cartoon empath linked here - where people are all, "hey, here's a nasty picture of Jesus and ain't no one gonna shoot us for it." And that's as may be, but as Christianity doesn't have any kind of rule in place prohibiting people from making ANY picture of Jesus, it's also a false equivalence. There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion, and the two are not equivalent.
But even so - using a gun is NOT the appropriate way to respond when your religion has been mocked, even to that extent.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:37 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I keep seeing responses like the Onion cartoon empath linked here - where people are all, "hey, here's a nasty picture of Jesus and ain't no one gonna shoot us for it." And that's as may be, but as Christianity doesn't have any kind of rule in place prohibiting people from making ANY picture of Jesus, it's also a false equivalence. There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion, and the two are not equivalent.
But even so - using a gun is NOT the appropriate way to respond when your religion has been mocked, even to that extent.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:37 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Pierre, we face double average unemployment, widespread housing and employment discrimination, persecution from the state and beatings from neo-fascist thugs. What can we do?"
"Easy, Abdul, we kill some cartoonists!"
I'm seeing a lot of cartoons along this line on twitter and they kind of bother me. It makes the implication that the motivation of fascist jihadist mass murderers has something to do with the motivations of average people fighting against racism and bigotry. Or sometimes they make the implication that jihadist fascists would be somehow bothered by their mass murders causing more anti-Islamism and creating more religious conflict, when that is clearly part of their intention. I would like to see harsher cartoons targeting jihadists and nazis and less cartoons offending Muslims generally. Cartoons promoting social equality should preferably not involve any mass-murderers.
@yurybarmin: Paris. Now. #CharlieHebdo
@NickCohen4: "French protesters at the Je suis Charlie demo in Trafalgar Square cracking everyone up by singing La Marseillaise"
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:37 AM on January 7, 2015
"Easy, Abdul, we kill some cartoonists!"
I'm seeing a lot of cartoons along this line on twitter and they kind of bother me. It makes the implication that the motivation of fascist jihadist mass murderers has something to do with the motivations of average people fighting against racism and bigotry. Or sometimes they make the implication that jihadist fascists would be somehow bothered by their mass murders causing more anti-Islamism and creating more religious conflict, when that is clearly part of their intention. I would like to see harsher cartoons targeting jihadists and nazis and less cartoons offending Muslims generally. Cartoons promoting social equality should preferably not involve any mass-murderers.
@yurybarmin: Paris. Now. #CharlieHebdo
@NickCohen4: "French protesters at the Je suis Charlie demo in Trafalgar Square cracking everyone up by singing La Marseillaise"
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:37 AM on January 7, 2015
*puts hand in sock puppet*: I hate progress and wish death to free speech!
*puts other hand in sock puppet wearing glasses*: Save your politically correct pieties for the rainbow gumdrop feelings hour, this is the real world and people are dead.
posted by gorbweaver at 10:38 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
*puts other hand in sock puppet wearing glasses*: Save your politically correct pieties for the rainbow gumdrop feelings hour, this is the real world and people are dead.
posted by gorbweaver at 10:38 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
But that also doesn't make them Mark Twain or Salman Rushdie.
It doesn't? I would argue that it actually does. Anyone who is cut down for free speech or free thought or free press is Salman Rushdie.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:38 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
It doesn't? I would argue that it actually does. Anyone who is cut down for free speech or free thought or free press is Salman Rushdie.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:38 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion, and the two are not equivalent.
Nothing is sacred. When you make a box and mark it "sacred", you're making a box and marking it "unfree".
posted by Thing at 10:40 AM on January 7, 2015 [34 favorites]
Nothing is sacred. When you make a box and mark it "sacred", you're making a box and marking it "unfree".
posted by Thing at 10:40 AM on January 7, 2015 [34 favorites]
Mod note: A couple more comments removed. Folks, you know the moment you click into this thread that it's a hard, charged subject that is not going to get better with dismissiveness or rhetorical escalation. Make the effort, whatever your specific angle on this discussion, to take a step or two back as necessary to avoid contributing to that. If there's any reason for there to be a thread about this, it's not that we need to holler at each other.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:41 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:41 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion
I'm not sure what satire looks like if it's not mocking something that its adherents don't think should be mocked. Jay Leno?
posted by spaltavian at 10:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [25 favorites]
I'm not sure what satire looks like if it's not mocking something that its adherents don't think should be mocked. Jay Leno?
posted by spaltavian at 10:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [25 favorites]
There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion, and the two are not equivalent.
This.
And that that is seperate from the actuality of what happened, a driveby shooting of innocent bystanders.
When conflated due to the horrific nature of the act and the deliberate usage of it by the perpetrators, it denies the insult to the moderate peaceful majority, who are then asked to accept it as the price of western values. Is this different from the vans driving through UK with banners saying Go Home?
posted by infini at 10:43 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
This.
And that that is seperate from the actuality of what happened, a driveby shooting of innocent bystanders.
When conflated due to the horrific nature of the act and the deliberate usage of it by the perpetrators, it denies the insult to the moderate peaceful majority, who are then asked to accept it as the price of western values. Is this different from the vans driving through UK with banners saying Go Home?
posted by infini at 10:43 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm somewhat skeptical of all these claims about victim blaming.
Victim blaming, as it's generally talked about, is talking about context. For certain crimes which are condoned by the dominant power structure, people focus on the context rather than the crime as a way of say "and that's why we don't really need to do anything about this".
Does anyone really think anyone in this thread is secretly apathetic to the actual crime here? Talking about context, talking about the victim's part in a crime isn't universally a bad thing, it's a bad thing in certain ways and in certain contexts. I don't think that's the case here.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:44 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Victim blaming, as it's generally talked about, is talking about context. For certain crimes which are condoned by the dominant power structure, people focus on the context rather than the crime as a way of say "and that's why we don't really need to do anything about this".
Does anyone really think anyone in this thread is secretly apathetic to the actual crime here? Talking about context, talking about the victim's part in a crime isn't universally a bad thing, it's a bad thing in certain ways and in certain contexts. I don't think that's the case here.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:44 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
I don't think that's the case here.
Sure it is. Plenty of comments here are saying that if the cartoons were less "racist, offensive, anti-Muslim" then the attacks wouldn't have happened. That's the exact definition of victim blaming.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
Sure it is. Plenty of comments here are saying that if the cartoons were less "racist, offensive, anti-Muslim" then the attacks wouldn't have happened. That's the exact definition of victim blaming.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
"I admire Salman for his work and his courage, and I respect his stand. Does that answer the larger debate which continues to this day?"
posted by clavdivs at 10:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 10:46 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
the victim's part in a crime
The victims' part in this crime was getting shot and nothing else. The culpability for the crime lies entirely with the people doing the shooting.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [43 favorites]
The victims' part in this crime was getting shot and nothing else. The culpability for the crime lies entirely with the people doing the shooting.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [43 favorites]
I think the best word to use here is not "intolerant" but instead "irreverent" (kind of like Monty Python's Life of Brian created a storm of controversy a generation ago).
I think it would be one thing to do this sort of thing within a culture where it is inappropriate (theoretically an Islamic country, although I think the "intolerance" for irreverence in those countries is wildly overstated).
In this case, it's France, the birthplace of free speech. I think if people want to be irreverent, and also demand that free speech be protected in France, then they have the right to say whatever they want (bearing in mind that France, unlike, say the US, actually has hate speech legislation).
posted by Nevin at 10:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think it would be one thing to do this sort of thing within a culture where it is inappropriate (theoretically an Islamic country, although I think the "intolerance" for irreverence in those countries is wildly overstated).
In this case, it's France, the birthplace of free speech. I think if people want to be irreverent, and also demand that free speech be protected in France, then they have the right to say whatever they want (bearing in mind that France, unlike, say the US, actually has hate speech legislation).
posted by Nevin at 10:47 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
@Legomancer: reading what you write about Charlie Hebdo ("what they were publishing was not pointed satire but outright racist caricature"), I wonder if you ever read their magazine or even saw the cartoons the outrage started over. Did you see the link to Vox @mareli provided? Are those cartoons "outright racist caricature" to you?
posted by Berend at 10:48 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Berend at 10:48 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
And that's as may be, but as Christianity doesn't have any kind of rule in place prohibiting people from making ANY picture of Jesus, it's also a false equivalence. There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion, and the two are not equivalent.
The rule against depiction is what is being mocked by that, specifically. And there have been times when depictions of Jesus have been banned by Christians. I'm sorry, but blasphemy is not a crime in most western nations, nor should it be.
posted by empath at 10:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
The rule against depiction is what is being mocked by that, specifically. And there have been times when depictions of Jesus have been banned by Christians. I'm sorry, but blasphemy is not a crime in most western nations, nor should it be.
posted by empath at 10:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
Or sometimes they make the implication that jihadist fascists would be somehow bothered by their mass murders causing more anti-Islamism and creating more religious conflict, when that is clearly part of their intention
Clearly? I'm sure there are some theocrats with that intention, but I think it's giving too much credit to most of them. I feel like many if not most of them are thugs attracted to a cause that gives them an excuse to be violent hateful in power. If they lived in a different time or place, these same people might have become Christian fanatics, Klan members or racist police.
Of course there are true believers, giving the intellectual or philosophical fig leaf for murder and oppression, but I think when we are talking about terrorist, we are generally talking about violent young men, who are indoctrinated.
This is to say that these murderers' earnest intention may have be to silence people they think insult Islam and frighten those who might do the same. I don't think it's a given they're more sophisticated than that.
posted by spaltavian at 10:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Clearly? I'm sure there are some theocrats with that intention, but I think it's giving too much credit to most of them. I feel like many if not most of them are thugs attracted to a cause that gives them an excuse to be violent hateful in power. If they lived in a different time or place, these same people might have become Christian fanatics, Klan members or racist police.
Of course there are true believers, giving the intellectual or philosophical fig leaf for murder and oppression, but I think when we are talking about terrorist, we are generally talking about violent young men, who are indoctrinated.
This is to say that these murderers' earnest intention may have be to silence people they think insult Islam and frighten those who might do the same. I don't think it's a given they're more sophisticated than that.
posted by spaltavian at 10:50 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
It is considered blasphemous to make any kind of graphic representation of Muhammed, even a flattering one.
It's not blasphemous to all Muslims everywhere. Let's just say it's complicated.
The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.[citation needed]
Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited[3] and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[4] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry.[5] In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions.[4][6] Still, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.[7]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
It's not blasphemous to all Muslims everywhere. Let's just say it's complicated.
The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.[citation needed]
Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited[3] and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[4] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry.[5] In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions.[4][6] Still, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.[7]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
, I wonder if you ever read their magazine or even saw the cartoons the outrage started over.
The one of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban? Yeah that was funny.
posted by colie at 10:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
The one of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban? Yeah that was funny.
posted by colie at 10:52 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure what satire looks like if it's not mocking something that its adherents don't think should be mocked. Jay Leno?
You've misread my point. Let me repeat:
"There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion."
And what I mean by that is: it's the difference between an atheist standing up in a Swedish church and heckling during the service, and an atheist secretly going undercover as a priest, actually getting into a Mass, going through with the Mass as normally, but then at the moment he has to start distributing the communion wafers, he pulls a can of Cheez-Whiz out from under his robe and gives each wafer a squirt like it's a canape.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
You've misread my point. Let me repeat:
"There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion."
And what I mean by that is: it's the difference between an atheist standing up in a Swedish church and heckling during the service, and an atheist secretly going undercover as a priest, actually getting into a Mass, going through with the Mass as normally, but then at the moment he has to start distributing the communion wafers, he pulls a can of Cheez-Whiz out from under his robe and gives each wafer a squirt like it's a canape.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
RIP.
Every free press on earth should consciously link to Charlie Hebdo's publications. Following, every Christian, Islamic, or any other religious person preaching violent revolution in any free country on earth should be jailed for inciting violence, with no connection to the outside world permitted.
posted by Vibrissae at 10:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Every free press on earth should consciously link to Charlie Hebdo's publications. Following, every Christian, Islamic, or any other religious person preaching violent revolution in any free country on earth should be jailed for inciting violence, with no connection to the outside world permitted.
posted by Vibrissae at 10:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
keep talking about the savage barbarians who did this. There's no racist element at all.
It's more like squares and rectangles. Any racist will them savage. Not everyone who calls them savage is racist.
I mean, I understand that "savage" and "barbarian" have historically been terms used by imperials against so-called "primitives", but I think you know very well those words are used in the common parlance to described particularly horrifying crimes.
posted by spaltavian at 10:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's more like squares and rectangles. Any racist will them savage. Not everyone who calls them savage is racist.
I mean, I understand that "savage" and "barbarian" have historically been terms used by imperials against so-called "primitives", but I think you know very well those words are used in the common parlance to described particularly horrifying crimes.
posted by spaltavian at 10:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm sorry, but blasphemy is not a crime in most western nations, nor should it be.
Absolutely. Sadly, it is in other nations. And complex problems arise when values from one context are dragged in through the front door into another context in an attempt to spread those very same values irregardless.
As a side note, I have been wondering why all the surveilance in the world today, put in place for exactly these kinds of things, didn't help?
posted by infini at 10:55 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Absolutely. Sadly, it is in other nations. And complex problems arise when values from one context are dragged in through the front door into another context in an attempt to spread those very same values irregardless.
As a side note, I have been wondering why all the surveilance in the world today, put in place for exactly these kinds of things, didn't help?
posted by infini at 10:55 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
We have found it's far easier to anger Christians or fans of Michael Schumacher.... Let me reiterate: If these attacks are the work of Islamists, then it makes satire even more relevant. Following such attacks, there should be more satire, and this will be the case for our magazine as well.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:55 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:55 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
The one of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban? Yeah that was funny.
But that wasn't one of theirs, was it? That was one of the Danish cartoons.
posted by yoink at 10:56 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
But that wasn't one of theirs, was it? That was one of the Danish cartoons.
posted by yoink at 10:56 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
it's the difference between an atheist standing up in a Swedish church and heckling during the service, and an atheist secretly going undercover as a priest, actually getting into a Mass, going through with the Mass as normally, but then at the moment he has to start distributing the communion wafers, he pulls a can of Cheez-Whiz out from under his robe and gives each wafer a squirt like it's a canape..
That makes absolutely no sense.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:56 AM on January 7, 2015 [37 favorites]
That makes absolutely no sense.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:56 AM on January 7, 2015 [37 favorites]
I'm sorry, but blasphemy is not a crime in most western nations, nor should it be.
Tell that to Jesse Helms and Rudy Giuliani.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Tell that to Jesse Helms and Rudy Giuliani.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The one of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban? Yeah that was funny.
That wasn't originally one of theirs. They reprinted it specifically as a free speech protest.
posted by Thing at 10:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
That wasn't originally one of theirs. They reprinted it specifically as a free speech protest.
posted by Thing at 10:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
The poll about French support for ISIS seems strange. The population is maybe 10% Muslim. It's extremely disheartening hearing they have a 40% unemployment rate, though (as well as the reliably racist Facebook comments afterwards).
It is up to the the community and the mods to determine what is appropriate discussion, and racist/extremist statements do derail conversations, but it's my personal wish that good-faith discussion becomes part of the cherished practices after death, and that we can appreciate people fully, both good and bad, while loving them.
posted by halifix at 10:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
It is up to the the community and the mods to determine what is appropriate discussion, and racist/extremist statements do derail conversations, but it's my personal wish that good-faith discussion becomes part of the cherished practices after death, and that we can appreciate people fully, both good and bad, while loving them.
posted by halifix at 10:57 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
That was one of the Danish cartoons.
Apologies - but didn't they reproduce them? If they had drawn them, there would have been a sexual element.
posted by colie at 10:58 AM on January 7, 2015
Apologies - but didn't they reproduce them? If they had drawn them, there would have been a sexual element.
posted by colie at 10:58 AM on January 7, 2015
it's the difference between an atheist standing up in a Swedish church and heckling during the service, and an atheist secretly going undercover as a priest, actually getting into a Mass, going through with the Mass as normally, but then at the moment he has to start distributing the communion wafers, he pulls a can of Cheez-Whiz out from under his robe and gives each wafer a squirt like it's a canape..
The latter would be a hell of a lot funnier.
posted by empath at 10:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
The latter would be a hell of a lot funnier.
posted by empath at 10:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
> They were not taking shots at the entrenched majority to the benefit of a voiceless minority.
Well, by all accounts, they were doing that also, but we're indulging in the same narrow focus that the killers were.
posted by Sunburnt at 10:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, by all accounts, they were doing that also, but we're indulging in the same narrow focus that the killers were.
posted by Sunburnt at 10:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what satire looks like if it's not mocking something that its adherents don't think should be mocked. Jay Leno?
You've misread my point. Let me repeat:
"There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion."
I believe I got your point, and I stand by my statement. The scenario you go on to describe makes no sense: there's a difference between actually disrupting a religious service and saying something about it.
You can't "misuse" something that's sacred. First of all, that's circular logic. I'm not Muslim, nothing in Islam is sacred to me. Secondly, if there's a part of a religion that's okay to mock, mocking that part really isn't satire, or not really the point of satire. Pretty sure no one has said "Behead those who make observational slice-of-life jokes about Islamic life in a respectful, approachable way".
posted by spaltavian at 11:00 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
You've misread my point. Let me repeat:
"There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion."
I believe I got your point, and I stand by my statement. The scenario you go on to describe makes no sense: there's a difference between actually disrupting a religious service and saying something about it.
You can't "misuse" something that's sacred. First of all, that's circular logic. I'm not Muslim, nothing in Islam is sacred to me. Secondly, if there's a part of a religion that's okay to mock, mocking that part really isn't satire, or not really the point of satire. Pretty sure no one has said "Behead those who make observational slice-of-life jokes about Islamic life in a respectful, approachable way".
posted by spaltavian at 11:00 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Mocking anything in a paper, in a country explicitly founded around ideas supporting the mocking and the subject of the mockery, as well as offering the opportunity to ignore said mocking or seek redress, is in fact not equivalent at all to any Swedish atheist or canapes.
posted by Spanner Nic at 11:01 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 11:01 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
> it's the difference between an atheist standing up in a Swedish church and heckling during the service, and an atheist secretly going undercover as a priest, actually getting into a Mass, going through with the Mass as normally, but then at the moment he has to start distributing the communion wafers, he pulls a can of Cheez-Whiz out from under his robe and gives each wafer a squirt like it's a canape..
The first one is parody, the second is parody with pastiche. (on reflection, possibly farce)
Satire would be eating flesh and drinking blood and calling it wafers and wine.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
The first one is parody, the second is parody with pastiche. (on reflection, possibly farce)
Satire would be eating flesh and drinking blood and calling it wafers and wine.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Why not?
Because to me it seems like a completely arbitrary distinction; I'm not sure of which is supposed to be worse. Is the implication that because the communion wafer is considered 'sacred' where the mass is not that it makes the second act worse? I don't think that making fun of certain religious traditions should be off-limits because they're somehow 'scared'.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Because to me it seems like a completely arbitrary distinction; I'm not sure of which is supposed to be worse. Is the implication that because the communion wafer is considered 'sacred' where the mass is not that it makes the second act worse? I don't think that making fun of certain religious traditions should be off-limits because they're somehow 'scared'.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:03 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Juan Cole: Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris:
“Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader.
The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals.
For those who require unrelated people to take responsibility for those who claim to be their co-religionists (not a demand ever made of Christians), the al-Azhar Seminary, seat of Sunni Muslim learning and fatwas, condemned the attack, as did the Arab League that comprises 22 Muslim-majority states.
....
Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance.
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:04 AM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
“Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader.
The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals.
For those who require unrelated people to take responsibility for those who claim to be their co-religionists (not a demand ever made of Christians), the al-Azhar Seminary, seat of Sunni Muslim learning and fatwas, condemned the attack, as did the Arab League that comprises 22 Muslim-majority states.
....
Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance.
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:04 AM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
.
posted by doctornemo at 11:05 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by doctornemo at 11:05 AM on January 7, 2015
Why not?
In addition to the whole scenario not really being analogous to what Charlie Hebdo does, I'm pretty sure communion wafers are not sacred unless they are given to you by an actual priest at an actual communion. You can actually buy a bag of communion wafers at certain grocery stores in Quebec as a snack.
posted by Hoopo at 11:05 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
In addition to the whole scenario not really being analogous to what Charlie Hebdo does, I'm pretty sure communion wafers are not sacred unless they are given to you by an actual priest at an actual communion. You can actually buy a bag of communion wafers at certain grocery stores in Quebec as a snack.
posted by Hoopo at 11:05 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
> How long will this go on?
Another 150 comments or so, I'd imagine.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Another 150 comments or so, I'd imagine.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:06 AM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Unsurprising but no less depressing: while #JeSuisCharlie is currently trending at the top on Twitter, #KillAllMuslims is not too far behind it.
Also, unsurprising, you can find use of both hashtags in A LOT of tweets.
posted by Kitteh at 11:06 AM on January 7, 2015
Also, unsurprising, you can find use of both hashtags in A LOT of tweets.
posted by Kitteh at 11:06 AM on January 7, 2015
Kitteh, where are you living? #KillAllMuslims is not trending in the United States at all.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:08 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:08 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I live in Canada. But it's not hard to find trending hashtags for a lot of other places other than where you live.
posted by Kitteh at 11:09 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by Kitteh at 11:09 AM on January 7, 2015
It's not trending in Canada at the moment, either.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
We’re making a mistake if we let a mass slaughter become a debate about cartoons
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
.
Ted Rall: Political Cartooning is Almost Worth Dying For.
posted by immlass at 11:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ted Rall: Political Cartooning is Almost Worth Dying For.
posted by immlass at 11:10 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
#KillAllMuslims is not too far behind it
Yeah, that's BS. What seems to be happening is this: Peaceful, somber vigils.
posted by gwint at 11:11 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah, that's BS. What seems to be happening is this: Peaceful, somber vigils.
posted by gwint at 11:11 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Juan Cole: Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris
Welp, I'm glad Juan Cole has identified who's behind this.
But seriously, his point about Breivik is food for thought:
We have a model for response to terrorist provocation and attempts at sharpening the contradictions. It is Norway after Anders Behring Breivik committed mass murder of Norwegian leftists for being soft on Islam. The Norwegian government launched no war on terror. They tried Breivik in court as a common criminal. They remained committed to their admirable modern Norwegian values.
What can't be known, though, is how admirable Norwegian values would have handled it if Breivik had been an immigrant, a Muslim, a member of Al-Qaeda or something other than a white male born-and-bred Norwegian.
posted by chavenet at 11:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Welp, I'm glad Juan Cole has identified who's behind this.
But seriously, his point about Breivik is food for thought:
We have a model for response to terrorist provocation and attempts at sharpening the contradictions. It is Norway after Anders Behring Breivik committed mass murder of Norwegian leftists for being soft on Islam. The Norwegian government launched no war on terror. They tried Breivik in court as a common criminal. They remained committed to their admirable modern Norwegian values.
What can't be known, though, is how admirable Norwegian values would have handled it if Breivik had been an immigrant, a Muslim, a member of Al-Qaeda or something other than a white male born-and-bred Norwegian.
posted by chavenet at 11:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Apologies - but didn't they reproduce them?
Um, so? They were reproduced all over the place. It was quite an important story at the time, you might remember--and particularly so to an outfit like CH. That they reproduced them hardly makes them useful examples of the kind of work they did.
It is considered blasphemous to make any kind of graphic representation of Muhammed, even a flattering one.
It is by some Muslims, but by no means all. There is actually a fairly rich historical strain of representations of Muhammad by Muslim artists (Wikipedia has a pretty good page on the subject) . In the Shia world today, representations of Muhammad are not completely taboo. Nor is it the case that this represents some sort of vast schism between Christian and Muslim worldviews; there have been plenty of intense periods of iconoclasm in Christian history where blood has flowed over the issue of representing God and Christ and the saints.
But more importantly, while it is perfectly reasonable for a religion to impose restraints about what can and can't be depicted on its adherents, it is not reasonable for them to impose those restraints on nonadherents. It is offensive to many Muslims and many Christians to see women walking around in short skirts and tank-tops: but while it is perfectly O.K. for a church or a mosque to say "if you want to come in to this sacred building you have to adhere to our dress codes" it is not O.K. for any member of those faiths to dictate what female nonbelievers wear in their everyday lives.
posted by yoink at 11:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Um, so? They were reproduced all over the place. It was quite an important story at the time, you might remember--and particularly so to an outfit like CH. That they reproduced them hardly makes them useful examples of the kind of work they did.
It is considered blasphemous to make any kind of graphic representation of Muhammed, even a flattering one.
It is by some Muslims, but by no means all. There is actually a fairly rich historical strain of representations of Muhammad by Muslim artists (Wikipedia has a pretty good page on the subject) . In the Shia world today, representations of Muhammad are not completely taboo. Nor is it the case that this represents some sort of vast schism between Christian and Muslim worldviews; there have been plenty of intense periods of iconoclasm in Christian history where blood has flowed over the issue of representing God and Christ and the saints.
But more importantly, while it is perfectly reasonable for a religion to impose restraints about what can and can't be depicted on its adherents, it is not reasonable for them to impose those restraints on nonadherents. It is offensive to many Muslims and many Christians to see women walking around in short skirts and tank-tops: but while it is perfectly O.K. for a church or a mosque to say "if you want to come in to this sacred building you have to adhere to our dress codes" it is not O.K. for any member of those faiths to dictate what female nonbelievers wear in their everyday lives.
posted by yoink at 11:12 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Satire would be eating flesh
Actually, that would literally be sarcasm.
posted by yoink at 11:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Actually, that would literally be sarcasm.
posted by yoink at 11:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
> Unsurprising but no less depressing: while #JeSuisCharlie is currently trending at the top on Twitter, #KillAllMuslims is not too far behind it.
Both hashtags are cheap to type, and a bit more pricy to back up with action. Action will not be forthcoming, for the most part, in either direction.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Both hashtags are cheap to type, and a bit more pricy to back up with action. Action will not be forthcoming, for the most part, in either direction.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:14 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Um, so? They were reproduced all over the place.
They should not have reproduced those cartoons, which were hate speech.
posted by colie at 11:14 AM on January 7, 2015
They should not have reproduced those cartoons, which were hate speech.
posted by colie at 11:14 AM on January 7, 2015
I'm going to copy one of the Arab feminists I follow on Twitter's timeline, re: the awful things being said to her and if you will look carefully at the right, you will see worldwide trending hashtags.
Then I am out because I knew this thread would be heartbreaking and at turns mean-spirited, but I cannot deal with people being awful today. I just can't.
posted by Kitteh at 11:18 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Then I am out because I knew this thread would be heartbreaking and at turns mean-spirited, but I cannot deal with people being awful today. I just can't.
posted by Kitteh at 11:18 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
They should not have reproduced those cartoons, which were hate speech.
Do you really want to be doubling down on this issue when you've just revealed you know so little about Charlie Hebdo that you thought they were the magazine that created those cartoons? I mean, leaving aside the rights and wrongs of reprinting those cartoons a decade ago, if your go-to example of why-Charlie-Hebdo-deserved-what-they-got is work they didn't even create you should really be asking yourself what you're trying to achieve in this thread.
posted by yoink at 11:20 AM on January 7, 2015 [33 favorites]
Do you really want to be doubling down on this issue when you've just revealed you know so little about Charlie Hebdo that you thought they were the magazine that created those cartoons? I mean, leaving aside the rights and wrongs of reprinting those cartoons a decade ago, if your go-to example of why-Charlie-Hebdo-deserved-what-they-got is work they didn't even create you should really be asking yourself what you're trying to achieve in this thread.
posted by yoink at 11:20 AM on January 7, 2015 [33 favorites]
You can't "misuse" something that's sacred. First of all, that's circular logic. I'm not Muslim, nothing in Islam is sacred to me.
But it IS to the Muslims, so they would have a different opinion of whether you've misused something than you would have.
NOW do you get it?
But more importantly, while it is perfectly reasonable for a religion to impose restraints about what can and can't be depicted on its adherents, it is not reasonable for them to impose those restraints on nonadherents.
I agree with you there; I was speaking more to the sort of "pffft, so we drew a nasty picture of Mohammed, what babies" kind of attitude I've seen. While I agree that the non-adherants of a religion shouldn't be expected to be held to the same code of conduct, conversely it strikes me that the non-adherant of a religion flaunting a transgression of that code of conduct, just to get someone pissed off, isn't such a great thing to do either - and maybe understanding that would help the bystander who is wondering "why are they so bent out of shape over that? It's just a cracker/picture/[insert specific act here]".
Reiterating, though, that I think we can ALL agree that none of this is a justification for murder.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:20 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
But it IS to the Muslims, so they would have a different opinion of whether you've misused something than you would have.
NOW do you get it?
But more importantly, while it is perfectly reasonable for a religion to impose restraints about what can and can't be depicted on its adherents, it is not reasonable for them to impose those restraints on nonadherents.
I agree with you there; I was speaking more to the sort of "pffft, so we drew a nasty picture of Mohammed, what babies" kind of attitude I've seen. While I agree that the non-adherants of a religion shouldn't be expected to be held to the same code of conduct, conversely it strikes me that the non-adherant of a religion flaunting a transgression of that code of conduct, just to get someone pissed off, isn't such a great thing to do either - and maybe understanding that would help the bystander who is wondering "why are they so bent out of shape over that? It's just a cracker/picture/[insert specific act here]".
Reiterating, though, that I think we can ALL agree that none of this is a justification for murder.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:20 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Berend: "@Legomancer: reading what you write about Charlie Hebdo ("what they were publishing was not pointed satire but outright racist caricature"), I wonder if you ever read their magazine or even saw the cartoons the outrage started over. Did you see the link to Vox @mareli provided? Are those cartoons "outright racist caricature" to you"
Charlie Hebdo republished the Danish Muhammad cartoons, several of which are, yes, outright racist caricature. You can read descriptions and explanations of them here.
And people bringing up Mon Beauf: That cartoon was created in the 60s. It was probably easier for the cartoonists to rail against racist, xenophobic, conservative French society back when they were young radicals themselves. It has little bearing on what Charlie Hebdo represents today.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo republished the Danish Muhammad cartoons, several of which are, yes, outright racist caricature. You can read descriptions and explanations of them here.
And people bringing up Mon Beauf: That cartoon was created in the 60s. It was probably easier for the cartoonists to rail against racist, xenophobic, conservative French society back when they were young radicals themselves. It has little bearing on what Charlie Hebdo represents today.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
#JeSuisCharlie
Jesus is Charlie? That's certainly a new spin on It's Always Sunny.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Jesus is Charlie? That's certainly a new spin on It's Always Sunny.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
@danielnyari: "Here's The @Independent cartoonist's response to the #CharlieHebdo attack by Dave Brown."
@chrisspangle: "Every joke is a tiny revolution." -George Orwell
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
@chrisspangle: "Every joke is a tiny revolution." -George Orwell
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
But it IS to the Muslims, so they would have a different opinion of whether you've misused something than you would have.
The point is it doesn't matter what they think. It's no different for Muslims than it is for Catholics or whatever other religious group you care to mention.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:26 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
The point is it doesn't matter what they think. It's no different for Muslims than it is for Catholics or whatever other religious group you care to mention.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:26 AM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
It would be so easy for Islamists to rob the mocking infidel of this power to outrage them. All they'd have to do is shrug and say "my religion says I may not make any representations of the Prophet. It says nothing about what infidels may do." Or they could say "that is not a representation of the Prophet, because you do not know the Prophet. That is a meaningless scribble." But my guess is that the seriously militant Islamists don't actually want it to stop, because it's useful.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
You can't "misuse" something that's sacred. First of all, that's circular logic. I'm not Muslim, nothing in Islam is sacred to me.
But it IS to the Muslims, so they would have a different opinion of whether you've misused something than you would have.
NOW do you get it?
This isn't an issue of "getting it". I disagreed, and I still disagree. Satire- almost by definition mocks- something someone things is too sacred, important, etc to be mocked.
In fact, "you shouldn't get bent out of shape by us mocking something that is sacred to you" or even " you shouldn't hold this to be sacred" may very well be the point of a particular piece of satire.
posted by spaltavian at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
But it IS to the Muslims, so they would have a different opinion of whether you've misused something than you would have.
NOW do you get it?
This isn't an issue of "getting it". I disagreed, and I still disagree. Satire- almost by definition mocks- something someone things is too sacred, important, etc to be mocked.
In fact, "you shouldn't get bent out of shape by us mocking something that is sacred to you" or even " you shouldn't hold this to be sacred" may very well be the point of a particular piece of satire.
posted by spaltavian at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
if your go-to example of why-Charlie-Hebdo-deserved-what-they-got is work they didn't even create you should really be asking yourself what you're trying to achieve in this thread.
The cartoons were hate speech; the magazine is not left-wing; I don't have to be an expert on third-rate satire to comment here. RIP to these poor people horribly murdered.
posted by colie at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
The cartoons were hate speech; the magazine is not left-wing; I don't have to be an expert on third-rate satire to comment here. RIP to these poor people horribly murdered.
posted by colie at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
chavenet: "What can't be known, though, is how admirable Norwegian values would have handled it if Breivik had been an immigrant, a Muslim, a member of Al-Qaeda or something other than a white male born-and-bred Norwegian."
As a Norwegian, I've also pondered that. And while I think the reaction would have been better than it would have been in most countries, it sure as hell would not have been as nice as it was this time.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
As a Norwegian, I've also pondered that. And while I think the reaction would have been better than it would have been in most countries, it sure as hell would not have been as nice as it was this time.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Frowner, let's be less vague in talking about the history of the French left. What party was resolutely, presciently, against holding onto the colonies, and defied racism before it was fashionable to do so? The communists. Which party is least likely to carve out exemptions for religious quibbles? The communists. They have persistently held the feet of French people to the fire on issues of equality where others were ok with leaving things as they were. To tax them with intolerance and veiled racism seems a bit much.
posted by homerica at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by homerica at 11:27 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
But it IS to the Muslims,
I get that. And, yes, it's a jerky thing to do to mock people's closely held beliefs. You are perfectly free to think less of someone for doing so. But it is neither hate speech nor a crime to do so.
posted by empath at 11:31 AM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
I get that. And, yes, it's a jerky thing to do to mock people's closely held beliefs. You are perfectly free to think less of someone for doing so. But it is neither hate speech nor a crime to do so.
posted by empath at 11:31 AM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
Never has silenced all my life come to have such meaning.
posted by infini at 11:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 11:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
from the Ted Rall article
I heard NPR’s Eleanor Beardsley call Charlie Hebdo “gross” and “in poor taste.” (I should certainly hope so! If it’s in good taste, it ain’t funny.) It was a hell of a thing to say, not to mention not true, while the bodies of dead journalists were still warm.
NPR in the last 10 years is the perfect embodiment of Democratic ideals move further to the center to placate the Republicans move to the right. The constant nothingness they straddle on the political front is an embarrassment.
posted by any major dude at 11:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
I heard NPR’s Eleanor Beardsley call Charlie Hebdo “gross” and “in poor taste.” (I should certainly hope so! If it’s in good taste, it ain’t funny.) It was a hell of a thing to say, not to mention not true, while the bodies of dead journalists were still warm.
NPR in the last 10 years is the perfect embodiment of Democratic ideals move further to the center to placate the Republicans move to the right. The constant nothingness they straddle on the political front is an embarrassment.
posted by any major dude at 11:32 AM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
This isn't an issue of "getting it". I disagreed, and I still disagree. Satire- almost by definition mocks- something someone things is too sacred, important, etc to be mocked. In fact, "you shouldn't get bent out of shape by us mocking something that is sacred to you" or even " you shouldn't hold this to be sacred" may very well be the point of a particular piece of satire.
Do you at least acknowledge that there would be a degree of difference in magnitude of potential-offensiveness-to-a-believer between a work of satire that simply mocks something, and a work of satire that actually USES the thing it is attempting to mock in some fashion?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:32 AM on January 7, 2015
Do you at least acknowledge that there would be a degree of difference in magnitude of potential-offensiveness-to-a-believer between a work of satire that simply mocks something, and a work of satire that actually USES the thing it is attempting to mock in some fashion?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:32 AM on January 7, 2015
Gotta say the one where they're making out with Mohammed is kinda funny tho'.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
It doesn't really matter what the offended person is offended by. It's all happening inside their head. People get offended by all kinds of stupid shit, and the only person in control of it is them.
posted by empath at 11:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by empath at 11:33 AM on January 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
There's a video going round of somebody at a protest ripping up a Koran. Anger really needs to be directed against the extremists and for the freedom of speech, not against Islam as a whole.
posted by Thing at 11:34 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Thing at 11:34 AM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
.
Frowner, Thank you for putting in words my thoughts about Charlie. I've been quite uncomfortable with their stance on Islam, but they are also very familiar figures to me, some of them in the personal sense as friends of friends, but also as people I've read and enjoyed for many years. I feel devastated - both on a personal/emotional level, but also because I know nothing good will come out of this. It's just horrible at so many levels...
posted by motdiem2 at 11:36 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Frowner, Thank you for putting in words my thoughts about Charlie. I've been quite uncomfortable with their stance on Islam, but they are also very familiar figures to me, some of them in the personal sense as friends of friends, but also as people I've read and enjoyed for many years. I feel devastated - both on a personal/emotional level, but also because I know nothing good will come out of this. It's just horrible at so many levels...
posted by motdiem2 at 11:36 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think the ridiculous over-reaction to depictions of mohammed is actually itself based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the ban on images to begin with. The whole point of the ban was to prevent people from worshiping idols. They didn't want people parading around statues of mohammed or god and praying to them the way that Arabs had in their pre-Muslim pagan past, or the way that Christians did with their crosses and icons and relics of saints. The point was that the physical forms were *not* sacred. I think someone creating profane depictions of the prophet is probably being truer to Islam than those who are offended by them.
posted by empath at 11:37 AM on January 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
posted by empath at 11:37 AM on January 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
is actually itself based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the ban on images to begin with
It's kinda tricky business to try and tell people what aspects of their faith they're basing on a misunderstanding
posted by Hoopo at 11:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's kinda tricky business to try and tell people what aspects of their faith they're basing on a misunderstanding
posted by Hoopo at 11:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
the non-adherant of a religion flaunting a transgression of that code of conduct, just to get someone pissed off, isn't such a great thing to do either - and maybe understanding that would help the bystander who is wondering "why are they so bent out of shape over that?
Very true. The cartoons I've seen from CH today have been simply puerile rather than challenging.
posted by colie at 11:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Very true. The cartoons I've seen from CH today have been simply puerile rather than challenging.
posted by colie at 11:39 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
between a work of satire that simply mocks something, and a work of satire that actually USES the thing it is attempting to mock
I can see how one particular set of words can be more offensive than another, and I can see one particular tenet of a religion may be more sensitive to a follower than another. I do not see how any set of words "uses" any part of a religion.
Your wafer example above is an actual physical event that forced people to participate in something without their knowledge or consent. So would, say, throwing paint on the black stone: that actually destroys or damages a holy object. That would be "using" a religious thing to make a point.
Are you talking about misrepresenting a religion? I mean, I can see how the Protocols of the Elders of Zion would be more offensive, but I'm not going to call that work "satire". That's propaganda.
posted by spaltavian at 11:42 AM on January 7, 2015
I can see how one particular set of words can be more offensive than another, and I can see one particular tenet of a religion may be more sensitive to a follower than another. I do not see how any set of words "uses" any part of a religion.
Your wafer example above is an actual physical event that forced people to participate in something without their knowledge or consent. So would, say, throwing paint on the black stone: that actually destroys or damages a holy object. That would be "using" a religious thing to make a point.
Are you talking about misrepresenting a religion? I mean, I can see how the Protocols of the Elders of Zion would be more offensive, but I'm not going to call that work "satire". That's propaganda.
posted by spaltavian at 11:42 AM on January 7, 2015
I was speaking more to the sort of "pffft, so we drew a nasty picture of Mohammed, what babies" kind of attitude I've seen. While I agree that the non-adherants of a religion shouldn't be expected to be held to the same code of conduct, conversely it strikes me that the non-adherant of a religion flaunting a transgression of that code of conduct, just to get someone pissed off, isn't such a great thing to do either - and maybe understanding that would help the bystander who is wondering "why are they so bent out of shape over that? It's just a cracker/picture/[insert specific act here]".
If someone were to say "I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mock my religious beliefs, as it offends me", the polite thing to do would be to honor that request. If someone says "mock my religious beliefs and I will murder you", then mocking those beliefs becomes an act of moral courage.
posted by seymourScagnetti at 11:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [31 favorites]
If someone were to say "I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mock my religious beliefs, as it offends me", the polite thing to do would be to honor that request. If someone says "mock my religious beliefs and I will murder you", then mocking those beliefs becomes an act of moral courage.
posted by seymourScagnetti at 11:42 AM on January 7, 2015 [31 favorites]
mocking those beliefs becomes an act of moral courage.
That is true, but doesn't make the mockery less hurtful to those who didn't make any threats.
Maybe another analogy (maybe a bad one) is: "Mock fat people and I will murder you". Shouldn't you then mock the murderer-threateners for being assholes rather than for being fat? Otherwise its just a bunch of innocent fat people getting mocked.
This is a tricky issue. Painting bright lines between sides on this issue seems like a bad idea.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
That is true, but doesn't make the mockery less hurtful to those who didn't make any threats.
Maybe another analogy (maybe a bad one) is: "Mock fat people and I will murder you". Shouldn't you then mock the murderer-threateners for being assholes rather than for being fat? Otherwise its just a bunch of innocent fat people getting mocked.
This is a tricky issue. Painting bright lines between sides on this issue seems like a bad idea.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
The polite thing for the first fellow to do would be to silently acknowledge to himself that he shouldn't expect others to consider his sacred beliefs unmockable.
posted by the bricabrac man at 11:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by the bricabrac man at 11:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Internal CNN memo: 'We are not at this time showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons'
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Internal CNN memo: 'We are not at this time showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons'
Well why in the fuck not? Again, I don't like these cartoons much but since you're already going ahead and running with footage of a cop getting shot all day, what's your issue here?
CNN, man.
posted by Hoopo at 11:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Well why in the fuck not? Again, I don't like these cartoons much but since you're already going ahead and running with footage of a cop getting shot all day, what's your issue here?
CNN, man.
posted by Hoopo at 11:53 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
It's kinda tricky business to try and tell people what aspects of their faith they're basing on a misunderstanding
I think most Muslims understand the reason for the ban on images of Muhammed (and really all people). It's not exactly an obscure theological topic. Only fundamentalist morons like these shooters are grossly offended by it, for all the wrong reasons.
posted by empath at 11:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think most Muslims understand the reason for the ban on images of Muhammed (and really all people). It's not exactly an obscure theological topic. Only fundamentalist morons like these shooters are grossly offended by it, for all the wrong reasons.
posted by empath at 11:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Michel Renaud did not work for Charlie Hebro, but was there to visit Cabu. Renaud was organizing a cultural event called Carnet de Voyage in central France. Cabu was the event’s guest of honor, according to France 3.
He was visiting the magazine with another organizer of the event, Gerard Gaillard, who managed to escape the shooting, by lying on the ground.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
He was visiting the magazine with another organizer of the event, Gerard Gaillard, who managed to escape the shooting, by lying on the ground.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
If someone were to say "I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mock my religious beliefs, as it offends me", the polite thing to do would be to honor that request. If someone says "mock my religious beliefs and I will murder you", then mocking those beliefs becomes an act of moral courage.
And re-stating that murder is unacceptable no matter what anyone's said about your religion.
But I also don't share your optimism that a polite "I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mock my religious beliefs, as it offends me" would be sufficient to make the satirists comply - it's more likely that the satirists would laugh that politesse off as prudery.
And I'm also not sure that mocking beliefs under the threat of murder is universally a sign of moral courage - it could also be a sign of ignorance, false bravado, or just plain cussedness.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
And re-stating that murder is unacceptable no matter what anyone's said about your religion.
But I also don't share your optimism that a polite "I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mock my religious beliefs, as it offends me" would be sufficient to make the satirists comply - it's more likely that the satirists would laugh that politesse off as prudery.
And I'm also not sure that mocking beliefs under the threat of murder is universally a sign of moral courage - it could also be a sign of ignorance, false bravado, or just plain cussedness.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:54 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
@jessicaelgot: #thepenismightier #jesuischarlie
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:55 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:55 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
But I also don't share your optimism that a polite "I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mock my religious beliefs, as it offends me" would be sufficient to make the satirists comply - it's more likely that the satirists would laugh that politesse off as prudery.
What else besides religion should be off-limits for satirists?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:56 AM on January 7, 2015 [26 favorites]
What else besides religion should be off-limits for satirists?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:56 AM on January 7, 2015 [26 favorites]
The polite thing for the first fellow to do would be to silently acknowledge to himself that he shouldn't expect others to consider his sacred beliefs unmockable.
And the polite thing for the second fellow to do would be to second-guess whether, just because he CAN do something, whether he SHOULD.
Your wafer example above is an actual physical event that forced people to participate in something without their knowledge or consent. So would, say, throwing paint on the black stone: that actually destroys or damages a holy object. That would be "using" a religious thing to make a point.
And so would drawing a picture of Mohammed, in the eyes of some. I'll admit that I now know that not everyone in Islam agrees, but it IS a thing in the eyes of some, certainly.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:57 AM on January 7, 2015
And the polite thing for the second fellow to do would be to second-guess whether, just because he CAN do something, whether he SHOULD.
Your wafer example above is an actual physical event that forced people to participate in something without their knowledge or consent. So would, say, throwing paint on the black stone: that actually destroys or damages a holy object. That would be "using" a religious thing to make a point.
And so would drawing a picture of Mohammed, in the eyes of some. I'll admit that I now know that not everyone in Islam agrees, but it IS a thing in the eyes of some, certainly.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:57 AM on January 7, 2015
What else besides religion should be off-limits for satirists?
Don't be obtuse.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Don't be obtuse.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:58 AM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
The cartoons were hate speech;
If you have formed that opinion then I assume you've seen them. If you saw them then I assume you chose to look at them to find out what the fuss was about. If you did that then you must, presumably, be grateful to whatever publication you looked at so as to be able to form your opinions of the cartoon. So why the double standard with regard to Charlie Hebdo?
posted by yoink at 11:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you have formed that opinion then I assume you've seen them. If you saw them then I assume you chose to look at them to find out what the fuss was about. If you did that then you must, presumably, be grateful to whatever publication you looked at so as to be able to form your opinions of the cartoon. So why the double standard with regard to Charlie Hebdo?
posted by yoink at 11:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Don't be obtuse.
What's obtuse is putting arbitrary restrictions on speech for certain categories of people.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
What's obtuse is putting arbitrary restrictions on speech for certain categories of people.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
And so would drawing a picture of Mohammed, in the eyes of some. I'll admit that I now know that not everyone in Islam agrees, but it IS a thing in the eyes of some, certainly.
You seem to be incapable of making a distinction between words and ideas and actual physical objects and people.
posted by empath at 12:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
You seem to be incapable of making a distinction between words and ideas and actual physical objects and people.
posted by empath at 12:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Don't be obtuse.
So what, exactly, is your point, EmpressCallipygos? If you're not saying that satirists shouldn't monkey with things that certain adherents of certain religions hold sacred, out of respect for their beliefs, what are you saying? If it's simply that they should be aware that it will piss certain people off then surely the CH guys can't be accused of failing to be aware of that.
posted by yoink at 12:02 PM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
So what, exactly, is your point, EmpressCallipygos? If you're not saying that satirists shouldn't monkey with things that certain adherents of certain religions hold sacred, out of respect for their beliefs, what are you saying? If it's simply that they should be aware that it will piss certain people off then surely the CH guys can't be accused of failing to be aware of that.
posted by yoink at 12:02 PM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
All this talk of offensiveness and politeness and etiquette is just bizarre to me. I understand that no one is saying the victims deserved it, but I don't care if they literally printed COME AT ME, BRO. Extremists gonna extreme - if it wasn't cartoons it would be something else. There is no placating them by tiptoeing around their sensibilities.
posted by desjardins at 12:03 PM on January 7, 2015 [41 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 12:03 PM on January 7, 2015 [41 favorites]
So what, exactly, is your point, EmpressCallipygos? If you're not saying that satirists shouldn't monkey with things that certain adherents of certain religions hold sacred, out of respect for their beliefs, what are you saying? If it's simply that they should be aware that it will piss certain people off then surely the CH guys can't be accused of failing to be aware of that.
I am saying that we, the bystanders, should not fall into the rapidly growing trend to miscategorize Muslims as being too sensitive to handle nasty cartoons, the way the Onion and other markets have done, because there is far too much fucking intolerance in the world as it is.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
I am saying that we, the bystanders, should not fall into the rapidly growing trend to miscategorize Muslims as being too sensitive to handle nasty cartoons, the way the Onion and other markets have done, because there is far too much fucking intolerance in the world as it is.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
And I'm also not sure that mocking beliefs under the threat of murder is universally a sign of moral courage - it could also be a sign of ignorance, false bravado, or just plain cussedness.
The distinction has more to do with one's perspective than the quality of the satire itself.
Count me among those profoundly shocked by all the instances of "Terrible tragedy; but..." in this thread, implicitly condoning violence and murder because of the transgressive nature of the satire.
posted by aught at 12:07 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
The distinction has more to do with one's perspective than the quality of the satire itself.
Count me among those profoundly shocked by all the instances of "Terrible tragedy; but..." in this thread, implicitly condoning violence and murder because of the transgressive nature of the satire.
posted by aught at 12:07 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
But I also don't share your optimism that a polite "I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mock my religious beliefs, as it offends me" would be sufficient to make the satirists comply - it's more likely that the satirists would laugh it that politesse off as prudery.
And I'm also not sure that mocking beliefs under the threat of murder is universally a sign of moral courage - it could also be a sign of ignorance, false bravado, or just plain cussedness.
No, of course it wouldn't. And that makes them impolite, which they have every right to be in a free society. And if Charlie hasn't demonstrated moral courage, then moral courage doesn't exist. They received death threats, and they continued to publish offensive cartoons. Their offices were firebombed and they continued to publish offensive cartoons. Today, many of them paid with their lives for their right, as well as yours and mine, to say whatever the hell they damn well pleased. To quote the article by former Onion editor Joe Randazzo: "this was what an actual attack on freedom looks like."
posted by seymourScagnetti at 12:09 PM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
And I'm also not sure that mocking beliefs under the threat of murder is universally a sign of moral courage - it could also be a sign of ignorance, false bravado, or just plain cussedness.
No, of course it wouldn't. And that makes them impolite, which they have every right to be in a free society. And if Charlie hasn't demonstrated moral courage, then moral courage doesn't exist. They received death threats, and they continued to publish offensive cartoons. Their offices were firebombed and they continued to publish offensive cartoons. Today, many of them paid with their lives for their right, as well as yours and mine, to say whatever the hell they damn well pleased. To quote the article by former Onion editor Joe Randazzo: "this was what an actual attack on freedom looks like."
posted by seymourScagnetti at 12:09 PM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
Count me among those profoundly shocked by all the instances of "Terrible tragedy; but..." in this thread, implicitly condoning violence and murder because of the transgressive nature of the satire.
And since my repeated statements in-thread that "none of this should be considered any justification for murder no matter what" are clearly being flat-out ignored, I'll jog on.
Hurrah for free speech having pushed me out of a conversation.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:10 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
And since my repeated statements in-thread that "none of this should be considered any justification for murder no matter what" are clearly being flat-out ignored, I'll jog on.
Hurrah for free speech having pushed me out of a conversation.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:10 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
A bit more context on CH as left-wing, courtesy of this 2013 English-language rightist blog post.
The author includes a cite from Wikipedia in which Charb is quoted embracing a leftist identity ('According to its editor, Charb, the magazine's editorial viewpoint reflects "all components of left wing pluralism, and even abstainers".') and then reprints an English translation of a piece by Charb which calls for the dissolution of the FN on French constitutional grounds. The author is displeased by this.
posted by mwhybark at 12:10 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The author includes a cite from Wikipedia in which Charb is quoted embracing a leftist identity ('According to its editor, Charb, the magazine's editorial viewpoint reflects "all components of left wing pluralism, and even abstainers".') and then reprints an English translation of a piece by Charb which calls for the dissolution of the FN on French constitutional grounds. The author is displeased by this.
posted by mwhybark at 12:10 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hitchens! thou shouldst be living at this hour:
Mefi hath need of thee
The case for mocking religion, republished:
Mefi hath need of thee
The case for mocking religion, republished:
Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.posted by pw201 at 12:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [50 favorites]
I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." (By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object.
I am saying that we, the bystanders, should not fall into the rapidly growing trend to miscategorize Muslims as being too sensitive to handle nasty cartoons
Is anyone in this thread saying "Muslims, in general, are too sensitive to handle nasty cartoons"?
I mean, I think you're actually coming closest to making that claim by saying "but jeez, guys, just think how upsetting it must be to see your sacred emblems mocked!" You're suggesting that that really is the motive for this attack. That somehow the guys who perpetrated this horror were just pretty much regular muslims pushed that little bit over the edge by the appalling nature of these cartoons. But that's not at all the case. The vast majority of the world's muslims weren't aware that Charlie Hebdo existed and couldn't give a damn that it did. The most extreme action likely to be taken of the small number who were aware of the magazine was to write a sternly worded letter to the editor.
The people who carried out this attack were choosing CH as a convenient symbol in a war that for them is a world-encompassing clash of civilizations. They're not sitting around going "you know, the West is by and large pretty cool and all but Oh my God have you seen this cartoon of the prophet!!!!" and suddenly being pushed into picking up a gun.
I think your motives are entirely good, by the way, and I think you're genuinely trying to fight on the side of the angels here, but I also think you're inadvertently misreading the nature of the situation in ways that are ultimately unhelpful.
posted by yoink at 12:16 PM on January 7, 2015 [49 favorites]
Is anyone in this thread saying "Muslims, in general, are too sensitive to handle nasty cartoons"?
I mean, I think you're actually coming closest to making that claim by saying "but jeez, guys, just think how upsetting it must be to see your sacred emblems mocked!" You're suggesting that that really is the motive for this attack. That somehow the guys who perpetrated this horror were just pretty much regular muslims pushed that little bit over the edge by the appalling nature of these cartoons. But that's not at all the case. The vast majority of the world's muslims weren't aware that Charlie Hebdo existed and couldn't give a damn that it did. The most extreme action likely to be taken of the small number who were aware of the magazine was to write a sternly worded letter to the editor.
The people who carried out this attack were choosing CH as a convenient symbol in a war that for them is a world-encompassing clash of civilizations. They're not sitting around going "you know, the West is by and large pretty cool and all but Oh my God have you seen this cartoon of the prophet!!!!" and suddenly being pushed into picking up a gun.
I think your motives are entirely good, by the way, and I think you're genuinely trying to fight on the side of the angels here, but I also think you're inadvertently misreading the nature of the situation in ways that are ultimately unhelpful.
posted by yoink at 12:16 PM on January 7, 2015 [49 favorites]
implicitly condoning violence and murder because of the transgressive nature of the satire
I have yet to see a single post in this thread condoning violence or murder either implicitly or explicitly. Reading "this is a terrible thing that happened, but that doesn't make the cartoons that instigated it less grody" isn't an implicit (or explicit) approval of murder and violence. It's being capable of holding the dual idea that
(a) the cartoons, in the first place, could be read as horribly racist caricatures, down-punching a wide group of people, most of whom were not extremists, with great mean-spiritedness hiding behind a thin veil of "freedom of the press";
(b) murder and violence are wrong, wrong, wrong, regardless of what the rationale given for the murder and violence is.
(a) does not excuse (b).
The point is being made, repeatedly, that one possible negative outcome of this is (a) being held up as acceptable discourse because it resulted in (b).
People that don't want horrible racist caricatures that down-punch a wide group of people who are not extremists to become the norm for "satire" and the standard expression of"freedom of speech" because of this are trying to express that.
Saying that is not victim-blaming.
Nobody is saying that Charlie Hebdo is at fault here.
You can disagree about whether or not the cartoons are racist, or down-punching, or about whether or not they're legitimately offensive, but reading "I don't like the tone, nature and spirit of this work, and I hope it doesn't become the flag-bearing standard of 'freedom of expression' moving forward" as "I blame the victims and condone murder and violence" is a very shallow reading of what people are trying to express.
posted by Shepherd at 12:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [49 favorites]
I have yet to see a single post in this thread condoning violence or murder either implicitly or explicitly. Reading "this is a terrible thing that happened, but that doesn't make the cartoons that instigated it less grody" isn't an implicit (or explicit) approval of murder and violence. It's being capable of holding the dual idea that
(a) the cartoons, in the first place, could be read as horribly racist caricatures, down-punching a wide group of people, most of whom were not extremists, with great mean-spiritedness hiding behind a thin veil of "freedom of the press";
(b) murder and violence are wrong, wrong, wrong, regardless of what the rationale given for the murder and violence is.
(a) does not excuse (b).
The point is being made, repeatedly, that one possible negative outcome of this is (a) being held up as acceptable discourse because it resulted in (b).
People that don't want horrible racist caricatures that down-punch a wide group of people who are not extremists to become the norm for "satire" and the standard expression of"freedom of speech" because of this are trying to express that.
Saying that is not victim-blaming.
Nobody is saying that Charlie Hebdo is at fault here.
You can disagree about whether or not the cartoons are racist, or down-punching, or about whether or not they're legitimately offensive, but reading "I don't like the tone, nature and spirit of this work, and I hope it doesn't become the flag-bearing standard of 'freedom of expression' moving forward" as "I blame the victims and condone murder and violence" is a very shallow reading of what people are trying to express.
posted by Shepherd at 12:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [49 favorites]
The part of the video where they casually shoot a fallen man before they escape is absolutely chilling. I'm heartbroken and I hate the xenophobia such attacks always unleash.
.
posted by ersatz at 12:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
.
posted by ersatz at 12:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Frowner, let's be less vague in talking about the history of the French left. What party was resolutely, presciently, against holding onto the colonies, and defied racism before it was fashionable to do so? The communists. Which party is least likely to carve out exemptions for religious quibbles? The communists. They have persistently held the feet of French people to the fire on issues of equality where others were ok with leaving things as they were. To tax them with intolerance and veiled racism seems a bit much.
I admit, since the 90s, the French CP is a lot better than it was - but it was the French CP who acted - as far as they could - against the students and workers in 1968; it was the French CP which was actively against both feminism and homosexuality through the 1970s and mid eighties; it was the French CP which was anti-immigrant in the seventies and eighties. I assume, in fact, that the "turn" of the nineties was less about a change in old school French communists than about the party's tremendous decline in numbers and substantial decline in influence. I seem to run across news items every so often which suggest that the party still has enough die-hard anti-Muslim members like Andre Guerin to make trouble. And in terms of the colonies, the FCP was weirdly equivocal, did not come out against torture in Algeria and made up to the state for nominally strategic reasons. The party was issuing apologetics for the USSR through the early nineties.
This seems to me to be the result of the FCP being a truly mass party which really did organize a very broad range of white French working class men, and thus had more to lose, more factional struggle (hence internal struggle about Algeria) and more need to strategize to keep the power it had. In terms of 1968, this seemed to be about fearing loss of FCP control in the factories more than they wanted to act against De Gaulle; in terms of the racism, anti-feminism and homophobia, this seems fairly common for parties with a white working class male base. (And as the party's base has changed, its character has changed.)
It's not to specifically critique the FCP - it's that from in US context (precisely because we don't have a history of mass left parties and most people have almost no awareness of platformist CP politics in the US) that I think it's harder for us to understand that the FCP is not a far left party and has often held rather socially conservative positions. There is nothing analogous to the FCP in the US, no analogy at all for its mixture of communist economic policy, intermittent social conservatism. For me, when reading about French intellectual history, it's been really helpful to have some of this spelled out, because otherwise I tend to read US-style assumptions about left social formations onto France. To bring it back to the matter at hand, you would not have a left US paper like Charlie Hebdo - it wouldn't be nearly as far to the left on many matters, and it would not deal with Islam as CH has.
posted by Frowner at 12:19 PM on January 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
I admit, since the 90s, the French CP is a lot better than it was - but it was the French CP who acted - as far as they could - against the students and workers in 1968; it was the French CP which was actively against both feminism and homosexuality through the 1970s and mid eighties; it was the French CP which was anti-immigrant in the seventies and eighties. I assume, in fact, that the "turn" of the nineties was less about a change in old school French communists than about the party's tremendous decline in numbers and substantial decline in influence. I seem to run across news items every so often which suggest that the party still has enough die-hard anti-Muslim members like Andre Guerin to make trouble. And in terms of the colonies, the FCP was weirdly equivocal, did not come out against torture in Algeria and made up to the state for nominally strategic reasons. The party was issuing apologetics for the USSR through the early nineties.
This seems to me to be the result of the FCP being a truly mass party which really did organize a very broad range of white French working class men, and thus had more to lose, more factional struggle (hence internal struggle about Algeria) and more need to strategize to keep the power it had. In terms of 1968, this seemed to be about fearing loss of FCP control in the factories more than they wanted to act against De Gaulle; in terms of the racism, anti-feminism and homophobia, this seems fairly common for parties with a white working class male base. (And as the party's base has changed, its character has changed.)
It's not to specifically critique the FCP - it's that from in US context (precisely because we don't have a history of mass left parties and most people have almost no awareness of platformist CP politics in the US) that I think it's harder for us to understand that the FCP is not a far left party and has often held rather socially conservative positions. There is nothing analogous to the FCP in the US, no analogy at all for its mixture of communist economic policy, intermittent social conservatism. For me, when reading about French intellectual history, it's been really helpful to have some of this spelled out, because otherwise I tend to read US-style assumptions about left social formations onto France. To bring it back to the matter at hand, you would not have a left US paper like Charlie Hebdo - it wouldn't be nearly as far to the left on many matters, and it would not deal with Islam as CH has.
posted by Frowner at 12:19 PM on January 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
Hurrah for free speech having pushed me out of a conversation.
It's pretty lame that you're implying people are silencing you rather than just disagreeing with you.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 12:20 PM on January 7, 2015 [62 favorites]
It's pretty lame that you're implying people are silencing you rather than just disagreeing with you.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 12:20 PM on January 7, 2015 [62 favorites]
And since my repeated statements in-thread that "none of this should be considered any justification for murder no matter what" are clearly being flat-out ignored, I'll jog on.
Well, one of the most valuable lessons I learned for handling disagreements with partners and friends is NEVER to follow a statement/concession with a "but" clause - to do so is essentially to retract what you previously said.
posted by aught at 12:21 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Well, one of the most valuable lessons I learned for handling disagreements with partners and friends is NEVER to follow a statement/concession with a "but" clause - to do so is essentially to retract what you previously said.
posted by aught at 12:21 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
An email to the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (screenshot; partial transcription follows)
As an agnostic humanist and an Exmuslim I feel sick today. Sick with horror and repulsed by what happened in Paris. Sick of the response of some still in denial about the issues we face, who would rather apologise for this menacing belief, and betray those who criticise it, than honestly look it in the eye....posted by audi alteram partem at 12:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I feel sick for the innocent Muslims who may be subject to abuse because of this, and held to be collectively guilty....
I just hope that wise heads prevail, that Muslims and non Muslims seriously introspect, and that people in France and Britain have a conversation about the issues now, a conversation with words, without any violence.
Has any known organization taken responsibility for it? Because right now it's just guys with masks who also added the additional provocation of murdering a surrendering policeman who was not presumptively a blasphemer.
I don't want to be one of those assholes who yells "false flag", but right now it is unattributable, which at least suggests the possibility of particularly murderous shit-stirrers.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:27 PM on January 7, 2015
I don't want to be one of those assholes who yells "false flag", but right now it is unattributable, which at least suggests the possibility of particularly murderous shit-stirrers.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:27 PM on January 7, 2015
@L0gg0l: "French police has apparently identified Paris attackers: Said Kouachi, Sherif Kouachi and Hamid Mourad ”
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:27 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:27 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's pretty lame that you're implying people are silencing you rather than just disagreeing with you.
Repeatedly leveling false accusations of confining murder at people is in fact kind if a shitty and assholish thing to do and does rather tend to cause people to wander on.
posted by Artw at 12:27 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Repeatedly leveling false accusations of confining murder at people is in fact kind if a shitty and assholish thing to do and does rather tend to cause people to wander on.
posted by Artw at 12:27 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Frowner...but they are also very familiar figures to me, some of them in the personal sense as friends of friends, but also as people I've read and enjoyed for many years. I feel devastated - both on a personal/emotional level, but also because I know nothing good will come out of this. It's just horrible at so many levels...
I know this thread is getting pretty fraught, but I did want to say that I am as distressed by this as someone removed from it can be, and I'm sorry about the many kinds of loss that people are feeling. It's awful
I think this kind of thread gets this way because no one really knows what to do - something so big has gone wrong and something so bad has happened, and it can't be fixed.
posted by Frowner at 12:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
I know this thread is getting pretty fraught, but I did want to say that I am as distressed by this as someone removed from it can be, and I'm sorry about the many kinds of loss that people are feeling. It's awful
I think this kind of thread gets this way because no one really knows what to do - something so big has gone wrong and something so bad has happened, and it can't be fixed.
posted by Frowner at 12:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Hurrah for free speech having pushed me out of a conversation.
are. you. serious.
No one has pushed you out, just disagreed with you, sometimes strongly. I believe your sentiments are wrong. The solution to combating extremism isn't more tolerance of extremist ideologies. Now you can disagree with me. I cannot allow or disallow that, because I am not you and I am not a moderator.
posted by desjardins at 12:29 PM on January 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
are. you. serious.
No one has pushed you out, just disagreed with you, sometimes strongly. I believe your sentiments are wrong. The solution to combating extremism isn't more tolerance of extremist ideologies. Now you can disagree with me. I cannot allow or disallow that, because I am not you and I am not a moderator.
posted by desjardins at 12:29 PM on January 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
And since my repeated statements in-thread that "none of this should be considered any justification for murder no matter what" are clearly being flat-out ignored, I'll jog on.
If you felt the need to add disclaimers to your comments you probably already knew where they would lead. Disclaimers or no there's quite a bit of thinly veiled victim blaming in this thread.
posted by MikeMc at 12:31 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you felt the need to add disclaimers to your comments you probably already knew where they would lead. Disclaimers or no there's quite a bit of thinly veiled victim blaming in this thread.
posted by MikeMc at 12:31 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
people are all, "hey, here's a nasty picture of Jesus and ain't no one gonna shoot us for it." And that's as may be, but as Christianity doesn't have any kind of rule in place prohibiting people from making ANY picture of Jesus, it's also a false equivalence.
One, this is not necessarily the case. Have people forgotten the death threats against Martin Scorsese for "Last Temptation of Christ?"
Two, no matter what the rule for Muslims is, it doesn't apply in a country that's not a theocracy. If some religion banned eating oranges, that doesn't make it in anyway defensible for the adherents of that religion to kill anyone who was caught eating an orange.
There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion, and the two are not equivalent.
This is a distiction without a difference. If I mocked Passover in a cartoon and it showed someone eating yeast-based bread, it would be missing the point of Passover, but that's not likely the issue that the cartoon would be concerned with.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
One, this is not necessarily the case. Have people forgotten the death threats against Martin Scorsese for "Last Temptation of Christ?"
Two, no matter what the rule for Muslims is, it doesn't apply in a country that's not a theocracy. If some religion banned eating oranges, that doesn't make it in anyway defensible for the adherents of that religion to kill anyone who was caught eating an orange.
There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion, and the two are not equivalent.
This is a distiction without a difference. If I mocked Passover in a cartoon and it showed someone eating yeast-based bread, it would be missing the point of Passover, but that's not likely the issue that the cartoon would be concerned with.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Terrorism is no ordinary crime. It depends on consequence. It can kill people and damage property. It can impose cost. But it cannot occupy territory or topple governments. Even to instill fear it requires human enhancement, from the media and politicians.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:35 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:35 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Right-wing terrorism is, by leaps and bounds, a much more serious threat than is the Islamic terrorism the US has spent literally trillions of dollars fighting for over a decade. Yet the Daily Beast‘s Dean Obeidallah argues that “Republicans won’t investigate right-wing extremists because it would not only anger their base, it would actually indict some parts of it.”
I wish there were more cartoons lampooning right-wing terrorism.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:38 PM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
I wish there were more cartoons lampooning right-wing terrorism.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:38 PM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
I'm sorry, but blasphemy is not a crime in most western nations, nor should it be.Interestingly, it is illegal in Denmark where the Mohammed cartoons originated.
posted by brokkr at 12:38 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mod note: If you want to complain about moderation, you can write to us or take it to metatalk; posting a complaint about having a previous comment deleted and expecting that to stay around is unreasonable.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:46 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:46 PM on January 7, 2015
"I'm seeing a lot of cartoons along this line on twitter and they kind of bother me. It makes the implication that the motivation of fascist jihadist mass murderers has something to do with the motivations of average people fighting against racism and bigotry. "
The thing is, though, that the extremists recruit as explicitly addressing those concerns by restoring the dignity and power of disenfranchised young men. It's a bait and switch, but it's an effective one and an attractive one if you feel like all other avenues of ending disrespect and impotence are closed to you.
I think it's worth making fun of that contradiction between ostensibly noble goals and the nihilistic idiocy used by these groups in their pursuit.
posted by klangklangston at 12:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
The thing is, though, that the extremists recruit as explicitly addressing those concerns by restoring the dignity and power of disenfranchised young men. It's a bait and switch, but it's an effective one and an attractive one if you feel like all other avenues of ending disrespect and impotence are closed to you.
I think it's worth making fun of that contradiction between ostensibly noble goals and the nihilistic idiocy used by these groups in their pursuit.
posted by klangklangston at 12:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ireland has laws against blasphemy as well.
And -- digging through my memory here -- but in reading The Tyranny of Silence (outstanding book about the Mohammed Cartoons, btw), there was mention of anti-blasphemy motions being pushed through in the UN by Muslim nations, via the Human Rights Council.
posted by gsh at 12:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
And -- digging through my memory here -- but in reading The Tyranny of Silence (outstanding book about the Mohammed Cartoons, btw), there was mention of anti-blasphemy motions being pushed through in the UN by Muslim nations, via the Human Rights Council.
posted by gsh at 12:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
What depresses me is that this sort of action, though tragic, seems just more and more normalised.
Thats the frightening part.
posted by Middlemarch at 12:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Thats the frightening part.
posted by Middlemarch at 12:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not in our names: Muslims respond in revulsion to Charlie Hebdo shooting
posted by klangklangston at 12:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 12:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Two of the killers are brothers born in the 10th arrondisement in Paris (Charlie Hebdo's office is in the 11th), the third is a teenager of unknown nationality. Not at all what I had assumed.
posted by Flashman at 12:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Flashman at 12:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
>great mean-spiritedness hiding behind a thin veil of "freedom of the press";
The freedom of the press is not a thin veil, no matter where you hang it. If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to say things that some people will find distasteful, then we are all in a great deal of trouble.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:52 PM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
The freedom of the press is not a thin veil, no matter where you hang it. If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to say things that some people will find distasteful, then we are all in a great deal of trouble.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:52 PM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
………..
Going home from work, I saw people gathering in front of the French Embassy here, and decided to look up what had happened. My roommate told me before I even opened the computer. He is scared of Muslim immigrants and expressed his fear that we are next.
So now, I am curled up in a little ball in the corner of the kitchen, crying for the victims and their families. I hate this escalation of violence and fear.
This morning, I looked at the reviews and comments about the Houllebec-book, which was caricatured in the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, and went to work thinking about how we can change the discourse about Europe and it's future from one based on fear and ignorance to one based on hope and knowledge.
With this terrible hate-crime, reason has no argument.
Those terrorists are banking on our fear. And so are the hate mongers, politicians and activists who are going to use this crime for it's every last drop of hate. The terrorists certainly know what they are doing: by attacking Charlie Hebdo rather than Marine le Pen, they are confusing us, their real enemies. Those of us who stand up for our Muslim neighbors and resent the racist right.
In my view, Charlie Hebdo sometimes confused the fight against the alliance between Christianity and Conservatism back in the day with the rise of Islam among immigrants into the EU. There is no way Islam will be a powerful force in Europe for the next century, and if it was, it would be because people in Europe thought is should be. Which is not at all in any way likely. It is not reasonable to conflate the effect of a religion integrated with the dominant economic power with the religion of poor immigrants. To the contrary, this situation reminds me so much of the Europe Joseph Roth described in his journalism, linked by the man of twists and turns Monday.
Or, to turn it all around, for the point of view of Charlie Hebdo, and many other European freedom of speech activists: If you have spent your youth supporting your female/gay/trans friends against the Catholic Church, how can it be wrong to support women and gay Muslims against their religion? If you grew up admiring and listening to Martin Luther King, why can't you use the word Negro? If you supported Spanish activists during Franco, how can the Pope suddenly be a voice of progress? Well it can, because the world is changing.
A young woman wearing a scarf can be suppressed, just like your Christian great-grandmother was. But she can also be a political activist who is fighting on your side of the barricade for equal rights and better daycare. You'll only know if you ask, and engage.
What happened today will make it much more difficult to engage, to listen and to hope.
posted by mumimor at 12:54 PM on January 7, 2015 [36 favorites]
Going home from work, I saw people gathering in front of the French Embassy here, and decided to look up what had happened. My roommate told me before I even opened the computer. He is scared of Muslim immigrants and expressed his fear that we are next.
So now, I am curled up in a little ball in the corner of the kitchen, crying for the victims and their families. I hate this escalation of violence and fear.
This morning, I looked at the reviews and comments about the Houllebec-book, which was caricatured in the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, and went to work thinking about how we can change the discourse about Europe and it's future from one based on fear and ignorance to one based on hope and knowledge.
With this terrible hate-crime, reason has no argument.
Those terrorists are banking on our fear. And so are the hate mongers, politicians and activists who are going to use this crime for it's every last drop of hate. The terrorists certainly know what they are doing: by attacking Charlie Hebdo rather than Marine le Pen, they are confusing us, their real enemies. Those of us who stand up for our Muslim neighbors and resent the racist right.
In my view, Charlie Hebdo sometimes confused the fight against the alliance between Christianity and Conservatism back in the day with the rise of Islam among immigrants into the EU. There is no way Islam will be a powerful force in Europe for the next century, and if it was, it would be because people in Europe thought is should be. Which is not at all in any way likely. It is not reasonable to conflate the effect of a religion integrated with the dominant economic power with the religion of poor immigrants. To the contrary, this situation reminds me so much of the Europe Joseph Roth described in his journalism, linked by the man of twists and turns Monday.
Or, to turn it all around, for the point of view of Charlie Hebdo, and many other European freedom of speech activists: If you have spent your youth supporting your female/gay/trans friends against the Catholic Church, how can it be wrong to support women and gay Muslims against their religion? If you grew up admiring and listening to Martin Luther King, why can't you use the word Negro? If you supported Spanish activists during Franco, how can the Pope suddenly be a voice of progress? Well it can, because the world is changing.
A young woman wearing a scarf can be suppressed, just like your Christian great-grandmother was. But she can also be a political activist who is fighting on your side of the barricade for equal rights and better daycare. You'll only know if you ask, and engage.
What happened today will make it much more difficult to engage, to listen and to hope.
posted by mumimor at 12:54 PM on January 7, 2015 [36 favorites]
The point is being made, repeatedly, that one possible negative outcome of this is (a) being held up as acceptable discourse because it resulted in (b).
I don't think anyone is proclaiming it was 'acceptable' because someone murdered them over it. The people that think it was acceptable speech most likely thing that it was, whether or not there were negative consequences for making it.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'acceptable'. If you mean 'legally allowed', then it should have been both before and afterwards. If by 'acceptable', you mean 'laudable' or 'agreed with' or 'encouraged', then that's a different question and up to some debate by reasonable people.
posted by empath at 12:56 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't think anyone is proclaiming it was 'acceptable' because someone murdered them over it. The people that think it was acceptable speech most likely thing that it was, whether or not there were negative consequences for making it.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'acceptable'. If you mean 'legally allowed', then it should have been both before and afterwards. If by 'acceptable', you mean 'laudable' or 'agreed with' or 'encouraged', then that's a different question and up to some debate by reasonable people.
posted by empath at 12:56 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Two of the killers are brothers born in the 10th arrondisement in Paris (Charlie Hebdo's office is in the 11th), the third is a teenager of unknown nationality. Not at all what I had assumed.
I hope for everyone's sakes that the names and identities given in that piece are actually correct.
posted by yoink at 12:57 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I hope for everyone's sakes that the names and identities given in that piece are actually correct.
posted by yoink at 12:57 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
"If one way of stopping obscenities like today is providing the security services a bit more access to our e-mails, we must give it to them. If it means internet providers handing over their records, the records must be handed over. If it means newspapers showing restraint the next time an Edward Snowden knocks on their door, then restraint will have to be shown. Because look who came knocking at the door today. "
Comments like this - and the inevitable government capitalization on the sentiment behind them - always have me struggling in the wake of events like this to keep the volume up on the rational part of my brain and drown out the little voice saying: "false flag, false flag, false flag ..."
posted by ryanshepard at 12:58 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Comments like this - and the inevitable government capitalization on the sentiment behind them - always have me struggling in the wake of events like this to keep the volume up on the rational part of my brain and drown out the little voice saying: "false flag, false flag, false flag ..."
posted by ryanshepard at 12:58 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
delfin: "Every two years, religious extremists of all denominations will send their best and brightest to a global summit at which they will compete in various events such as ..."
Lighting bulls on fire...
Elijah tried it. Baal was too busy taking a shit, apparently:
My own reasons are two-fold. Primarily, it's an issue of power. I can't remember where I read it, but I think it was in the context of "rape jokes" (and that dickhead Tosh... speaking of dicks), and someone said that good, satirical comedy should "punch up". Otherwise it's just bullying.
Of course in one context it's punching "up" at people who would repress women and literally enslave people, and use their power to behead people and condemn them to death and brutally torture and execute them, but in another context it's punching down... You are attacking a large portion of the planets population and their sincere beliefs by doing this. That doesn't mean you can't. Of course you can, especially in a secular, "free speech" loving country (except, for you know, banning religious speech/expression (via, say, burqahs/niqabs, etc...)). But as I've said over and over in many of these discussions "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Now - one could say that they were, in particular, attempting to target the bullies and thugs and extremists, those who would murder and kill people for publishing an image of Mohammed (not even just a cartoon mocking him, but a likeness of him)... But if that were the case, then why target the large easy target that means more to a lot more people than the extremists? Why not target the extremists by showing an image of their current leaders having gay sex or shoving dildos up their ass, as an example... Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?
"Free Speech" of course it goes back to free speech.
And being a dick.
Too many fucking dicks in the world.
posted by symbioid at 1:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Lighting bulls on fire...
Elijah tried it. Baal was too busy taking a shit, apparently:
22 Then Elijah said to the people, “I, even I only, am left a prophet of the Lord, but Baal’s prophets are 450 men.I mean absolutely no disrespect for the people who were killed today, or their families, but I really just don't know how I feel about this. I mean, the murders, they are 100% absolutely wrong, and of course, if choosing between satire or murder, obviously "satire" is the "lesser 'evil'" (or rather, "lesser 'being a dick'"). Looking up thread (as I type, there's already "155 new comments" so I'm sure more has been said), but I agree with the commenters who both disagree with the killings but aren't comfortable with what Charlie Hebdo was doing.
23 Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it.
24 And you call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, he is God.” And all the people answered, “It is well spoken.”
25 Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it.”
26 And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made.
27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
My own reasons are two-fold. Primarily, it's an issue of power. I can't remember where I read it, but I think it was in the context of "rape jokes" (and that dickhead Tosh... speaking of dicks), and someone said that good, satirical comedy should "punch up". Otherwise it's just bullying.
Of course in one context it's punching "up" at people who would repress women and literally enslave people, and use their power to behead people and condemn them to death and brutally torture and execute them, but in another context it's punching down... You are attacking a large portion of the planets population and their sincere beliefs by doing this. That doesn't mean you can't. Of course you can, especially in a secular, "free speech" loving country (except, for you know, banning religious speech/expression (via, say, burqahs/niqabs, etc...)). But as I've said over and over in many of these discussions "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Now - one could say that they were, in particular, attempting to target the bullies and thugs and extremists, those who would murder and kill people for publishing an image of Mohammed (not even just a cartoon mocking him, but a likeness of him)... But if that were the case, then why target the large easy target that means more to a lot more people than the extremists? Why not target the extremists by showing an image of their current leaders having gay sex or shoving dildos up their ass, as an example... Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?
"Free Speech" of course it goes back to free speech.
And being a dick.
Too many fucking dicks in the world.
posted by symbioid at 1:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Mod note: I know the NAACP bombing is fucked up too, but it would probably be best for folks not to try and bring it into this thread; all good intentions aside it mostly reads as a "yeah, but..." sort of hijack.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:01 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:01 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?
Why target anything? Because you're a satirist. That's what you do.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:03 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why target anything? Because you're a satirist. That's what you do.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:03 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah but you are not doing great satire if you don't target well.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yeah but you are not doing great satire if you don't target well.
The quality of the satire is completely irrelevant.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:07 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
The quality of the satire is completely irrelevant.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:07 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Why target anything? Because you're a satirist. That's what you do.
Similarly, I swing my foil around willy-nilly, not even even facing my opponent, because I'm a fencer, and that's what I do.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:07 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Similarly, I swing my foil around willy-nilly, not even even facing my opponent, because I'm a fencer, and that's what I do.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:07 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to say things that some people will find distasteful, then we are all in a great deal of trouble.
Harassment, threats, stalking, abuse, isolation and bullying in the virtual... arson and snipers IRL, yet there's a common thread somewhere here.
posted by infini at 1:08 PM on January 7, 2015
Harassment, threats, stalking, abuse, isolation and bullying in the virtual... arson and snipers IRL, yet there's a common thread somewhere here.
posted by infini at 1:08 PM on January 7, 2015
Similarly, I swing my foil around willy-nilly, not even even facing my opponent, because I'm a fencer, and that's what I do.
Don't be daft.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:08 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Don't be daft.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:08 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
showing an image of their current leaders shoving dildos up their ass
Why did CH do this? What is the meaning of cartoons of people shoving dildos up their asses?
posted by colie at 1:09 PM on January 7, 2015
Why did CH do this? What is the meaning of cartoons of people shoving dildos up their asses?
posted by colie at 1:09 PM on January 7, 2015
Charb's last, ominously/absurdly prescient cartoon, just published in today's issue.
Approximate translation: Still no terrorist attacks in France - "Wait! We've got til end of January to send our greetings!"
posted by progosk at 1:09 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Approximate translation: Still no terrorist attacks in France - "Wait! We've got til end of January to send our greetings!"
posted by progosk at 1:09 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
If satirizing the world's second largest religion isn't "punching up," I'm not sure what is.
posted by kelborel at 1:10 PM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by kelborel at 1:10 PM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
If you are in DC, there's going to be a support vigil in front of the Newseum building at 7 PM EST.
https://www.facebook.com/events/857291827625602/?pnref=story
posted by longdaysjourney at 1:10 PM on January 7, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/events/857291827625602/?pnref=story
posted by longdaysjourney at 1:10 PM on January 7, 2015
colie: I think you have misread.
posted by ODiV at 1:11 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ODiV at 1:11 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah but you are not doing great satire if you don't target well.
The quality of the satire is completely irrelevant.
On the question of, "Do you deserve to be murdered?" Yes, irrelevent. On the question of, "Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?" Relevant.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:11 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
The quality of the satire is completely irrelevant.
On the question of, "Do you deserve to be murdered?" Yes, irrelevent. On the question of, "Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?" Relevant.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:11 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
No, it isn't relevant. Just because you don't understand an artist's intent or reasoning, that doesn't make it bad.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:13 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:13 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?
He wasn't just a religious leader, he was a political leader, and a military leader, and if you can't satirize military and political leaders, then there's really no point to free speech, is there.
posted by empath at 1:13 PM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
He wasn't just a religious leader, he was a political leader, and a military leader, and if you can't satirize military and political leaders, then there's really no point to free speech, is there.
posted by empath at 1:13 PM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
There is a big difference between saying "Those cartoons should not be published" and "Those cartoons can be published but we are all free to condemn them" Only the latter can happen in a society with freedom of speech.
I haven't read every word of this thread, but I didn't see any links to specific cartoons that people were calling racist? Only a lot of people saying that "Charlie Hebdo cartoons are racist"
posted by gwint at 1:13 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I haven't read every word of this thread, but I didn't see any links to specific cartoons that people were calling racist? Only a lot of people saying that "Charlie Hebdo cartoons are racist"
posted by gwint at 1:13 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?
So you can satirize a religion, just not it's founder, beliefs, anything that it deems sacred or anything that would affect it's non-violent followers.
posted by spaltavian at 1:17 PM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
So you can satirize a religion, just not it's founder, beliefs, anything that it deems sacred or anything that would affect it's non-violent followers.
posted by spaltavian at 1:17 PM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
Yes - colie, I mean, showing people like Khaled Meshal or Bin Laden or al-Bagdadi or Abu Hamza or whoever the radical extremist jackoff of the day is. Pick on THOSE assholes, since they're the ones being assholes. They're the ones who are really dragging the Islamic world to the dark ages...
Not the majority of Muslims who probably don't appreciate Mohammed being depicted, but still decry these attacks today. Why create more discord and strife, is my point. If you really want to do good, find ways to show that you're better than the fuckers who are complete assholes. Being "less asshole" isn't particularly inspiring, ya know?
I'm not saying drawing an image of an orgy of the above listed radical Islamist leaders is necessary "less asshole" but it certainly hits "up" (against those who do the repression) instead of down (poor immigrants in Western Europe or Women in Afghanistan (or Saudi Arabia or other reactionary Muslim countries, for example).
posted by symbioid at 1:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Not the majority of Muslims who probably don't appreciate Mohammed being depicted, but still decry these attacks today. Why create more discord and strife, is my point. If you really want to do good, find ways to show that you're better than the fuckers who are complete assholes. Being "less asshole" isn't particularly inspiring, ya know?
I'm not saying drawing an image of an orgy of the above listed radical Islamist leaders is necessary "less asshole" but it certainly hits "up" (against those who do the repression) instead of down (poor immigrants in Western Europe or Women in Afghanistan (or Saudi Arabia or other reactionary Muslim countries, for example).
posted by symbioid at 1:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Don't be daft.
Don't you be daft. Why target anything? Because your target, if you're worth being called a satirist, is bad, not because you're compelled to target something by virtue of being a satirist. So aim carefully.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Don't you be daft. Why target anything? Because your target, if you're worth being called a satirist, is bad, not because you're compelled to target something by virtue of being a satirist. So aim carefully.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
No, it isn't relevant. Just because you don't understand an artist's intent or reasoning, that doesn't make it bad.
I'm not looking at what the intent actually was. We are talking about a hypothetical that presumes the goal was to mock extremists.
Now - one could say that they were, in particular, attempting to target the bullies and thugs and extremists, those who would murder and kill people for publishing an image of Mohammed (not even just a cartoon mocking him, but a likeness of him)... But if that were the case, then why target the large easy target that means more to a lot more people than the extremists? Why not target the extremists by showing an image of their current leaders having gay sex or shoving dildos up their ass, as an example... Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?
If that is the intent but instead the satirist mocks the extremists along with the non-extremists then they have failed to convey the message they intended. That is not good satire, it is a failure of communication.
If the intent was to mock the religion itself, then the satirist is probably a dick to one degree or another.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm not looking at what the intent actually was. We are talking about a hypothetical that presumes the goal was to mock extremists.
Now - one could say that they were, in particular, attempting to target the bullies and thugs and extremists, those who would murder and kill people for publishing an image of Mohammed (not even just a cartoon mocking him, but a likeness of him)... But if that were the case, then why target the large easy target that means more to a lot more people than the extremists? Why not target the extremists by showing an image of their current leaders having gay sex or shoving dildos up their ass, as an example... Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?
If that is the intent but instead the satirist mocks the extremists along with the non-extremists then they have failed to convey the message they intended. That is not good satire, it is a failure of communication.
If the intent was to mock the religion itself, then the satirist is probably a dick to one degree or another.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
If satirizing the world's second largest religion isn't "punching up," I'm not sure what is.
The context of Islam with regards to France (or the other way around) makes that calculation very, very different. There's a massive wave of anti-Islamic xenophobia coursing across Europe, and in some ways the problem is more intense in France.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
The context of Islam with regards to France (or the other way around) makes that calculation very, very different. There's a massive wave of anti-Islamic xenophobia coursing across Europe, and in some ways the problem is more intense in France.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
(not just Europe, the world really, but I don't want to range too far afield)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:23 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:23 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
If the intent was to mock the religion itself, then the satirist is probably a dick to one degree or another.
Or maybe they weren't. There are lots of people who pock and mock Christians. They don't get murdered for it anymore.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Or maybe they weren't. There are lots of people who pock and mock Christians. They don't get murdered for it anymore.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
but I didn't see any links to specific cartoons that people were calling racist
Well, here's one depicting the captured girls of Boko Haram in a less than flattering manner.
posted by Kitteh at 1:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Well, here's one depicting the captured girls of Boko Haram in a less than flattering manner.
posted by Kitteh at 1:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
empath: "Why target the founder of the religion as a whole, which includes many followers who are NOT extremists?
He wasn't just a religious leader, he was a political leader, and a military leader, and if you can't satirize military and political leaders, then there's really no point to free speech, is there."
No point to free speech if I can't satirize religious leaders, either. I'm not saying you can't. Do what you want. Fuck - I have a comic at home showing a guy shitting in someone's mouth saying "he (person whose mouth is being shat in) thinks I'm the Virgin Mary"... that's certainly mocking the hold of religion on a person's mind (and "way too much acid!")
But I'm also saying context matters. Just because, GLOBALLY, Muslims make up a billion+ members of the human population, doesn't mean they aren't a minority of people coming to your country. In fact, some may even be coming to flee precisely the persecution that you, in your satire, are decrying... So sure, go be a dick. I'm not saying you can't. You have every right. And killing people for speaking their mind is absolutely wrong.
I'm not questioning the RIGHT to do something, I'm questioning the WISDOM of doing something.
posted by symbioid at 1:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
He wasn't just a religious leader, he was a political leader, and a military leader, and if you can't satirize military and political leaders, then there's really no point to free speech, is there."
No point to free speech if I can't satirize religious leaders, either. I'm not saying you can't. Do what you want. Fuck - I have a comic at home showing a guy shitting in someone's mouth saying "he (person whose mouth is being shat in) thinks I'm the Virgin Mary"... that's certainly mocking the hold of religion on a person's mind (and "way too much acid!")
But I'm also saying context matters. Just because, GLOBALLY, Muslims make up a billion+ members of the human population, doesn't mean they aren't a minority of people coming to your country. In fact, some may even be coming to flee precisely the persecution that you, in your satire, are decrying... So sure, go be a dick. I'm not saying you can't. You have every right. And killing people for speaking their mind is absolutely wrong.
I'm not questioning the RIGHT to do something, I'm questioning the WISDOM of doing something.
posted by symbioid at 1:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
If the intent was to mock the religion itself, then the satirist is probably a dick to one degree or another.
Would you say this about someone who satirized capitalism or communism itself?
posted by spaltavian at 1:26 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Would you say this about someone who satirized capitalism or communism itself?
posted by spaltavian at 1:26 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm not questioning the RIGHT to do something, I'm questioning the WISDOM of doing something.
But your statement only makes sense in the context of "because it could get you killed."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
But your statement only makes sense in the context of "because it could get you killed."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
If the intent was to mock the religion itself, then the satirist is probably a dick to one degree or another.
It's okay to mock religion. It doesn't make you a dick for doing so. If we cannot mock religion, then what the hell is the point of free speech?
posted by Thing at 1:27 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's okay to mock religion. It doesn't make you a dick for doing so. If we cannot mock religion, then what the hell is the point of free speech?
posted by Thing at 1:27 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
So in a thread about the murder of three cartoonists, we're now having a debate over whether their satire was well-aimed?
posted by empath at 1:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by empath at 1:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
So aim carefully.
I'm kind of shocked at the wording of this advice to satirists.
posted by ODiV at 1:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
I'm kind of shocked at the wording of this advice to satirists.
posted by ODiV at 1:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
I realize that a lot of the massive trolling that takes place on MetaFilter involves people trying to isolate and assess the moral value of something without taking all the facts into account, on purpose, as some kind of borderline anti-social, intellectual "peacocking," in such a way that explaining all the facts to said person represents an unbearable chore.
I seriously do not give a flying fuck what your take is on civilian cartoonists that have dedicated their lives to the humiliation of foreign idolatry - these people did not deserve to be assassinated. It is not justified or understandable. Watering this down to a question of poor taste is fucking bullshit. Please, I'm begging you, get some fucking perspective.
posted by phaedon at 1:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [41 favorites]
I seriously do not give a flying fuck what your take is on civilian cartoonists that have dedicated their lives to the humiliation of foreign idolatry - these people did not deserve to be assassinated. It is not justified or understandable. Watering this down to a question of poor taste is fucking bullshit. Please, I'm begging you, get some fucking perspective.
posted by phaedon at 1:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [41 favorites]
If the intent was to mock the religion itself, then the satirist is probably a dick to one degree or another.
Or maybe they weren't. There are lots of people who pock and mock Christians. They don't get murdered for it anymore.
There are degrees of being a dick that fall short of being considered enough of a dick to justify murder. I would rate all "created satire" related dickishness in that grouping.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:29 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Or maybe they weren't. There are lots of people who pock and mock Christians. They don't get murdered for it anymore.
There are degrees of being a dick that fall short of being considered enough of a dick to justify murder. I would rate all "created satire" related dickishness in that grouping.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:29 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
There is a difference between blaming the victims and pointing out that what they were publishing was not pointed satire but outright racist caricature. Should they have died for it? Not at all. Did they have a right to publish it? Sure. They are the victims of this crime, full stop.
But that also doesn't make them Mark Twain or Salman Rushdie. They were not taking shots at the entrenched majority to the benefit of a voiceless minority. They were not putting a fine point of criticism on Islam as a way to start a discussion. They were basically punching down with the majority on a widely hated group using ugly, racist stereotypes.
I think turning up with guns and shooting 12 people dead is pretty much the definition of 'punching down' in the most dramatic way possible.
I just don't understand this thread.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 1:29 PM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
But that also doesn't make them Mark Twain or Salman Rushdie. They were not taking shots at the entrenched majority to the benefit of a voiceless minority. They were not putting a fine point of criticism on Islam as a way to start a discussion. They were basically punching down with the majority on a widely hated group using ugly, racist stereotypes.
I think turning up with guns and shooting 12 people dead is pretty much the definition of 'punching down' in the most dramatic way possible.
I just don't understand this thread.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 1:29 PM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
So in a thread about the murder of three cartoonists, we're now having a debate over whether their satire was well-aimed?
That's right. If you want ZOMG Islamic fundamentalist killings are so so so bad, then you can get there ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WESTERN MEDIA.
posted by colie at 1:30 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
That's right. If you want ZOMG Islamic fundamentalist killings are so so so bad, then you can get there ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WESTERN MEDIA.
posted by colie at 1:30 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
It is not justified or understandable.
I've read every comment in this thread and not one is suggesting either of those things.
these people did not deserve to be assassinated
There is no disagreement on this point in this thread.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:30 PM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
I've read every comment in this thread and not one is suggesting either of those things.
these people did not deserve to be assassinated
There is no disagreement on this point in this thread.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:30 PM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
They wanted to enter, go up. I typed the code.
Oh God. That poor woman. How do you not endlessly replay that moment over and over for the rest of your life?
posted by yoink at 1:30 PM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
Oh God. That poor woman. How do you not endlessly replay that moment over and over for the rest of your life?
posted by yoink at 1:30 PM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
Mod note: This is a very fast-moving thread; if you are worried the mods missed something, more helpful to drop us a line about it at the contact form than to snark about it in thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
(I guess I should clarify one thing then take a break on this one. When I say "If the intent was to mock the religion itself, then the satirist is probably a dick to one degree or another," I should have made it clear I was still talking in context of conflating the Muslim population with extremists, not literally all religious satire.)
posted by Drinky Die at 1:34 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:34 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I really hope she has access to a truly excellent counselor, yoink. She's a solid reminder that there are far more victims here than the bodies laying on the ground; families, friends, witnesses.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:35 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:35 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Well, here's one depicting the captured girls of Boko Haram in a less than flattering manner.
That is one of the shittest cartoons I have ever seen in my entire life. And it's on the front cover.
posted by colie at 1:35 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
That is one of the shittest cartoons I have ever seen in my entire life. And it's on the front cover.
posted by colie at 1:35 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
That mockery of the pain and trauma of still not found kidnapped young schoolgirls is dickish.
I agree that cover is wrong and hurtful as they're mocking specific people who are victims. But unless there is a context I don't know about, it doesn't even read as satire.
posted by Thing at 1:36 PM on January 7, 2015
I agree that cover is wrong and hurtful as they're mocking specific people who are victims. But unless there is a context I don't know about, it doesn't even read as satire.
posted by Thing at 1:36 PM on January 7, 2015
Coco is a cartoonist herself, by the way, not a "designer" which seems to be a mistranslation of dessinatrice.
posted by brokkr at 1:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by brokkr at 1:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
That is one of the shittest cartoons I have ever seen in my entire life. And it's on the front cover.
Should only tasteful satire be protected speech?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 1:37 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Should only tasteful satire be protected speech?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 1:37 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think that it's worth looking at the cartoon about the kidnapped girls that infini links above. It shows some of what is meant by "mocking religion" and I think it's not what a lot of mefites have in mind. I am not saying this because I think folks should change their minds about defending satire - I think "all satire even the horrible should be defended" is an intellectually consistent position even if it's not one I share - but it's worth looking at the cartoon. I get the sense that it's a style that is more accepted in Western Europe than here, but I found it very startling.
posted by Frowner at 1:38 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 1:38 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
There is no disagreement on this point in this thread.
So we're in agreement that there is no "invisible line" when it comes to vile cartoons as it relates to whether or not they warrant a violent response. Great. Because I find the conversation attempting to determine whether this was "wise" very troubling. I'll just go ahead and make your points for you from now on, since your thing seems to be breaking my comments up into sentences and shutting them down one at a time.
posted by phaedon at 1:40 PM on January 7, 2015
So we're in agreement that there is no "invisible line" when it comes to vile cartoons as it relates to whether or not they warrant a violent response. Great. Because I find the conversation attempting to determine whether this was "wise" very troubling. I'll just go ahead and make your points for you from now on, since your thing seems to be breaking my comments up into sentences and shutting them down one at a time.
posted by phaedon at 1:40 PM on January 7, 2015
But unless there is a context I don't know about, it doesn't even read as satire.
They're satirizing popular reaction to child benefit cuts with the suggestion that even Boko Haram's sex slaves don't want it messed with. When people call Charlie Hebdo 'scurrilous', this is the sort of thing they're talking about.
posted by topynate at 1:41 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
They're satirizing popular reaction to child benefit cuts with the suggestion that even Boko Haram's sex slaves don't want it messed with. When people call Charlie Hebdo 'scurrilous', this is the sort of thing they're talking about.
posted by topynate at 1:41 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
That is one of the shittest cartoons I have ever seen in my entire life. And it's on the front cover.
Still, even A. Wyatt Mann doesn't deserve to die because of his drawings.
posted by ymgve at 1:41 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Still, even A. Wyatt Mann doesn't deserve to die because of his drawings.
posted by ymgve at 1:41 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm kind of shocked at the wording of this advice to satirists.
I understand and apologize, both for my wording and for contributing to a pedantic derail objecting to one aspect of roomthreeseventeen's comment.
For the record: For a variety of reasons, I think the cartoons are bad satire, but the people who made them had every right to make them and the people who published them had every right to publish them. Today's killings are appalling and deeply horrible in themselves. They are not justified. That's my opinion.
.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
I understand and apologize, both for my wording and for contributing to a pedantic derail objecting to one aspect of roomthreeseventeen's comment.
For the record: For a variety of reasons, I think the cartoons are bad satire, but the people who made them had every right to make them and the people who published them had every right to publish them. Today's killings are appalling and deeply horrible in themselves. They are not justified. That's my opinion.
.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
So we're in agreement that there is no "invisible line" when it comes to vile cartoons as it relates to whether or not they warrant a violent response. Great. I'll just go ahead and make your points for you from now on, since your thing seems to be breaking my comments up into sentences and shutting them down one at a time.
You made a couple of statements that didn't seem to have any bearing on what actual people are saying here, so I responded to them. I am sorry that the manner of my response offended you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
You made a couple of statements that didn't seem to have any bearing on what actual people are saying here, so I responded to them. I am sorry that the manner of my response offended you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
When people call Charlie Hebdo 'scurrilous', this is the sort of thing they're talking about.
Or when they talk about it 'punching down'. There's not much further down than kidnapped schoolkids or benefit-dependent mothers. 'Satirised' by wealthy white guys.
posted by colie at 1:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Or when they talk about it 'punching down'. There's not much further down than kidnapped schoolkids or benefit-dependent mothers. 'Satirised' by wealthy white guys.
posted by colie at 1:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Let me repeat that these are not acceptable excuses for violent actions or speech! But they are also not without a factual base. If “we” are going to expect of “them” to abide by freedom of speech, than this freedom of speech should either be totally free or protect all groups equally (which, I believe, is impossible). If “we” want “them” to abide by the (not “our”!) democratic rules of the game, “we” should also accept “them” as equal citizens. Too often Islam and Muslims are treated as foreign, either linked to immigration or to a foreign country/region. But the majority of Muslims in most European countries are citizens, born and raised in Europe. In other words, “they” are “us”! So, as much as “they” have to come to terms with living in “our” country, “we” have to come to terms with the fact that it is “their “ country too! Via
posted by infini at 1:44 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by infini at 1:44 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
It shows some of what is meant by "mocking religion"
It doesn't seem to have any "religious" significance at all, that I can see. Mostly I don't understand it. I have a feeling that it's not actually "about" the Boko Haram thing so much as using it to comment on something else. I assume there was a controversy in France at the time about "allocations familiales" (per-child welfare payments to families, right?). So it would seem to be a kind of deliberately shocking "hey, even those Boko Haram girls are going to get in on this protest!" kind of gag. Callous and deliberately "shocking" but not, so far as I can see, remotely related to "religion."
But I'd be happy to be better informed by someone who was actually steeped in the particular social/cultural context that informed the joke.
posted by yoink at 1:45 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
It doesn't seem to have any "religious" significance at all, that I can see. Mostly I don't understand it. I have a feeling that it's not actually "about" the Boko Haram thing so much as using it to comment on something else. I assume there was a controversy in France at the time about "allocations familiales" (per-child welfare payments to families, right?). So it would seem to be a kind of deliberately shocking "hey, even those Boko Haram girls are going to get in on this protest!" kind of gag. Callous and deliberately "shocking" but not, so far as I can see, remotely related to "religion."
But I'd be happy to be better informed by someone who was actually steeped in the particular social/cultural context that informed the joke.
posted by yoink at 1:45 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: "I'm not questioning the RIGHT to do something, I'm questioning the WISDOM of doing something.
But your statement only makes sense in the context of "because it could get you killed.""
No - it makes sense in the context of : We have a bunch of people in our country who are of the same religion we are mocking. Some of these people are NOT rabid killers. By using a specific target that offends them, we can turn them away. Instead of working to integrate them and bring them into our country and welcome them as fellow members of humanity with the right to practice their beliefs, let's stick a big old FUCK YOU middle finger to their faces and make them feel even MORE resentful of us natives in our land.
I think the problem is that we're discussing two different aspects here. The global and the local. My "wisdom" is not about "being killed by a large number of radical religious ideologues", but about "accepting the persecuted minorities who aren't a native of our land" (and hopefully making them feel more welcomed, less threatened, and THEN... In the long term... maybe we can have a more peaceful co-existence, and that might include LESS murder of us natives.)
In this particular context, in France, (and in places like Amsterdam or London) there are issues with regards to how Muslim immigrants are being treated/perceived, and causing resentment. That doesn't justify everything the Muslim population does or calls for. I think the right of Abu Hamza to speak out calling for the death of kuffar(infidels) is just as foolish as publishing these cartoons... Well - not merely foolish, but wrong and dangerous, and frankly, evil... The Brits have decided that that's not free speech, but incitement to terrorism.
But, of course, this goes beyond the issue of immigration, but that is one of the factors I'm trying to bring out on why this issue is so fraught with much more than "free speech" and "brutal barbarians". I think there's a lot of perspective that we in the US, don't have quite as much of, because we don't exist in those particular countries with those particular aspects. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and there are multiple issues at play in any given context, and if all you want to do is scream "FREE SPEEEEECH!" go right the fuck ahead.
I'm arguing that there's plenty of other considerations that one can take into account on whether a particular action is wise or not...
And of course, there are Native Muslims (non-immigrants) who, by nature of being Muslim, also are being discriminated against in France (and the Netherlands) and other Western European countries. Look at the uprising in Germany right now with the extreme anti-immigrant (in particular, anti-Muslim) rallies... The antidote they are showing is that other people are speaking out against it. I think the Germans might have a good idea about the dangers of rabid xenophobia.
posted by symbioid at 1:45 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
But your statement only makes sense in the context of "because it could get you killed.""
No - it makes sense in the context of : We have a bunch of people in our country who are of the same religion we are mocking. Some of these people are NOT rabid killers. By using a specific target that offends them, we can turn them away. Instead of working to integrate them and bring them into our country and welcome them as fellow members of humanity with the right to practice their beliefs, let's stick a big old FUCK YOU middle finger to their faces and make them feel even MORE resentful of us natives in our land.
I think the problem is that we're discussing two different aspects here. The global and the local. My "wisdom" is not about "being killed by a large number of radical religious ideologues", but about "accepting the persecuted minorities who aren't a native of our land" (and hopefully making them feel more welcomed, less threatened, and THEN... In the long term... maybe we can have a more peaceful co-existence, and that might include LESS murder of us natives.)
In this particular context, in France, (and in places like Amsterdam or London) there are issues with regards to how Muslim immigrants are being treated/perceived, and causing resentment. That doesn't justify everything the Muslim population does or calls for. I think the right of Abu Hamza to speak out calling for the death of kuffar(infidels) is just as foolish as publishing these cartoons... Well - not merely foolish, but wrong and dangerous, and frankly, evil... The Brits have decided that that's not free speech, but incitement to terrorism.
But, of course, this goes beyond the issue of immigration, but that is one of the factors I'm trying to bring out on why this issue is so fraught with much more than "free speech" and "brutal barbarians". I think there's a lot of perspective that we in the US, don't have quite as much of, because we don't exist in those particular countries with those particular aspects. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and there are multiple issues at play in any given context, and if all you want to do is scream "FREE SPEEEEECH!" go right the fuck ahead.
I'm arguing that there's plenty of other considerations that one can take into account on whether a particular action is wise or not...
And of course, there are Native Muslims (non-immigrants) who, by nature of being Muslim, also are being discriminated against in France (and the Netherlands) and other Western European countries. Look at the uprising in Germany right now with the extreme anti-immigrant (in particular, anti-Muslim) rallies... The antidote they are showing is that other people are speaking out against it. I think the Germans might have a good idea about the dangers of rabid xenophobia.
posted by symbioid at 1:45 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
I think that it's worth looking at the cartoon about the kidnapped girls that infini links above. It shows some of what is meant by "mocking religion" and I think it's not what a lot of mefites have in mind.
I suspect that is not one of the cartoons the murderers used to justify their actions today.
posted by spaltavian at 1:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I suspect that is not one of the cartoons the murderers used to justify their actions today.
posted by spaltavian at 1:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
symbioid, I guess my point is that it's not the job of a satirist to integrate anyone or make them feel better about anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:48 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:48 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
While I agree that the non-adherants of a religion shouldn't be expected to be held to the same code of conduct, conversely it strikes me that the non-adherant of a religion flaunting a transgression of that code of conduct
Except I don't think you would apply this analysis to, say, Pussy Riot's actions in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Which is clearly and unambiguously flaunting a blasphemous transgression of a code of conduct.
Personally, I think every newspaper in the western world should reprint at least one of these cartoons on their front page tomorrow to show that we cannot be intimidated.
posted by Justinian at 1:48 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Except I don't think you would apply this analysis to, say, Pussy Riot's actions in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Which is clearly and unambiguously flaunting a blasphemous transgression of a code of conduct.
Personally, I think every newspaper in the western world should reprint at least one of these cartoons on their front page tomorrow to show that we cannot be intimidated.
posted by Justinian at 1:48 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Or when they talk about it 'punching down'. There's not much further down than kidnapped schoolkids or benefit-dependent mothers. 'Satirised' by wealthy white guys.
So only speech that meets your political litmus test should be protected? Got it.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 1:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
So only speech that meets your political litmus test should be protected? Got it.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 1:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Extremists are not extremists because someone published a mocking cartoon of their religious leader.
Was it nice of C-H to publish the cartoon? No.
Was it tasteless? Arguably.
Can you draw a direct line between publishing it and extremists deciding to kill? No.
They were going to attack and kill someone. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday, because that's what they do [they = extremists, not Muslims, to be clear]. Don't pretend like there's any rhyme or reason to it. Extremists shot up a Pakistani school full of children, for fuck's sake. It's just not logical to say "they shouldn't be provoked with cartoons."
posted by desjardins at 1:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Was it nice of C-H to publish the cartoon? No.
Was it tasteless? Arguably.
Can you draw a direct line between publishing it and extremists deciding to kill? No.
They were going to attack and kill someone. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday, because that's what they do [they = extremists, not Muslims, to be clear]. Don't pretend like there's any rhyme or reason to it. Extremists shot up a Pakistani school full of children, for fuck's sake. It's just not logical to say "they shouldn't be provoked with cartoons."
posted by desjardins at 1:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Well, here's one depicting the captured girls of Boko Haram in a less than flattering manner.
See that's some racist cartooning, and though I don't know much about the history of Charlie Hebdo I'm not that surprised I've seen nasty stuff along those lines from other sources in Western Europe. I don't find it hard to believe they published things I would not care to defend. But at the same time I think people fixated specifically on the offensiveness of intentionally violating the Mohammed taboo are barking up quite the wrong tree - it seems pretty clear to me that it's actually the other side of having one's religious practice tolerated that one cannot insist on much at all from nonbelievers except that they will let you do your thing. Plus about Charlie Hebdo's specific choice to hammer upon that point I can't help but see it to some extent as them standing up to a particular ideology that repeatedly and directly threatened their lives over that point and eventually took them rather than attacking ordinary Muslims for the hell of it.
posted by atoxyl at 1:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
See that's some racist cartooning, and though I don't know much about the history of Charlie Hebdo I'm not that surprised I've seen nasty stuff along those lines from other sources in Western Europe. I don't find it hard to believe they published things I would not care to defend. But at the same time I think people fixated specifically on the offensiveness of intentionally violating the Mohammed taboo are barking up quite the wrong tree - it seems pretty clear to me that it's actually the other side of having one's religious practice tolerated that one cannot insist on much at all from nonbelievers except that they will let you do your thing. Plus about Charlie Hebdo's specific choice to hammer upon that point I can't help but see it to some extent as them standing up to a particular ideology that repeatedly and directly threatened their lives over that point and eventually took them rather than attacking ordinary Muslims for the hell of it.
posted by atoxyl at 1:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
No - it makes sense in the context of : We have a bunch of people in our country who are of the same religion we are mocking.
You're lumping a lot of people together here who don't and shouldn't have the same motives. Yes, absolutely, the French people (and everyone) should in general be welcoming of minorities and tolerant of each other's beliefs. But satirists should be free to target who ever they feel like, including minority groups. Holding those two positions is not contradictory.
posted by empath at 1:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
You're lumping a lot of people together here who don't and shouldn't have the same motives. Yes, absolutely, the French people (and everyone) should in general be welcoming of minorities and tolerant of each other's beliefs. But satirists should be free to target who ever they feel like, including minority groups. Holding those two positions is not contradictory.
posted by empath at 1:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Punching up and punching down is only a metaphor used to describe one way that comedy can work. Its not a black and white thing.
For example, the Westboro Baptist Church may be loud and offensive, but they're really a small, marginalized group of people, many of whom are pretty obviously damaged or brainwashed. We acknowledge this but at the same time we accept satire and comedy aimed at them because their behavior is so egregious that it deserves a response. The purpose of comedy aimed at WBC isn't to mock and suppress the damaged and brainwashed members of that group, though that might be how they feel when they hear the mockery. The purpose of it is sometimes to make it clear that their views and techniques are not acceptable or sometimes just because they're an easy stand-in for intolerance in general.
But on the other hand, they are damaged people and they're really a pretty small and powerless group. Isn't that punching down? Should we stop mocking them because they're a minority belief?
There are other groups in the United States that appear to be more powerful than they actually are whom are quite correctly mocked for their views all the time. I'll use the KKK as an example. They were once a pretty powerful group of racists but now they're almost universally a punch line in the United States. Being associated with them can ruin your career in most places. Are we not, in fact, punching down when we parody them? Are they not deserving of mockery and satire for all the pain and horror they've inflicted over the years?
Or maybe we are punching up at these groups because they've set themselves up as somehow superior to the rest of us and we're knocking them off their high horse.
But, see, that's the problem with the "Punching up" and "punching down" metaphor. Its based on an individual's perception of where up and down are located. I mean, MRA's truly believe they are punching up when they create image macros about feminists - to the sane world, that looks like bullying.
Mel Brooks' famous "tragedy is when I hurt my thumb. Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die" is an apt way of looking at things - its about perspective, and usually a very selfish perspective.
If we look at comedy as part of conversation in general, it can be used as a rhetorical tool in the same way that any other kind of communication is used. In the political and social world, comedy is often used to make specific rhetorical points. It might be more fruitful to look at comedy in this way and perhaps analyze it based on sound reasoning.
To whit, a cartoon that attacks a group of people with little or no point beyond "lol dumb people" is essentially an ad hominem attack - in a debate, we'd dismiss it outright.
A cartoon that makes a specific point about how bullies use the threat of violence (or the actual performance of violence) to silence critics might communicate that idea in a much more instant and visceral way than 500 words on the same subject.
Looking at the work of Charlie Hebdo in the last few hours, I note that some of the cartoons do seem to be little more than Jay Leno-esque "hey, aren't these people dumb" images, but most of them seem to have quite a bit more thought than that behind them. The visceral reaction they provoke in the service of ideas is part of their power (indeed, that is the power of an image over a word - we can get into semiotics here, but a word is already pretty far removed from the thing a word represents - an image is much closer).
Punching up and punching down are kind of besides the point. My opinion is that we are not served as a society if we conflate respecting people with respecting the terrible, terrible ideas and beliefs those people sometimes hold.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [54 favorites]
For example, the Westboro Baptist Church may be loud and offensive, but they're really a small, marginalized group of people, many of whom are pretty obviously damaged or brainwashed. We acknowledge this but at the same time we accept satire and comedy aimed at them because their behavior is so egregious that it deserves a response. The purpose of comedy aimed at WBC isn't to mock and suppress the damaged and brainwashed members of that group, though that might be how they feel when they hear the mockery. The purpose of it is sometimes to make it clear that their views and techniques are not acceptable or sometimes just because they're an easy stand-in for intolerance in general.
But on the other hand, they are damaged people and they're really a pretty small and powerless group. Isn't that punching down? Should we stop mocking them because they're a minority belief?
There are other groups in the United States that appear to be more powerful than they actually are whom are quite correctly mocked for their views all the time. I'll use the KKK as an example. They were once a pretty powerful group of racists but now they're almost universally a punch line in the United States. Being associated with them can ruin your career in most places. Are we not, in fact, punching down when we parody them? Are they not deserving of mockery and satire for all the pain and horror they've inflicted over the years?
Or maybe we are punching up at these groups because they've set themselves up as somehow superior to the rest of us and we're knocking them off their high horse.
But, see, that's the problem with the "Punching up" and "punching down" metaphor. Its based on an individual's perception of where up and down are located. I mean, MRA's truly believe they are punching up when they create image macros about feminists - to the sane world, that looks like bullying.
Mel Brooks' famous "tragedy is when I hurt my thumb. Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die" is an apt way of looking at things - its about perspective, and usually a very selfish perspective.
If we look at comedy as part of conversation in general, it can be used as a rhetorical tool in the same way that any other kind of communication is used. In the political and social world, comedy is often used to make specific rhetorical points. It might be more fruitful to look at comedy in this way and perhaps analyze it based on sound reasoning.
To whit, a cartoon that attacks a group of people with little or no point beyond "lol dumb people" is essentially an ad hominem attack - in a debate, we'd dismiss it outright.
A cartoon that makes a specific point about how bullies use the threat of violence (or the actual performance of violence) to silence critics might communicate that idea in a much more instant and visceral way than 500 words on the same subject.
Looking at the work of Charlie Hebdo in the last few hours, I note that some of the cartoons do seem to be little more than Jay Leno-esque "hey, aren't these people dumb" images, but most of them seem to have quite a bit more thought than that behind them. The visceral reaction they provoke in the service of ideas is part of their power (indeed, that is the power of an image over a word - we can get into semiotics here, but a word is already pretty far removed from the thing a word represents - an image is much closer).
Punching up and punching down are kind of besides the point. My opinion is that we are not served as a society if we conflate respecting people with respecting the terrible, terrible ideas and beliefs those people sometimes hold.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [54 favorites]
I think most Muslims understand the reason for the ban on images of Muhammed (and really all people). It's not exactly an obscure theological topic. Only fundamentalist morons like these shooters are grossly offended by it, for all the wrong reasons.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from your link. It cites examples of Hadith that say Muhammad condemns images of Allah, Muhammad, the Prophets, and the people who make them will be condemned on the Day of Resurrection. There is a lot of disagreement over interpretation of Hadith, and even which Hadith collections are recognized as authentic throughout the branches and sects of Islam. While you assume to know the definitive "reason for the ban," Hadith can be interpreted in any number of ways by people of different faiths, and this can lead to any number of practices. No one's claiming faith and religious practice are totally rational things, and faith is not something you can really tell people they are getting wrong. It's what they believe.
posted by Hoopo at 1:50 PM on January 7, 2015
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from your link. It cites examples of Hadith that say Muhammad condemns images of Allah, Muhammad, the Prophets, and the people who make them will be condemned on the Day of Resurrection. There is a lot of disagreement over interpretation of Hadith, and even which Hadith collections are recognized as authentic throughout the branches and sects of Islam. While you assume to know the definitive "reason for the ban," Hadith can be interpreted in any number of ways by people of different faiths, and this can lead to any number of practices. No one's claiming faith and religious practice are totally rational things, and faith is not something you can really tell people they are getting wrong. It's what they believe.
posted by Hoopo at 1:50 PM on January 7, 2015
I understand and apologize, both for my wording and for contributing to a pedantic derail objecting to one aspect of roomthreeseventeen's comment.
Thanks for addressing it. I don't mind the derail so much, I don't think the victims would mind a spirited debate, but the wording of it just hit me unexpectedly in the gut.
posted by ODiV at 1:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Thanks for addressing it. I don't mind the derail so much, I don't think the victims would mind a spirited debate, but the wording of it just hit me unexpectedly in the gut.
posted by ODiV at 1:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
So only speech that meets your political litmus test should be protected? Got it.
Hate Speech is a thing.
posted by colie at 1:52 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hate Speech is a thing.
posted by colie at 1:52 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think that it's worth looking at the cartoon about the kidnapped girls that infini links above. It shows some of what is meant by "mocking religion" and I think it's not what a lot of mefites have in mind.
Um, how is religion being mocked, or a target in any way in that (shitty) cartoon?
posted by VikingSword at 1:53 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Um, how is religion being mocked, or a target in any way in that (shitty) cartoon?
posted by VikingSword at 1:53 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
So only speech that meets your political litmus test should be protected? Got it.
Hate Speech is a thing.
Wait, I kind of thought Fidel Cashflow was misrepresenting you, but it seems like here you are saying this speech shouldn't be protected?
Hate speech isn't a "thing" to everyone. This is a complex and difficult issue, and people will argue about the lines between "hate speech" and "incitement"; but this response is chilling.
posted by spaltavian at 1:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
Hate Speech is a thing.
Wait, I kind of thought Fidel Cashflow was misrepresenting you, but it seems like here you are saying this speech shouldn't be protected?
Hate speech isn't a "thing" to everyone. This is a complex and difficult issue, and people will argue about the lines between "hate speech" and "incitement"; but this response is chilling.
posted by spaltavian at 1:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
symbioid, in a context other than this one you'd have a good and valid point.
But when a bunch of people just got killed by religious fanatics because they blasphemed said fanatic's religion then it is time to scream FREE SPEEEEECH as loud as you can.
I've got my own arguments with Charlie Hebdo, and in other circumstances I'd elaborate on them. But here? Now? In the context of a bunch of religious assholes murdering people for daring to speak ill of their religion? In that context I can do nothing but stand with Charlie Hebdo and give an unqualified condemnation of the evil, barbaric, people who committed this terrible crime and act of terrorism.
In this context one cannot be loud enough in their shouts of FREE SPEEEEECH, nor their condemnation of the religious people who did this.
posted by sotonohito at 1:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
But when a bunch of people just got killed by religious fanatics because they blasphemed said fanatic's religion then it is time to scream FREE SPEEEEECH as loud as you can.
I've got my own arguments with Charlie Hebdo, and in other circumstances I'd elaborate on them. But here? Now? In the context of a bunch of religious assholes murdering people for daring to speak ill of their religion? In that context I can do nothing but stand with Charlie Hebdo and give an unqualified condemnation of the evil, barbaric, people who committed this terrible crime and act of terrorism.
In this context one cannot be loud enough in their shouts of FREE SPEEEEECH, nor their condemnation of the religious people who did this.
posted by sotonohito at 1:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [24 favorites]
Focusing on whether the cartoons were appropriate or inflammatory in the face of this attack is no different than focusing on whether what someone is wearing was appropriate after they got attacked. It is irrelevant. The cartoonists, no matter what they drew or published, were the only victims here. Everything else is victim blaming.
posted by Justinian at 1:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
Hate Speech is a thing.
Hate speech is generally considered to be incitement to violence or some sort of action, not simply offensive speech.
posted by empath at 1:56 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Hate speech is generally considered to be incitement to violence or some sort of action, not simply offensive speech.
posted by empath at 1:56 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
to show that we cannot be intimidated
I think turning this into an "us" vs. "them" thing ("we" cannot be intimidated) is, in that hackneyed phrase, "letting the terrorists win." That is exactly the response they want.
This is where I think so much of the responses, on both sides, in this thread are wrong. The assholes who perpetrated this vile act are not ordinary muslims who were pushed over the edge by CH's over-extreme cartoons. Ordinary muslims in France and elsewhere would place scurrilous satirical cartoons pretty fucking low down on the list of things that they're deeply worried about. We talking about a really, really small sect of deeply destructive and lunatic radicals here who chose CH in order to provide a convenient kind of break point that would encourage an "us" vs. "them" mentality. We're playing directly into their hands when we respond to this either with a "we'll show them we're not cowed" response OR with a "gee, maybe we should be nicer to those c-r-a-z-y muslims because you never know WHAT will push them over the edge!" response.
posted by yoink at 1:56 PM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
I think turning this into an "us" vs. "them" thing ("we" cannot be intimidated) is, in that hackneyed phrase, "letting the terrorists win." That is exactly the response they want.
This is where I think so much of the responses, on both sides, in this thread are wrong. The assholes who perpetrated this vile act are not ordinary muslims who were pushed over the edge by CH's over-extreme cartoons. Ordinary muslims in France and elsewhere would place scurrilous satirical cartoons pretty fucking low down on the list of things that they're deeply worried about. We talking about a really, really small sect of deeply destructive and lunatic radicals here who chose CH in order to provide a convenient kind of break point that would encourage an "us" vs. "them" mentality. We're playing directly into their hands when we respond to this either with a "we'll show them we're not cowed" response OR with a "gee, maybe we should be nicer to those c-r-a-z-y muslims because you never know WHAT will push them over the edge!" response.
posted by yoink at 1:56 PM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
Berlin's daily newspaper BZ tomorrow
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:58 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:58 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
Good for BZ.
posted by Justinian at 1:58 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:58 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
arcticseal: I agree with this approach. Treat them as common criminals and murders, deny them the excuse of their religion.Oh, come on. It's not like "They were devout muslims!" is going to be part of the defense.
Obscurity is what I'd love. Naming them once, for clarity, and thereafter "gunman (suspect) #1", "terrorist organization #24", etc.
"John Wayne Gacy (hereafter Serial Killer #195) was arraigned today..." So much for going down in glory, loser (#91234).
posted by IAmBroom at 1:59 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Um, how is religion being mocked, or a target in any way in that (shitty) cartoon?
My point was that I think that if we examine what folks are defending as "it's okay to mock Islam", it's very often stuff like this, that is racist and deals with international issues involving Muslims rather than something along the lines of "ha ha stupid Martin Luther and his "Diet" at Worms" or "ha ha what a stupid theological point". My sense is that because a lot of people - including me - don't look at this kind of thing regularly, we assume that satire that offends Muslims is always "religious" in some way that is equivalent to "yeah, look at the Pope's stupid custom socks, what an entitled jerk*".
*Many popes actually do wear special custom socks; I'm not sure if the current pope is carrying on with the tradition. It's always pushed me towards the "poverty of Christ" side of the debate.
posted by Frowner at 1:59 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
My point was that I think that if we examine what folks are defending as "it's okay to mock Islam", it's very often stuff like this, that is racist and deals with international issues involving Muslims rather than something along the lines of "ha ha stupid Martin Luther and his "Diet" at Worms" or "ha ha what a stupid theological point". My sense is that because a lot of people - including me - don't look at this kind of thing regularly, we assume that satire that offends Muslims is always "religious" in some way that is equivalent to "yeah, look at the Pope's stupid custom socks, what an entitled jerk*".
*Many popes actually do wear special custom socks; I'm not sure if the current pope is carrying on with the tradition. It's always pushed me towards the "poverty of Christ" side of the debate.
posted by Frowner at 1:59 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think the duality of the attributions "It is wrong to blame the victim" versus "But, they were punching down" can be understood in terms of an is-ought distinction. Of course free speech ought to be protected, but elements of a heterogeneous global audience may not in actuality respect this as a human right. I.e., throughout history people saying the Wrong Thing was sufficient for various entities to kill them, and that's the pragmatic aspect of it. So it becomes an individual/social choice as to how to deal with this:
Charbonnier said he didn't fear retaliation for the magazine's controversial work. He explained to Le Monde in 2012, "I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. This may be a bit pompous what I'm saying, but I prefer to die standing up than live on my knees."
That's Charbonnier talking, maybe not your or my own stance. One outside view is basically you have two factions thinking of themselves as having nothing left, and the cognitive resources (or lack thereof) concomitant with that, and thus a volatile recipe for disaster. The productive question for the left is what can we learn from this event?, asking ourselves if the way we approach things needs any adjustment, etc.
posted by polymodus at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Charbonnier said he didn't fear retaliation for the magazine's controversial work. He explained to Le Monde in 2012, "I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. This may be a bit pompous what I'm saying, but I prefer to die standing up than live on my knees."
That's Charbonnier talking, maybe not your or my own stance. One outside view is basically you have two factions thinking of themselves as having nothing left, and the cognitive resources (or lack thereof) concomitant with that, and thus a volatile recipe for disaster. The productive question for the left is what can we learn from this event?, asking ourselves if the way we approach things needs any adjustment, etc.
posted by polymodus at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hate Speech is a thing.
Where I am hate speech is a thing that mostly covers incitement to violence or attempts to intimidate - certainly the definition of hate speech that applies to the press anyway. I don't think the cartoonists were the ones doing either of those things in this case.
posted by atoxyl at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Where I am hate speech is a thing that mostly covers incitement to violence or attempts to intimidate - certainly the definition of hate speech that applies to the press anyway. I don't think the cartoonists were the ones doing either of those things in this case.
posted by atoxyl at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fidel Cashflow: " That is one of the shittest cartoons I have ever seen in my entire life. And it's on the front cover.
Should only tasteful satire be protected speech?"
Who the fuck is saying "BAN IT!" There's a huge difference between us talking about the issue on the blue, questioning whether something is a good thing to do in light of many factors and contexts, and calling for a BAN on free speech. Who said it shouldn't be protected? I said in a few different comments : GO FOR IT! Do whatever the fuck you want. The freedom to do something also comes with the freedom to not do it, and ideally it comes with a certain amount of responsibility, but we don't live in an ideal world, so we get to deal with people working to divide and disenfranchise people and harden the divide rather than working to bring people together.
Interestingly, I think this thread is almost an example of this - no matter how much I say you have the right to do this, and merely question the wisdom of it (with neither any power or even fucking WILL to do anything to prevent you from not doing it), you scream free speech over and over without talking about the other issues at play. And this is why I say there are many factors, because you want it to be 2 issues: Murder and Free Speech. But it's more than that, it's about oppression, it's about regionalism, division, factionalism, immigration, nationalism, ethnic and religious divides. It's about given cultures and the definition of "free speech" and "free religious expression"...
Why would this thread be so long and difficult if we could all just say "yeah, go draw Mohammed bombing an airplane free speech!" and "murder is bad, mmmkay"... Because some of us believe that the issue isn't clear cut.
If this was supposed to just be a "." thread, then I guess I'm in the wrong place, since I thought we were here for discussion of something deeper than the surface issues.
(oh, and I guess since I didn't say it enough, YES I AM AGAINST THE MURDER OF THE 12 INNOCENT CARTOONISTS AND I HOPE PEOPLE SEE THIS IN BOLD BECAUSE CLEARLY IF I DIDN'T MAKE SUCH AN OBVIOUS DENUNCIATION PREVIOUSLY IN OTHER COMMENTS IT MUST MEAN THAT BY QUESTIONING THE WISDOM OF THE ACT OF THE VICTIMS I'M CLEARLY VICTIM BLAMING AND MORE THAN THAT, APPARENTLY JUSTIFYING THE BRUTAL, WICKED AND EVIL ACTS OF THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THESE CRIMES AGAINST INNOCENTS WHOSE ONLY "CRIME" (note the quotes!) WAS SAYING SOMETHING OFFENSIVE)
posted by symbioid at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
Should only tasteful satire be protected speech?"
Who the fuck is saying "BAN IT!" There's a huge difference between us talking about the issue on the blue, questioning whether something is a good thing to do in light of many factors and contexts, and calling for a BAN on free speech. Who said it shouldn't be protected? I said in a few different comments : GO FOR IT! Do whatever the fuck you want. The freedom to do something also comes with the freedom to not do it, and ideally it comes with a certain amount of responsibility, but we don't live in an ideal world, so we get to deal with people working to divide and disenfranchise people and harden the divide rather than working to bring people together.
Interestingly, I think this thread is almost an example of this - no matter how much I say you have the right to do this, and merely question the wisdom of it (with neither any power or even fucking WILL to do anything to prevent you from not doing it), you scream free speech over and over without talking about the other issues at play. And this is why I say there are many factors, because you want it to be 2 issues: Murder and Free Speech. But it's more than that, it's about oppression, it's about regionalism, division, factionalism, immigration, nationalism, ethnic and religious divides. It's about given cultures and the definition of "free speech" and "free religious expression"...
Why would this thread be so long and difficult if we could all just say "yeah, go draw Mohammed bombing an airplane free speech!" and "murder is bad, mmmkay"... Because some of us believe that the issue isn't clear cut.
If this was supposed to just be a "." thread, then I guess I'm in the wrong place, since I thought we were here for discussion of something deeper than the surface issues.
(oh, and I guess since I didn't say it enough, YES I AM AGAINST THE MURDER OF THE 12 INNOCENT CARTOONISTS AND I HOPE PEOPLE SEE THIS IN BOLD BECAUSE CLEARLY IF I DIDN'T MAKE SUCH AN OBVIOUS DENUNCIATION PREVIOUSLY IN OTHER COMMENTS IT MUST MEAN THAT BY QUESTIONING THE WISDOM OF THE ACT OF THE VICTIMS I'M CLEARLY VICTIM BLAMING AND MORE THAN THAT, APPARENTLY JUSTIFYING THE BRUTAL, WICKED AND EVIL ACTS OF THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THESE CRIMES AGAINST INNOCENTS WHOSE ONLY "CRIME" (note the quotes!) WAS SAYING SOMETHING OFFENSIVE)
posted by symbioid at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [22 favorites]
Sincere Kirabo - "On Charlie Hebdo: the Defenseless Gods & the Underlings Who Fight Their Fights"
I will not resort to hasty generalizations and conflation. These heinous events will not force my tongue to form absolute statements, resulting in unqualified, indiscriminate denouncements. I will not say such things as “This proves that all religions are evil!” or that “‘Religion of peace’? Ha! Look at what they do!”Heina Dadabhoy - "Graven Images of Muhammad Should Lead to No Graves"
That said, these and like events – which vary, but have been a recurring theme since early human recorded history to present day – cause me to think a bit more about the ideation behind such homicidal motivations.
Back in 2005, I was a Muslim. Here in 2015, I’m an ex-Muslim atheist. My feelings about the cartoons are the same: They’re trashy pieces of arguable race-bait not worth killing or dying for, and the right to publish trashy race-baiting cartoons is definitely worth dying (and maybe killing?) for.posted by audi alteram partem at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
In that way, I was in a minority among the Muslim students at UC Irvine. It certainly felt like I was the only one to both see the problems with the cartoons and the far more frightening and pressing problems with the violent reactions to the cartoons.
Hate speech is generally considered to be incitement to violence or some sort of action
Can also be interpreted as incitement to prejudice.
But I think yoink's comment above is very accurate and I will back away from the rage-y bits of my comments.
posted by colie at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Can also be interpreted as incitement to prejudice.
But I think yoink's comment above is very accurate and I will back away from the rage-y bits of my comments.
posted by colie at 2:00 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Regarding the Boko Haram-themed cartoon, French Wikipedia's bio for Riss reports that he was wounded in the attack.
I've spent a fair amount of the last hour trying to combine the efforts of Google Translate and my very rusty French to understand the context of that cartoon better. It does appear a lot of people took it at the time as Islamophobic and/or misogynistic in the 'punching down' mode discussed above, but it's interesting, I think, that the NegroNews.fr article states that Riss réussit l'exploit selon ses détracteurs de réunir tous les fantasmes de l'extrême droite (islam, voile, assistanat, violences envers les femmes…), which seems to mean that he was satirizing the reaction of the extreme right by "uniting their fantasies -- Islam, the veil, welfare, and violence against women". Which is to say that the person being poked may not be what we, not in France, take it to be. In short, it may be that the point is to suggest quite the opposite, i.e. that the National Front types have been throwing out the spectre of Islamic, non-Westernized, and specifically non-Caucasian women dependent on benefits might actually be something more like these kidnapped women than supposed. I'm also making a broad assumption that the right wing in France has similarly to that in the US co-opted the kidnapping event as another opportunity to criticize Islam in general.
I'm not standing on this interpretation, I'm only throwing it out there for discussion and more (human-)bean-plating. I do know that the specifically ethnic features of blacks have been taboo in American cartooning (with some careful relaxation allowing for caricature of President Obama) but have not been similarly in European cartooning, which might also be coloring (ahem) reactions.
posted by dhartung at 2:04 PM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
I've spent a fair amount of the last hour trying to combine the efforts of Google Translate and my very rusty French to understand the context of that cartoon better. It does appear a lot of people took it at the time as Islamophobic and/or misogynistic in the 'punching down' mode discussed above, but it's interesting, I think, that the NegroNews.fr article states that Riss réussit l'exploit selon ses détracteurs de réunir tous les fantasmes de l'extrême droite (islam, voile, assistanat, violences envers les femmes…), which seems to mean that he was satirizing the reaction of the extreme right by "uniting their fantasies -- Islam, the veil, welfare, and violence against women". Which is to say that the person being poked may not be what we, not in France, take it to be. In short, it may be that the point is to suggest quite the opposite, i.e. that the National Front types have been throwing out the spectre of Islamic, non-Westernized, and specifically non-Caucasian women dependent on benefits might actually be something more like these kidnapped women than supposed. I'm also making a broad assumption that the right wing in France has similarly to that in the US co-opted the kidnapping event as another opportunity to criticize Islam in general.
I'm not standing on this interpretation, I'm only throwing it out there for discussion and more (human-)bean-plating. I do know that the specifically ethnic features of blacks have been taboo in American cartooning (with some careful relaxation allowing for caricature of President Obama) but have not been similarly in European cartooning, which might also be coloring (ahem) reactions.
posted by dhartung at 2:04 PM on January 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
But unless there is a context I don't know about, it doesn't even read as satire
Here's the context. It's a satire of the usual, tiring, decades-old right wing complaint about immigrants coming to France only to get welfare. That's pretty obvious if you're French anyway. The extreme-right wing Front National is one of the usual targets of Riss (see for instance this one about the Mediterranean sea "carrying out" the FN political program by drowning African immigrants). It may be tasteless for some, but this mixture of dark humour (often using actual tragedies) and political satire is a CH trademark.
posted by elgilito at 2:08 PM on January 7, 2015 [30 favorites]
Here's the context. It's a satire of the usual, tiring, decades-old right wing complaint about immigrants coming to France only to get welfare. That's pretty obvious if you're French anyway. The extreme-right wing Front National is one of the usual targets of Riss (see for instance this one about the Mediterranean sea "carrying out" the FN political program by drowning African immigrants). It may be tasteless for some, but this mixture of dark humour (often using actual tragedies) and political satire is a CH trademark.
posted by elgilito at 2:08 PM on January 7, 2015 [30 favorites]
I do know that the specifically ethnic features of blacks have been taboo in American cartooning (with some careful relaxation allowing for caricature of President Obama) but have not been similarly in European cartooning
You would never see that kind of cartoon in the UK. And my God it's not witty or clever.
posted by colie at 2:08 PM on January 7, 2015
You would never see that kind of cartoon in the UK. And my God it's not witty or clever.
posted by colie at 2:08 PM on January 7, 2015
My point was that I think that if we examine what folks are defending as "it's okay to mock Islam", it's very often stuff like this, that is racist and deals with international issues involving Muslims rather than something along the lines of "ha ha stupid Martin Luther and his "Diet" at Worms" or "ha ha what a stupid theological point".
How is your French? Because what I see is CH using these figures to make a political point that has nothing to do with mocking of the figures depicted. Please be more careful - we don't need more disinformation, especially in a sensitive situation such as this.
posted by VikingSword at 2:14 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
How is your French? Because what I see is CH using these figures to make a political point that has nothing to do with mocking of the figures depicted. Please be more careful - we don't need more disinformation, especially in a sensitive situation such as this.
posted by VikingSword at 2:14 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Here's the context. It's a satire of the usual, tiring, decades-old right wing complaint about immigrants coming to France only to get welfare. That's pretty obvious if you're French anyway.
Whoa, whoa!!! Let's not impede the CH Blame Train by putting any of these drawing in their proper context.
posted by MikeMc at 2:15 PM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Whoa, whoa!!! Let's not impede the CH Blame Train by putting any of these drawing in their proper context.
posted by MikeMc at 2:15 PM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Dominique Strauss-Kahn for President!
Charlie Hebdo - 2011
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:16 PM on January 7, 2015
Charlie Hebdo - 2011
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:16 PM on January 7, 2015
Since I just listened to this last week and considered making a post out of it, I'll link it here:
The highs and lows of 2014 in cartoons. Three of Canada's best political cartoonists sit down for a feature discussion of the year's most bizarre, infuriating and heartbreaking events.
posted by mannequito at 2:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The highs and lows of 2014 in cartoons. Three of Canada's best political cartoonists sit down for a feature discussion of the year's most bizarre, infuriating and heartbreaking events.
posted by mannequito at 2:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
colie, what dhartung is saying is that the cover is depicting a right-wing fantasy in the worst way possible, and that it is not as straight-forward as it seems-- similar to this New Yorker cover. The New Yorker was obviously not saying that the Obama's were muslim terrorists, even though that is what is being depicted.
posted by empath at 2:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by empath at 2:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
I also actually think it would be a disservice to the victims here and what they stood for not to discuss the political context of their work, so I'm not saying at all that people should just shut up and be shocked and don't talk about whether they did anything racist. I just can't get behind the "well they really shouldn't have done the Mohammed thing that's offensive to innocent people" thing which I think is way off base for several reasons.
posted by atoxyl at 2:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 2:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Only a slight comfort, but it was great to see US foreign secretary John Kerry actually speaking out about the attack in French; such a difference from the "freedom fries" nonsense of a decade ago.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by MartinWisse at 2:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [21 favorites]
How is your French? Because what I see is CH using these figures to make a political point that has nothing to do with mocking of the figures depicted. Please be more careful - we don't need more disinformation, especially in a sensitive situation such as this.
Okay, granted. I admit that I found the image so shocking and unacceptable as an image that I only read the first couple sentences of the article. (French is okay, but I need to concentrate to read news articles of any length.) I take back my comment; I was wrong and hasty.
posted by Frowner at 2:20 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Okay, granted. I admit that I found the image so shocking and unacceptable as an image that I only read the first couple sentences of the article. (French is okay, but I need to concentrate to read news articles of any length.) I take back my comment; I was wrong and hasty.
posted by Frowner at 2:20 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
I hope they catch the criminals who did this.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
. . . .
. . . .
I hope they catch the criminals who did this.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here's the context. It's a satire of the usual, tiring, decades-old right wing complaint about immigrants coming to France only to get welfare.
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. I understand it as satire now.
posted by Thing at 2:23 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. I understand it as satire now.
posted by Thing at 2:23 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
My issue with that Boko Haram cartoon is not ideological, but technical. I don't like to see black people depicted in stereotyped ways, even if the intent is good, anymore than I like to see Jewish people depicted in with hooked noses etc., even if the intent is good. That's why I'd call it a shitty cartoon - as in, "the cartoonist should reach beyond lazy tropes". The intention of the cartoon was not objectionable; the execution was lacking.
On preview: no prob. Frowner, it's a fast moving thread, and we're all probably too shaken to think 100% clearly, myself included.
posted by VikingSword at 2:23 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
On preview: no prob. Frowner, it's a fast moving thread, and we're all probably too shaken to think 100% clearly, myself included.
posted by VikingSword at 2:23 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
According to Buzzfeed, French police are conducting searches in Charleville, near the border with Germany.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:23 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:23 PM on January 7, 2015
Someone on NPR was just saying that Charlie's cartoons often depicted the Prophet in a friendly way while depicting the terrorists worshipping him in a bad light. Seems to be the case in a couple of these.
Charlie Hebdo and its biting satire, explained in 9 of its most iconic covers
Charlie Hebdo and its biting satire, explained in 9 of its most iconic covers
"I am the prophet, asshole!"posted by Golden Eternity at 2:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
"It's hard to be loved by idiots"
.
posted by SisterHavana at 2:28 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by SisterHavana at 2:28 PM on January 7, 2015
EmpressCallipygos: There's satire which mocks religion - and then there's satire which mocks religion by mis-using a sacred part of that religion, and the two are not equivalent.Like hell they aren't equivalent.
Larry Flynt's right to show penises penetrating vulvas in Hustler.
Madame Chatterly's Lover
The Catcher in the Rye.
Black Like Me.
A cartoon depicting Mohammed wearing a bomb with a lit fuse as a turban.
An article in The Onion, purportedly written by First Lady Laura Bush, about her constant troubles with explosive, bloody diarrhea.
The dream sequence in The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ in which he decides to abandon humanity's salvation in favor of having a sex life with Mary Magdalen.
Robert Maplethorpe's Piss Christ.
Each and every one of these is a simple example of a human being's right to freedom of expression, without regard to context.
I would love to live in a world where the "context that provoked" murder was inadmissable in court, aside from ideas like "in order to save another human's life" (which makes it not murder). Is it a murder trial? Yes? OK, then: no more discussion allowed of what the victims did before the crime started. Just evidence about the killing. Period.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
I'm not questioning the RIGHT to do something, I'm questioning the WISDOM of doing something.
Yuck. "Sure you have the right to drink as much as you want at a frat party, but I question the wisdom of it." It's not wrong, exactly, but it's gross.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:46 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yuck. "Sure you have the right to drink as much as you want at a frat party, but I question the wisdom of it." It's not wrong, exactly, but it's gross.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:46 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
An anti-terror raid is in progress in Reims, according to AFP.
posted by topynate at 2:46 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by topynate at 2:46 PM on January 7, 2015
empath, thanks, that's pretty much exactly what I was saying in a roundabout way.
Also, I don't think that cartoons are necessarily trying to be witty or clever, if they are about calling out something that needs to be called out. One isn't picking up the tabloid with the cartoons just for a chuckle. It's pretty much de rigueur for the right in the US to dismiss e.g. Jon Stewart as unfunny, but the jokes aren't the point.
posted by dhartung at 2:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, I don't think that cartoons are necessarily trying to be witty or clever, if they are about calling out something that needs to be called out. One isn't picking up the tabloid with the cartoons just for a chuckle. It's pretty much de rigueur for the right in the US to dismiss e.g. Jon Stewart as unfunny, but the jokes aren't the point.
posted by dhartung at 2:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Juan Cole: Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris
Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 2:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 2:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
empath: " But satirists should be free to target who ever they feel like, including minority groups. "
I am not disagreeing with your 'free to' as clearly, some people are misunderstanding my point to think I'm calling for banning publication of the cartoons or that the cartoons somehow justify the artists/publishers being killed (that is, to say "not free to..." which is not the case)
I am however, disagreeing with your perception of the target of satire being "anyone they feel like" (and yes, I realize we're now entering a semantic debate, but fuck, if we're going to talk about whether there is or isn't a "proper" target for satire, I think we'd best figure out what, exactly, satire is):
Good ol' Wikipedia:
Now - we could ask whether it would be "wise" in the sense of this satirist being beheaded by the Saudi Arabia... But since my point isn't about whether the wisdom lies in being killed or not being killed , since it's about who has the reigns of power, who is seen as "the outsider", and who is persecuted... The difficulty of the discussion comes, not just from questions of "individual rights" or "collective beliefs" but interpretations of inter- vs intra- groups rights and responsibilities, and how those groups (and members of those groups) relate to each other on a local/regional level.
Choosing a target for satire relies upon context, in one's social standing, in a political system, in one's cultural systems, and their national/collective identity(identities).
This is why I said if you satire the particular people doing these horrific acts, then that might be more pertinent. Because clearly, these people are doing things and holding power in regions, and they deserve mockery, scorn and much worse, IMO, if there is a hellfire. ISIS, House of Saud, Yemen, Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc...
But making a blanket target like Mohammed in general, which affects not just those of particular subsets of Islamic ideology (many Muslims might even consider a pronouncement of Takfir upon them if it were within their rights to do so), but also it hits those who are being repressed by those very tyrants we should be striking out against, that is - striking out at the victims and their sincere beliefs.
Muslim women who are being oppressed by extremist Muslims who prevent them from going out and driving (or having a job, or doing anything outside the house, or having male friends, or having an education, etc...) In this sense, it victimizes those who are already victims and works in the service of the dominant, xenophobic narrative. It perpetuates a view of Islam as monolithic, and in doing so - reinforces the view that all Muslims are targets, including those who are most repressed within an extremist Islamic system.
I absolutely understand the desire to lash out against Islam as being a reactionary force, certainly most all institutionalized religions are, IMO, reactionary. Would I have the power I would love to see us all embrace a future Star Trek secular global utopia without religion to divide us. But we don't live in that world. And I support discussing the nuances of these things, but the defense of "Free Speech", in a reactive manner, as if "the barbarian muslim hordes are at the gate and we MUST offend if we are to defend (our freedom of speech)" is trite, simplistic and disturbing, because without critical thinking, with reflexive defense we only hasten and further radicalization amongst some subset of the population who will feel targeted (justly or not) by our offensive maneuvers.
I think I'm almost done with this comment, and probably done adding more to this thread, because I've clearly said a pamphlets worth, already...
And yes while I screamed it above in a comment, I do want to make it clear, not only that I condemn these murderous attacks, and hope the perpetrators are caught, I also extend my sympathy to the loved ones of those who were killed, and also - to those of the families of the murderers if they are now dealing with the fallout of their "bad seeds"... To the citizens of France, to the defenders of "Free Speech" to the victims of Islamic radicals in whatever country, as an act of solidarity against the aggressive death-cult that weaves its way amongst certain populations of Muslims. Victims of a virus that commands people to kill in the name of their ideology. A big fat...
.
posted by symbioid at 2:57 PM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
I am not disagreeing with your 'free to' as clearly, some people are misunderstanding my point to think I'm calling for banning publication of the cartoons or that the cartoons somehow justify the artists/publishers being killed (that is, to say "not free to..." which is not the case)
I am however, disagreeing with your perception of the target of satire being "anyone they feel like" (and yes, I realize we're now entering a semantic debate, but fuck, if we're going to talk about whether there is or isn't a "proper" target for satire, I think we'd best figure out what, exactly, satire is):
Good ol' Wikipedia:
Satire and irony ... provide the keenest insights into a group's collective psyche, reveal its deepest values and tastes, and the society's structures of power.Now we can certainly argue on whether or not these cartoons are a "public opinion counterweight to power" or not... But I don't think any of the above justifies "punching down" at those who aren't on the top. You can make the claim (and on a local level, in certain regimes, I certainly would make the claim) that cartoons against Islam as a dominant ideology is "punching up" (for example, I would fully support a Saudi Arabian satirist to mock that country's implementation of Shariah -- hell, I support any satirist that mocks those wielding the power of the state to implement such a system).
Historically, satire has satisfied the popular need to debunk and ridicule the leading figures in politics, economy, religion and other prominent realms of power... [it is] playing as a public opinion counterweight to power (being political, economic, religious, symbolic, or otherwise), by challenging leaders and authorities.
Now - we could ask whether it would be "wise" in the sense of this satirist being beheaded by the Saudi Arabia... But since my point isn't about whether the wisdom lies in being killed or not being killed , since it's about who has the reigns of power, who is seen as "the outsider", and who is persecuted... The difficulty of the discussion comes, not just from questions of "individual rights" or "collective beliefs" but interpretations of inter- vs intra- groups rights and responsibilities, and how those groups (and members of those groups) relate to each other on a local/regional level.
Choosing a target for satire relies upon context, in one's social standing, in a political system, in one's cultural systems, and their national/collective identity(identities).
This is why I said if you satire the particular people doing these horrific acts, then that might be more pertinent. Because clearly, these people are doing things and holding power in regions, and they deserve mockery, scorn and much worse, IMO, if there is a hellfire. ISIS, House of Saud, Yemen, Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc...
But making a blanket target like Mohammed in general, which affects not just those of particular subsets of Islamic ideology (many Muslims might even consider a pronouncement of Takfir upon them if it were within their rights to do so), but also it hits those who are being repressed by those very tyrants we should be striking out against, that is - striking out at the victims and their sincere beliefs.
Muslim women who are being oppressed by extremist Muslims who prevent them from going out and driving (or having a job, or doing anything outside the house, or having male friends, or having an education, etc...) In this sense, it victimizes those who are already victims and works in the service of the dominant, xenophobic narrative. It perpetuates a view of Islam as monolithic, and in doing so - reinforces the view that all Muslims are targets, including those who are most repressed within an extremist Islamic system.
I absolutely understand the desire to lash out against Islam as being a reactionary force, certainly most all institutionalized religions are, IMO, reactionary. Would I have the power I would love to see us all embrace a future Star Trek secular global utopia without religion to divide us. But we don't live in that world. And I support discussing the nuances of these things, but the defense of "Free Speech", in a reactive manner, as if "the barbarian muslim hordes are at the gate and we MUST offend if we are to defend (our freedom of speech)" is trite, simplistic and disturbing, because without critical thinking, with reflexive defense we only hasten and further radicalization amongst some subset of the population who will feel targeted (justly or not) by our offensive maneuvers.
I think I'm almost done with this comment, and probably done adding more to this thread, because I've clearly said a pamphlets worth, already...
And yes while I screamed it above in a comment, I do want to make it clear, not only that I condemn these murderous attacks, and hope the perpetrators are caught, I also extend my sympathy to the loved ones of those who were killed, and also - to those of the families of the murderers if they are now dealing with the fallout of their "bad seeds"... To the citizens of France, to the defenders of "Free Speech" to the victims of Islamic radicals in whatever country, as an act of solidarity against the aggressive death-cult that weaves its way amongst certain populations of Muslims. Victims of a virus that commands people to kill in the name of their ideology. A big fat...
.
posted by symbioid at 2:57 PM on January 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Juan Cole
Good for Juan figuring out who was responsible and what their motives were. I'm sure the French police will find his input particularly valuable in capturing those responsible and figuring out their motives.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:59 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Good for Juan figuring out who was responsible and what their motives were. I'm sure the French police will find his input particularly valuable in capturing those responsible and figuring out their motives.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:59 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
>Mostly I don't understand it. I have a feeling that it's not actually "about" the Boko Haram thing so much as using it to comment on something else.
Yoink, my take was that the cartoon was directed less on French allocations familiales (allocs) as the presumed lack of such benefits in the realm of Boko Haram. "Don't touch our [non-existent] allocs!"
But that's just a guess. I've not heard of any problems with the allocs in France per se, though I expect you can find the Gallic equivalent of Welfare Queen talk in the expected places if that's your thing. Others on the site assumed it was a genuine combination of misogyny and anti-Islam, or alternatively just a tasteless melange of right wing prejudice. Presumably to be edgy.
Pretty cold, no matter how you look at it.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:13 PM on January 7, 2015
Yoink, my take was that the cartoon was directed less on French allocations familiales (allocs) as the presumed lack of such benefits in the realm of Boko Haram. "Don't touch our [non-existent] allocs!"
But that's just a guess. I've not heard of any problems with the allocs in France per se, though I expect you can find the Gallic equivalent of Welfare Queen talk in the expected places if that's your thing. Others on the site assumed it was a genuine combination of misogyny and anti-Islam, or alternatively just a tasteless melange of right wing prejudice. Presumably to be edgy.
Pretty cold, no matter how you look at it.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:13 PM on January 7, 2015
> I'm sure the French police will find his input particularly valuable in capturing those responsible and figuring out their motives.
Likewise, I'm sure Juan Cole will wither under your condescension.
The French cops/judiciary can have their trial, and Superior Court of Public Opinion will have its own. You and I and Juan Cole are witnesses and jurors, which is why this court is so utterly fair and just and self-deluded. The value of an opinion is not limited to its evidentiary value; if it were otherwise, we'd all just have to shut the hell up, wouldn't we?
posted by Sunburnt at 3:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Likewise, I'm sure Juan Cole will wither under your condescension.
The French cops/judiciary can have their trial, and Superior Court of Public Opinion will have its own. You and I and Juan Cole are witnesses and jurors, which is why this court is so utterly fair and just and self-deluded. The value of an opinion is not limited to its evidentiary value; if it were otherwise, we'd all just have to shut the hell up, wouldn't we?
posted by Sunburnt at 3:18 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, some takes are so moronically predictable they don't even rise to the level of self-parody.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:19 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:19 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
We'll probably have to just wait and see. When the French authorities get the terrorists/murderers/losers we'll find out what their motivations were. (And I really hope the French authorities get them.) It sounds like something is going on in Reims right now.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Kevin Street at 3:22 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Interesting piece by Arthur Goldhammer in Al Jazeera America:
The satire that Charlie Hebdo exemplified was more blasphemous than political, and its roots lie deep in European history, dating from a time when in order to challenge authority, one had to confront divinity itself. In that one respect, the fanatics are not wrong: Charlie Hebdo was out to undermine the sacred as such.
posted by neroli at 3:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
The satire that Charlie Hebdo exemplified was more blasphemous than political, and its roots lie deep in European history, dating from a time when in order to challenge authority, one had to confront divinity itself. In that one respect, the fanatics are not wrong: Charlie Hebdo was out to undermine the sacred as such.
posted by neroli at 3:24 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
The French cops/judiciary can have their trial, and Superior Court of Public Opinion will have its own. You and I and Juan Cole are witnesses and jurors, which is why this court is so utterly fair and just and self-deluded. The value of an opinion is not limited to its evidentiary value; if it were otherwise, we'd all just have to shut the hell up, wouldn't we?
Juan Cole is a journalist. You and I are just assholes on the Internet.
In theory, journalists should be reporting on facts - even opinion columnist who purport to be journalists - should be basing their opinions on facts. Inventing facts to support an opinion you already have is lousy journalism and deserves as much scorn as can possible be mustered..
Inventing facts to support an opinion by assholes on the internet should be met with "LOL BUTTS."
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:30 PM on January 7, 2015
Juan Cole is a journalist. You and I are just assholes on the Internet.
In theory, journalists should be reporting on facts - even opinion columnist who purport to be journalists - should be basing their opinions on facts. Inventing facts to support an opinion you already have is lousy journalism and deserves as much scorn as can possible be mustered..
Inventing facts to support an opinion by assholes on the internet should be met with "LOL BUTTS."
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:30 PM on January 7, 2015
I wish all these "zomg free speech" defenders coming out of the woodwork right now would be as passionate about free speech when Muslims are being the target of suppression of speech.
posted by divabat at 3:31 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by divabat at 3:31 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
NBC is reporting one of the suspects is dead, other two are in custody.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
symbioid, I totally disagree with you that Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were punching down, but I think I understand where you are coming from. You'd be right if they were satirizing everyday French Muslims, who face discrimination and high unemployment, much like the African-American population here, but that's not who C-H is after. They are after the extremists who are exploiting those everyday Muslims. They are after people who are seeking to undermine secular French culture. It's not as simple as rich white people vs. poor brown people.
This article might help a bit: The deep roots of French secularism
This article might help a bit: The deep roots of French secularism
Secularism is the closest thing the French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a basic tenet of the country's progressive thought since the 18th Century.posted by desjardins at 3:34 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
To this day, anything that smacks of official recognition of a religion - such as allowing Islamic headscarves in schools - is anathema to many French people.
Even those who oppose a headscarf ban do so in the name of a more modern, flexible form of secularism.
This tradition can be seen as a by-product of French Catholicism, as progressives have always seen the pulpit as an enemy, rather than a platform, unlike in some Protestant countries.
French Enlightenment thinkers such Voltaire, Diderot and Montesquieu regarded religion as divisive, benighted and intolerant.
In any case, I still think that criticizing the content of the cartoons comes too close to "those animals can't control themselves, don't provoke them."
posted by desjardins at 3:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 3:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Juan Cole is a journalist.
No, he's a tenured professor of history at the University of Michigan, and has been blogging on the Middle East and the relationship between Islam and the West since 2002. He has a column at Truthdig, but he's an academic first and foremost.
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:37 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
No, he's a tenured professor of history at the University of Michigan, and has been blogging on the Middle East and the relationship between Islam and the West since 2002. He has a column at Truthdig, but he's an academic first and foremost.
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:37 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Great link, neroli.
After a few hours of processing and thinking about who CH identified as and with in the context of my limited knowledge of contemporary French culture, I think they must see themselves as acting in accordance with Voltaire's dictum, “écrasons l'infâme”.
This has allowed me to see the magazine's use of stereotyping as descended from such sources as the work of Robert Crumb, who also has employed stereotypical imagery in his work (which is admittedly quite distinct from that seen in CH).
posted by mwhybark at 3:37 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
After a few hours of processing and thinking about who CH identified as and with in the context of my limited knowledge of contemporary French culture, I think they must see themselves as acting in accordance with Voltaire's dictum, “écrasons l'infâme”.
This has allowed me to see the magazine's use of stereotyping as descended from such sources as the work of Robert Crumb, who also has employed stereotypical imagery in his work (which is admittedly quite distinct from that seen in CH).
posted by mwhybark at 3:37 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I just think it'd be good to be wary of the attitude that aggressively making transgressive fun of Muhammad/Islam is the brave and constructive way to respond to a horrific event like this.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:39 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:39 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
No, he's a tenured professor of history at the University of Michigan, and has been blogging on the Middle East and the relationship between Islam and the West since 2002. He has a column at Truthdig, but he's an academic first and foremost.
Ah, I stand corrected. Since he's a professor, he's welcome to make up any unsupported thing he wants.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:40 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ah, I stand corrected. Since he's a professor, he's welcome to make up any unsupported thing he wants.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:40 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
If, say, David Duke published a cartoon of, say, Barack Obama in full-on racist witch-doctor regalia, having sex with the Pope, I would find this racist, religiously intolerant, and stupid piece of "satire" offensive on many levels.
But shooting him for it would be a far, far worse thing.
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
But shooting him for it would be a far, far worse thing.
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I wish all these "zomg free speech" defenders coming out of the woodwork right now would be as passionate about free speech when Muslims are being the target of suppression of speech.
Whom are you talking about as "zomg free speech" defenders? Because all your links are to the suppression of speech in Malaysia; I don't think anyone on Metafilter has ever been OK with free speech being suppressed anywhere, and we regularly have people decrying human rights violations in countries like f.ex. Saudi Arabia. That said, it is understandable that the "zomg free speech" defenders in the West emphasize threats to these rights here in the West, as that's what they can impact most readily - their own political space. Or am I misunderstanding you?
posted by VikingSword at 3:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
Whom are you talking about as "zomg free speech" defenders? Because all your links are to the suppression of speech in Malaysia; I don't think anyone on Metafilter has ever been OK with free speech being suppressed anywhere, and we regularly have people decrying human rights violations in countries like f.ex. Saudi Arabia. That said, it is understandable that the "zomg free speech" defenders in the West emphasize threats to these rights here in the West, as that's what they can impact most readily - their own political space. Or am I misunderstanding you?
posted by VikingSword at 3:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
VikingSword: Those are some quick links that I found; there's been more. What I am seeing is a certain type of dynamic that tends to get more attention by the wider world - non-Muslims in non-Muslim-dominant countries getting support when attacked violently for "free speech" by Muslim extremists. In contrast, when Muslims themselves are being suppressed for speech, it doesn't get as much attention unless it's a backbone to spreading more Islamophobia (see FEMEN's "omg Muslim women are oppressed" responses). It's hypocrisy.
posted by divabat at 3:45 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by divabat at 3:45 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
I wish all these "zomg free speech" defenders coming out of the woodwork right now would be as passionate about free speech when Muslims are being the target of suppression of speech.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Muslims living in a predominately Muslim country are having their speech suppressed by other Muslims. What are we, as Westerners, supposed to do or say without being accused of trying to force "Western Values" on a non-Western society?
posted by MikeMc at 3:48 PM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Muslims living in a predominately Muslim country are having their speech suppressed by other Muslims. What are we, as Westerners, supposed to do or say without being accused of trying to force "Western Values" on a non-Western society?
posted by MikeMc at 3:48 PM on January 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
The best way to respond to an attack like this is to continue doing whatever you were doing before and not let it influence your thinking in any way. This kind of violence should be treated as the infection it is: abhorrent, disgusting and not part of any legitimate discussion of free speech. When the attackers are caught and no longer a danger to others (which may be the case already), attention should shift to the victims. I mean, as a society (definitely not talking about anyone in this thread), we give way too much attention to the perpetrators of violence.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 3:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
MikeMc: Follow the lead of these Muslims, listen to what they need, and support them. They'll tell you.
posted by divabat at 3:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by divabat at 3:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I completely disagree, divabat, I don't think it's hypocrisy, it's lack of awareness. I think it's a bit much to expect people to know what's going on everywhere. I mean, I could say that I think you're hypocritical because you haven't expressed any concern about the 13 month old child that was shot in Milwaukee a few weeks ago. Why don't you care about dead children?
See? It means nothing. But if you can provide links to mefi threads where people say they don't care about Muslim speech suppression, go ahead.
posted by desjardins at 3:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
See? It means nothing. But if you can provide links to mefi threads where people say they don't care about Muslim speech suppression, go ahead.
posted by desjardins at 3:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
I thought the comment was about the wider media response and not MetaFilter members specifically, but maybe I read it wrong.
posted by ODiV at 3:52 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by ODiV at 3:52 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
I agree with Juan Cole's assessment, that we need to recognize that a strategy of polarization is in effect with this attack. As with the FLN's massacres of Pied Noirs in the 1950s, or with other attacks, emotional and visceral reaction is the desired outcome of this action.
The men who perpetrated this atrocity want more 'Global War on Terror'. They want more discrimination against Muslims. They want more journalists and leftists to denounce satire, and implicitly assume the premises of their paradigm- that there are some things that cannot be mocked.
You do not populate a pluralistic and free society with multicultralist boddhisattvas of harmony and nuance. Having a free society means a certain tolerance for the asinine, the idiotic, and the intolerant, so long as their idiocies and biases are curbed at the border of the voting booth. Victims of terrorism are going to be people you don't like as well as people you like. Did the policemen deserve this death? What about the visiting festival planner, Legomancer? Necessary collateral damage as a consequence of these putative hatemongers?
We are advancing the agenda of these atrocitaires when we react to hate, to fear, to anger, whether it is against the journalists, or against the terrorists, though I by no means intend to suggest any parity between these two. What we need is to proceed with lucidity and reason; to persecute and deter the enemies of civility within our existing framework of law; to let Charlie Habdo sail on within their juvenalia.
To retaliate in rage or to censor in cowardice, either way is ceding oneself to the twisted logic of the fundamentalist's paradigm.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 3:54 PM on January 7, 2015 [34 favorites]
The men who perpetrated this atrocity want more 'Global War on Terror'. They want more discrimination against Muslims. They want more journalists and leftists to denounce satire, and implicitly assume the premises of their paradigm- that there are some things that cannot be mocked.
You do not populate a pluralistic and free society with multicultralist boddhisattvas of harmony and nuance. Having a free society means a certain tolerance for the asinine, the idiotic, and the intolerant, so long as their idiocies and biases are curbed at the border of the voting booth. Victims of terrorism are going to be people you don't like as well as people you like. Did the policemen deserve this death? What about the visiting festival planner, Legomancer? Necessary collateral damage as a consequence of these putative hatemongers?
We are advancing the agenda of these atrocitaires when we react to hate, to fear, to anger, whether it is against the journalists, or against the terrorists, though I by no means intend to suggest any parity between these two. What we need is to proceed with lucidity and reason; to persecute and deter the enemies of civility within our existing framework of law; to let Charlie Habdo sail on within their juvenalia.
To retaliate in rage or to censor in cowardice, either way is ceding oneself to the twisted logic of the fundamentalist's paradigm.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 3:54 PM on January 7, 2015 [34 favorites]
"Inventing facts to support an opinion by assholes on the internet should be met with "LOL BUTTS.""
The hell are you even on about?
posted by klangklangston at 3:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
The hell are you even on about?
posted by klangklangston at 3:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
NBC's "two senior U.S. counterterrorism officials" may have helped them scoop the entire world, if their information is accurate. Looks like everybody else is waiting for confirmation.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:00 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by Kevin Street at 4:00 PM on January 7, 2015
"...retaliate in rage or to censor in cowardice, either way is ceding oneself to the twisted logic of the fundamentalist's paradigm."
posted by clavdivs at 4:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 4:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
See what a lot of people are saying and what is pissing off nearly everybody else is that it's not necessarily a choice between examining the historical and current context surrounding the murders and condemning them. You can do both! Obviously murdering people for publishing shitty cartoons is horrible and frankly indefensible. In fact, many of the people killed were likely innocent of all but association and the murderers themselves were probably using shitty cartoons as a mere excuse. That doesn't mean you have to throw away all nuance and thought though. Every comment I've seen here going into more detail about CH's history with Islam and race, France's history with Islam and race, etc. has in addition expressed contempt for the murderers as well. There is a lot of ignorance of that context and history, of Islam and world religions generally and non-American concepts of free speech in this thread and most comments covering that seem to be coming from a place of educating. No one is saying, "Here's why these murders are okay." That'd be horrible. Some people are saying, "Here is more stuff to know about these horrible murders."
Maybe it is inappropriate to discuss these things just now. I suspect our feelings on that as a site are too wide and varied to hope for a consensus.
posted by byanyothername at 4:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Maybe it is inappropriate to discuss these things just now. I suspect our feelings on that as a site are too wide and varied to hope for a consensus.
posted by byanyothername at 4:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Jacobin: On Charlie Hebdo
No, the offices of Charlie Hebdo should not be raided by gun-wielding murderers. No, journalists are not legitimate targets for killing. But no, we also shouldn’t line up with the inevitable statist backlash against Muslims, or the ideological charge to defend a fetishized, racialized “secularism,” or concede to the blackmail which forces us into solidarity with a racist institution.posted by Corinth at 4:06 PM on January 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
Kevin Street, Slate is reporting that now as well.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:06 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:06 PM on January 7, 2015
(via NBC, though)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:07 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:07 PM on January 7, 2015
The editors and producers of the world probably feel like dogs straining at the leash right now. They really want to run with the NBC story and not get scooped by rivals, but they have to wait for confirmation from independent sources.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:11 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by Kevin Street at 4:11 PM on January 7, 2015
Fox News is running a chyron saying that two of the suspects are in custody and 1 other is dead. But they are not actually discussing that story. Very frustrating.
posted by phaedon at 4:15 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by phaedon at 4:15 PM on January 7, 2015
Jacobin: On Charlie Hebdo
Wasn't this linked further up? Anyway: analysis of the deep causes of this atrocity should start with the event and proceed outwards, through the killers, their history, and so on. That Jacobin piece navigates as swift a path as possible away from that. Also, they're wrong in point of fact: it emerged quite early on that one of the killers claimed responsibility as Al Qaeda in Yemen before entering the CH offices.
posted by topynate at 4:20 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wasn't this linked further up? Anyway: analysis of the deep causes of this atrocity should start with the event and proceed outwards, through the killers, their history, and so on. That Jacobin piece navigates as swift a path as possible away from that. Also, they're wrong in point of fact: it emerged quite early on that one of the killers claimed responsibility as Al Qaeda in Yemen before entering the CH offices.
posted by topynate at 4:20 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Via The Guardian: Banksy’s take on #CharlieHebdo
posted by Kevin Street at 4:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 4:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Here's a report from The Algemeiner that has a photo of an arrest warrant, allegedly in the terrorists' names: Identities of Islamist Terrorists in Paris Attack Revealed
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:41 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:41 PM on January 7, 2015
This via The Guardian:
There is still significant confusion about the nature and significance of the police raid in Reims.
French TV images are showing live pictures of armed anti-terrorism unit officers surrounding an apartment in the northern city.
Some police have been seen leaving the apartment block.
The Guardian’s Kim Willsher, in Paris, says:
>> There is a rumour that one of the gunmen has been killed in the police raid. I cannot confirm this. The France 2 journalist Hugo Clément who is at the scene says there has been NO information given about arrests or deaths. “The only certain thing is that there’s a raid”, he writes.
iTele, a French news channel, have said that the police raid is not a full-scale assault seeking to make arrests, but a search for DNA samples and other evidence.
posted by dhartung at 4:42 PM on January 7, 2015
There is still significant confusion about the nature and significance of the police raid in Reims.
French TV images are showing live pictures of armed anti-terrorism unit officers surrounding an apartment in the northern city.
Some police have been seen leaving the apartment block.
The Guardian’s Kim Willsher, in Paris, says:
>> There is a rumour that one of the gunmen has been killed in the police raid. I cannot confirm this. The France 2 journalist Hugo Clément who is at the scene says there has been NO information given about arrests or deaths. “The only certain thing is that there’s a raid”, he writes.
iTele, a French news channel, have said that the police raid is not a full-scale assault seeking to make arrests, but a search for DNA samples and other evidence.
posted by dhartung at 4:42 PM on January 7, 2015
Apparently the Instagram account named for Banksy (which is the best confirmation of legitimacy you'll get) has a terrific image in response.
posted by dhartung at 4:45 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by dhartung at 4:45 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Maybe it is inappropriate to discuss these things just now. I suspect our feelings on that as a site are too wide and varied to hope for a consensus.
What's the point of having a discussion if you do have a consensus?
Anyway I'm repeating myself a bit at this point but - I'm well aware of the thorniness of this subject in context, in fact I was quite opposed to the hijab ban &c., it's just - as far as punching up or down goes there's a certain amount of punching at a movement that literally inspired somebody to firebomb your office that I can't help but respect. But fundamentally I do think that what France really needs is more people making friends with Muslim immigrants (and their children) than enemies, and I'm afraid that's not what's going to happen.
posted by atoxyl at 4:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
What's the point of having a discussion if you do have a consensus?
Anyway I'm repeating myself a bit at this point but - I'm well aware of the thorniness of this subject in context, in fact I was quite opposed to the hijab ban &c., it's just - as far as punching up or down goes there's a certain amount of punching at a movement that literally inspired somebody to firebomb your office that I can't help but respect. But fundamentally I do think that what France really needs is more people making friends with Muslim immigrants (and their children) than enemies, and I'm afraid that's not what's going to happen.
posted by atoxyl at 4:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
#NotAllMuslims
I'm not understanding your point. #NotAllMen - the hashtag - is making fun of guys who butt into every conversation about rape/assault to say "not all men are like that!" Are you making fun of people who are suggesting that Muslims (as a group) should not be blamed for this attack?
posted by desjardins at 4:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'm not understanding your point. #NotAllMen - the hashtag - is making fun of guys who butt into every conversation about rape/assault to say "not all men are like that!" Are you making fun of people who are suggesting that Muslims (as a group) should not be blamed for this attack?
posted by desjardins at 4:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
@NeinQuarterly: "Thank you, satirists everywhere. Please offend us again soon."
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:08 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:08 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
#NotAllMen - the hashtag - is making fun of guys who butt into every conversation about rape/assault to say "not all men are like that!" Are you making fun of people who are suggesting that Muslims (as a group) should not be blamed for this attack?
Seems like poking fun at people who butt into every conversation about jihadist terrorism to say "not all Muslims are like that!" Transgressive, for here anyway, humor perhaps?
posted by MikeMc at 5:10 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Seems like poking fun at people who butt into every conversation about jihadist terrorism to say "not all Muslims are like that!" Transgressive, for here anyway, humor perhaps?
posted by MikeMc at 5:10 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
In summary:
Nobody should have been killed over those cartoons.
Fuck those cartoons.
posted by Artw at 5:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Nobody should have been killed over those cartoons.
Fuck those cartoons.
posted by Artw at 5:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Catholic League: Muslims Are Right To Be Angry
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 5:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 5:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nothing funny about making fun of something Muslims are expected to do every single time something gets perpetrated in their name, to a level that Christians, White people, and other demographics where other killers come from don't get expected to fulfil.
posted by divabat at 5:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by divabat at 5:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Yeah, divabat, that was my thought. Men who do the "not all men" thing are lampooned because of course no one thinks all men are rapists, they're being ridiculous. So they're fair game to make fun of. But there are plenty of people who really do think that all Muslims are violent extremists, so Muslims (or others) who feel the need to differentiate themselves should not be laughed at.
posted by desjardins at 5:19 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 5:19 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Nothing funny about making fun of something Muslims are expected to do every single time something gets perpetrated in their name, to a level that Christians, White people, and other demographics where other killers come from don't get expected to fulfill.
As an example of that, I haven't heard any calls for apologies from white men, and arguments for white men's collective guilt, and, in fact, not much of anything at all, regarding the fact that an NAACP headquarters was bombed yesterday by a white man.
posted by maxsparber at 5:20 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
As an example of that, I haven't heard any calls for apologies from white men, and arguments for white men's collective guilt, and, in fact, not much of anything at all, regarding the fact that an NAACP headquarters was bombed yesterday by a white man.
posted by maxsparber at 5:20 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
Actually the #NotAllMuslims analogy to #NotAllMen analogy fits perfectly, desjardins.
#NotAllMen = #NotAllMenWhoComplainAboutRapeConversations
#NotAllMuslims = #NotAllMuslimsWhoComplainAboutMuhammadCartoons
Both critique people trying to avoid justified criticism of an ideology by claiming personal injury : aspects of rape culture and Islamic fundamentalism.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
#NotAllMen = #NotAllMenWhoComplainAboutRapeConversations
#NotAllMuslims = #NotAllMuslimsWhoComplainAboutMuhammadCartoons
Both critique people trying to avoid justified criticism of an ideology by claiming personal injury : aspects of rape culture and Islamic fundamentalism.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ahmed Merabet, Cop Killed In Paris Attacks, Was Muslim
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:28 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
A history of racist and xenophobic cartoons does not "justified criticism of an ideology" make.
Especially since Muslims themselves have come under fire from Muslims and non-Muslims alike for critiquing their religion without this much solidarity.
posted by divabat at 5:29 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Especially since Muslims themselves have come under fire from Muslims and non-Muslims alike for critiquing their religion without this much solidarity.
posted by divabat at 5:29 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
@AFP: "#BREAKING: Youngest of three suspects in Paris attack surrenders to police, sources say"
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:32 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:32 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Maybe that underlines just how pointless and brutal this attack was, roomthreeseventeen. They weren't really making a point about anything or defending Islam, they just wanted to killkillkill.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:32 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 5:32 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
According to Le Monde one suspect is reported to have surrendered to the police.
posted by Nevin at 5:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Nevin at 5:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nothing funny about making fun of something Muslims are expected to do every single time something gets perpetrated in their name, to a level that Christians, White people, and other demographics where other killers come from don't get expected to fulfil.
Perhaps because Pew reports only 57% of Muslims worldwide have an unfavorable view of Al Qaeda, and only 51% have an unfavorable view of the Taliban.
So nearly half don't particularly mind.
It's not shocking, then, that denuciations of these vile organizations and their tactics is consistently called for.
posted by shivohum at 5:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Perhaps because Pew reports only 57% of Muslims worldwide have an unfavorable view of Al Qaeda, and only 51% have an unfavorable view of the Taliban.
So nearly half don't particularly mind.
It's not shocking, then, that denuciations of these vile organizations and their tactics is consistently called for.
posted by shivohum at 5:33 PM on January 7, 2015 [11 favorites]
Oxfam in France has expressed its sorrow at the shooting of Charb, one of the cartoonists, and points out that Charb had designed an anti-Israel poster for them in 2002. In other words, "please shoot us last."
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:34 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:34 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
...the murders in Paris were so specific and so brazen as to make their meaning quite clear. The cartoonists died for an idea. The killers are soldiers in a war against freedom of thought and speech, against tolerance, pluralism, and the right to offend—against everything decent in a democratic society. So we must all try to be Charlie, not just today but every day.
posted by Nevin at 5:35 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 5:35 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
As an example of that, I haven't heard any calls for apologies from white men, and arguments for white men's collective guilt, and, in fact, not much of anything at all, regarding the fact that an NAACP headquarters was bombed yesterday by a white man.
All white men are guilty of the attempted bombing of a building that housed the Colorado Springs NAACP and Mr. G’s Hair Design Studios by an unknown man with unknown motives. Fortunately no one was injured or killed and no damage, beyond scorched paint, was done to the structure. I accept my share of the guilt for this act whatever that share might be. Happy?
posted by MikeMc at 5:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
All white men are guilty of the attempted bombing of a building that housed the Colorado Springs NAACP and Mr. G’s Hair Design Studios by an unknown man with unknown motives. Fortunately no one was injured or killed and no damage, beyond scorched paint, was done to the structure. I accept my share of the guilt for this act whatever that share might be. Happy?
posted by MikeMc at 5:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
whhoooooosssssssssssshhhhhhhhh
posted by desjardins at 5:38 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 5:38 PM on January 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
#NotAllWhiteMen
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:38 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:38 PM on January 7, 2015
Fuck this shit, I'm out.
posted by divabat at 5:39 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by divabat at 5:39 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Nothing funny about making fun of something Muslims are expected to do every single time something gets perpetrated in their name, to a level that Christians, White people, and other demographics where other killers come from don't get expected to fulfil.
Stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism. It's bigoted and Islamophobic.
posted by homunculus at 5:41 PM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
Stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism. It's bigoted and Islamophobic.
posted by homunculus at 5:41 PM on January 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo cartoons mock Mohammed, that's not racist, divabat. And neither are feminist cartoons sexist.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:41 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 5:41 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
First, here's a great roundup of Muslim satirists attacking ISIS. Satire is sometimes the only recourse people have against atrocity.
Second... I'm really upset. Partly by the attack. I love French comics. I have a book by Wolinski on my shelves; I have another collection with some Cabu cartoons. It just seems insane that these guys have been murdered by terrorists.
And also by this thread. Such a display of victim blaming. How many people who are attacking Charlie Hebdo read French and have read the paper? It's hard to believe that people have even read Vox's summary and continue to maintain that CB's targets were "Muslims". They were attacking extremists, such as the extremists who bombed their offices, such as the extremists who murdered them. If this was "unwise", well, I hope you'll also explain to the Muslim satirists mentioned above how "unwise" they're being.
It's good to understand other people's cultures, and that includes France. French humor is far fiercer than American humor. The CB type of humor is closest to the underground cartoonists of the '60s, like Gilbert Shelton and Robert Crumb, but it's far more mainstream in France. It attacks everybody (including itself), it's deliberately provocative and obscene. It doesn't take well to people telling them to tone it down.
But do they actually hate people? I think this was best answered today by the Algerian cartoonist Ali Dilem:
"It's joking around. There's nothing nasty about it. It's not weapons that we're carrying; we're not there to do evil. When there were drawings on Muhammad, I was one of those who defended the Danish cartoonists, saying that there's no need to cut people's throats because they drew a caricature. There's things in life that are a little more serious than that. Here [Algeria], there have been massacres, including in editorial offices. In the paper "l’Hebdo libéré", people killed the editorial staff in 1994. I knew that they were capable of that, of such an extremity. But to hit cartoonists like Tignous... you can't hurt someone like Tignous. Cabu, he's the one who made me want to take up a pencil, who made me dream of being a cartoonist."
posted by zompist at 5:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [88 favorites]
Second... I'm really upset. Partly by the attack. I love French comics. I have a book by Wolinski on my shelves; I have another collection with some Cabu cartoons. It just seems insane that these guys have been murdered by terrorists.
And also by this thread. Such a display of victim blaming. How many people who are attacking Charlie Hebdo read French and have read the paper? It's hard to believe that people have even read Vox's summary and continue to maintain that CB's targets were "Muslims". They were attacking extremists, such as the extremists who bombed their offices, such as the extremists who murdered them. If this was "unwise", well, I hope you'll also explain to the Muslim satirists mentioned above how "unwise" they're being.
It's good to understand other people's cultures, and that includes France. French humor is far fiercer than American humor. The CB type of humor is closest to the underground cartoonists of the '60s, like Gilbert Shelton and Robert Crumb, but it's far more mainstream in France. It attacks everybody (including itself), it's deliberately provocative and obscene. It doesn't take well to people telling them to tone it down.
But do they actually hate people? I think this was best answered today by the Algerian cartoonist Ali Dilem:
"It's joking around. There's nothing nasty about it. It's not weapons that we're carrying; we're not there to do evil. When there were drawings on Muhammad, I was one of those who defended the Danish cartoonists, saying that there's no need to cut people's throats because they drew a caricature. There's things in life that are a little more serious than that. Here [Algeria], there have been massacres, including in editorial offices. In the paper "l’Hebdo libéré", people killed the editorial staff in 1994. I knew that they were capable of that, of such an extremity. But to hit cartoonists like Tignous... you can't hurt someone like Tignous. Cabu, he's the one who made me want to take up a pencil, who made me dream of being a cartoonist."
posted by zompist at 5:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [88 favorites]
A tribute to his friends, from the former Charlie Hebdo publisher Phillipe Val:
“They were so alive, they loved to make people happy, to make them laugh, to give them generous ideas. They were very good people. They were the best among us, as those who make us laugh, who are for liberty ... They were assassinated, it is an insufferable butchery.posted by Joe in Australia at 5:43 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
“We cannot let silence set in, we need help. We all need to band together against this horror. Terror must not prevent joy, must not prevent our ability to live, freedom, expression – I’m going to use stupid words – democracy, after all this is what is at stake. It is this kind of fraternity that allows us to live. We cannot allow this, this is an act of war. It might be good if tomorrow, all newspapers were called Charlie Hebdo. If we titled them all Charlie Hebdo. If all of France was Charlie Hebdo. It would show that we are not okay with this. That we will never let stop laughing. We will never let liberty be extinguished.”
Catholic League: Muslims Are Right To Be Angry
If the Catholic League agrees with you you're even more likely to be wrong.
posted by Justinian at 5:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
If the Catholic League agrees with you you're even more likely to be wrong.
posted by Justinian at 5:50 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
whhoooooosssssssssssshhhhhhhhh
I got what he was saying. But I really don't see how the NAACP bombing is at all relevant to this thread. Particularly since I believe a mod already mentioned upthread that it wasn't.
posted by MikeMc at 5:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I got what he was saying. But I really don't see how the NAACP bombing is at all relevant to this thread. Particularly since I believe a mod already mentioned upthread that it wasn't.
posted by MikeMc at 5:51 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Blows my mind Ayaan Hirsi Ali is on Anderson Cooper right now. She's also on the wanted poster being discussed on the news.
posted by phaedon at 5:52 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by phaedon at 5:52 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm sad beyond the capacity for rational thought.
posted by humanfont at 5:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 5:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I hope divabat decides to come back. We seem to be losing a lot of great MeFites :(
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Looks like NBC was right about the identities of the suspects, but wrong about their status. At the time of their report none of the suspects were in custody. Now one may be, and the other two are still at large.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:56 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by Kevin Street at 5:56 PM on January 7, 2015
Yes, sorry, NBC has now walked back on their earlier statement. Stupid news.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:12 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I hope divabat decides to come back. We seem to be losing a lot of great MeFites :(
Seconded. divabat, I hope you come back too.
posted by homunculus at 6:26 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Seconded. divabat, I hope you come back too.
posted by homunculus at 6:26 PM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Cartoonists, killed for their art, and humanity
posted by Artw at 6:27 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:27 PM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, this is horrifying. Deeply upsetting, and I feel very sad for twelve families right now.
I find comments like "Maybe discussing the political context just hours after a massacre happens is inappropriate" thoroughly asinine. Is this 'courtesy' ever extended to the anonymous brown people whose bodies litter the news? Is anyone ever like "woah, guys, let's not discuss Iraq policy for a while, 14 people died the other day in a market explosion in Tikrit"? And I put courtesy in scare quotes because establishing a freeze on discourse is not politeness, it's stupidity and creeping fascism.
posted by threeants at 6:31 PM on January 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
I find comments like "Maybe discussing the political context just hours after a massacre happens is inappropriate" thoroughly asinine. Is this 'courtesy' ever extended to the anonymous brown people whose bodies litter the news? Is anyone ever like "woah, guys, let's not discuss Iraq policy for a while, 14 people died the other day in a market explosion in Tikrit"? And I put courtesy in scare quotes because establishing a freeze on discourse is not politeness, it's stupidity and creeping fascism.
posted by threeants at 6:31 PM on January 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
(Kindness is avoiding a rousing political debate with a victim's grieving partner. Stupidity is freezing discussion on an online discussion forum.)
posted by threeants at 6:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by threeants at 6:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Perhaps because Pew reports only 57% of Muslims worldwide have an unfavorable view of Al Qaeda, and only 51% have an unfavorable view of the Taliban.
That link also said only 13% of respondents have favorable views of both of those groups, so y'know, way to bury the lede there.
posted by jackflaps at 6:46 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
That link also said only 13% of respondents have favorable views of both of those groups, so y'know, way to bury the lede there.
posted by jackflaps at 6:46 PM on January 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
That'll show 'em: Associated Press Takes Down “Piss Christ” Image After Complaints About Censorship Double Standard
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:49 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Suspects in Paris attack were on police radar for years
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:17 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The older brother was arrested in Paris in January 2005 when he was caught trying to fly to Damascus, Syria, on his way to join the Iraqi insurgency, according to a 2008 Bloomberg report. ...French Iraq Insurgents Get Up to 7 Years in Prison
He was convicted in 2008 of terrorism charges for helping funnel fighters to Iraq's insurgency and given a three-year sentence, half of which was suspended.
[...]
Ironically, in 2008, his name again surfaced in an International Herald Tribune story detailing how security analysts decided their fears over foreign fighters returning to Europe were "overblown."
The court said Kouachi had wanted to attack Jewish targets in France, but Benyettou had told him that France wasn't a "land of jihad" but Iraq was.Return of jihadists: Europe's fears subside
Kouachi, who alternated between periods of smoking marijuana and attending Benyettou's classes, said he's now working in a supermarket and his main interest is rap music.
Another, Thamer Bouchnak, now a taxi driver, was described by his lawyer as a simple man, and easily swayed. Far from craving suicide, he bought a round-trip ticket to Syria, where he was to meet a contact, and had applied for a job working for the Paris Métro.Apparently the eighteen-year-old suspect turned himself in to the police station after seeing himself on the news.
"He was a bit crazy - he wanted to go to the war in Iraq as an adventure, like you'd go on vacation," said Dominique Many, his lawyer.
He was arrested along with Cherif Kouachi, now a fishmonger, as they were about to leave France for Syria.
Their point man in Damascus was Salla Touré, an ethnic Malian from their Paris neighborhood who was 13 at the time and is now a fugitive. He had received his parents' permission to head to Syria to study at a Koranic school.
[...]
Defense attorneys for some of the accused have argued that their clients were "freedom fighters" not unlike partisans in Spain's civil war, and that a desire to fight in Iraq was logical, given France's opposition to the war and its declarations that an American-led war would violate international law.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:17 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
homunculus: "Nothing funny about making fun of something Muslims are expected to do every single time something gets perpetrated in their name, to a level that Christians, White people, and other demographics where other killers come from don't get expected to fulfil.
Stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism. It's bigoted and Islamophobic."
I turned on the radio on my way home, and the BBC presenter literally fucking started the conversation with a Muslim dude by asking about whether the preachers in the Mosques were really speaking out against violent extremism enough.
"AND THERE IT IS! OF COURSE!" I shouted at the radio...
Every single mother fucking time. Christ, you should be glad they're not blowing you up all the time just because they're fucking tired of having to answer the same old goddamned question and speak for someone else who isn't them.
posted by symbioid at 7:21 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism. It's bigoted and Islamophobic."
I turned on the radio on my way home, and the BBC presenter literally fucking started the conversation with a Muslim dude by asking about whether the preachers in the Mosques were really speaking out against violent extremism enough.
"AND THERE IT IS! OF COURSE!" I shouted at the radio...
Every single mother fucking time. Christ, you should be glad they're not blowing you up all the time just because they're fucking tired of having to answer the same old goddamned question and speak for someone else who isn't them.
posted by symbioid at 7:21 PM on January 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Sorry, one more post and then I'll stop. Ross Douthat wrote an opinion column in the New York Times today that very capably addresses the issues that many Mefites in this thread have also been discussing. The Blasphemy We Need
Basically, his central argument comes in three points:
posted by Kevin Street at 7:23 PM on January 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
Basically, his central argument comes in three points:
1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.Making fun of Islam or drawing cartoons of Muhammad isn't normally a very nice thing to do. It can usually be seen as an aggressive behavior, something that stupidly attacks people who are already persecuted and causes trouble for no particular reason. ("Punching down," as some here have said.) But when a fanatic says that you should die for for making fun of their beliefs the right to make fun suddenly becomes very important. As Douthat says, "If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more."
2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.
3) The legitimacy and wisdom of such criticism is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.
posted by Kevin Street at 7:23 PM on January 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
Joe in Australia: That'll show 'em: Associated Press Takes Down “Piss Christ” Image After Complaints About Censorship Double Standard
If I can't be the first to post this disgusting turn of events, at least I can tell IAmBroom it's Andres Serrano, not Robert Mapplethorpe.
But, goddamn, AP. Fuck you.
posted by Guy Smiley at 7:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
If I can't be the first to post this disgusting turn of events, at least I can tell IAmBroom it's Andres Serrano, not Robert Mapplethorpe.
But, goddamn, AP. Fuck you.
posted by Guy Smiley at 7:36 PM on January 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Great article Kevin. Provoking violent extremists is a heroic act.
More broadly, I'm amazed how easily some people have discarded the famous Voltaire maxim; the notion that a certain idea shouldn't be voiced because it might shock or hurt or offend someone is deadly to liberal society. Stormfront or anti-vaxers or Scientology or even jihadist clerics should all be allowed to present their ridiculous platforms.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 7:37 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
More broadly, I'm amazed how easily some people have discarded the famous Voltaire maxim; the notion that a certain idea shouldn't be voiced because it might shock or hurt or offend someone is deadly to liberal society. Stormfront or anti-vaxers or Scientology or even jihadist clerics should all be allowed to present their ridiculous platforms.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 7:37 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I disagree. Those examples cited above refuse to extend to us the right to exist and think freely. Instead they want us murdered. This refusal justifies silencing them. I don't think society should grant rights to those unwilling to reciprocate those rights to their fellow humans.
posted by humanfont at 9:12 PM on January 7, 2015
posted by humanfont at 9:12 PM on January 7, 2015
This event is tragic, and I'm sad for these deaths.
Hearing the righteous anger behind the chants for 'freedom' gives me the same shiver I felt in 2001, when Bush first addressed Americans. I fear we'll be even sadder for France, soon.
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:19 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Hearing the righteous anger behind the chants for 'freedom' gives me the same shiver I felt in 2001, when Bush first addressed Americans. I fear we'll be even sadder for France, soon.
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:19 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
I too am shocked/dismayed by the victim-blaming in the thread, but I suspect it is the result of MeFites who identify politically as progressive not wanting to get lumped in with the Islamophobes and security-state flag wavers who clearly will exploit this event for their own purposes. I further suspect that this is especially the case for some American MeFites, who exist in a highly polarised political climate.
There's even people in thread trying to argue that Charlie Hebdo is "not a left wing" magazine, for crying out loud, as though it's inconceivable that one could be a leftist but mock islamic beliefs. Again, I think this is the product of the bipolar American political system, and a failure to understand that not all nation-states divide along the same socio-cultural/political lines.
posted by modernnomad at 9:26 PM on January 7, 2015 [46 favorites]
There's even people in thread trying to argue that Charlie Hebdo is "not a left wing" magazine, for crying out loud, as though it's inconceivable that one could be a leftist but mock islamic beliefs. Again, I think this is the product of the bipolar American political system, and a failure to understand that not all nation-states divide along the same socio-cultural/political lines.
posted by modernnomad at 9:26 PM on January 7, 2015 [46 favorites]
crying out loud, as though it's inconceivable that one could be a rightist but mock vauge indictments. Again, I think this is the product of
"I disagree."
posted by clavdivs at 10:03 PM on January 7, 2015
"I disagree."
posted by clavdivs at 10:03 PM on January 7, 2015
The cartoons are extreme, over-the-top, offensive, sophomoric, childish, blasphemous, degrading, insulting, obscene, and remind me greatly of Mad Magazine in their whimsically absurd beauty. In short I love them, I love Charlie Hedbo, and I love that they were published. Continue to publish them. Rushdie is absolutely right. Religion is a medieval form of unreason.
posted by ReeMonster at 10:09 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by ReeMonster at 10:09 PM on January 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
.
posted by misterbee at 10:15 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by misterbee at 10:15 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
nicolas léonard sadi carnot: “Provoking violent extremists is a heroic act.”
Provoking violent extremists through the exercise of freedoms might be a heroic act. Doing so in other ways might be a desecration of everything we hold dear.
I point this out because I worry that very soon we'll see a lot of folks on a lot of street corners in France and all over Europe taking it into their heads to "provoke violent extremists" through other means - chiefly the victimization of people who happen to be Muslims.
I hope that my worry proves unfounded. And I hope people continue holding fast to the ideals which we liberal democracies have clung to for so long: the ideals of peaceful freedoms and mutual respect thereof.
posted by koeselitz at 10:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Provoking violent extremists through the exercise of freedoms might be a heroic act. Doing so in other ways might be a desecration of everything we hold dear.
I point this out because I worry that very soon we'll see a lot of folks on a lot of street corners in France and all over Europe taking it into their heads to "provoke violent extremists" through other means - chiefly the victimization of people who happen to be Muslims.
I hope that my worry proves unfounded. And I hope people continue holding fast to the ideals which we liberal democracies have clung to for so long: the ideals of peaceful freedoms and mutual respect thereof.
posted by koeselitz at 10:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
The people who do this are not at all religious, they're barbaric. What's truly horrifying is how many others there are.
posted by carping demon at 10:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by carping demon at 10:42 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Definitely koeselitz, peacefulness is the foundation of all civil discourse. That's why political violence of any kind is so disgusting.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 11:02 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 11:02 PM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Artw: "In summary:
Nobody should have been killed over those cartoons.
Fuck those cartoons"
Jesus, those examples of Charlie Hebdo cartoons in that link. If anyone doubts it's a racist publication, they should go take a look at those.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:15 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Nobody should have been killed over those cartoons.
Fuck those cartoons"
Jesus, those examples of Charlie Hebdo cartoons in that link. If anyone doubts it's a racist publication, they should go take a look at those.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:15 PM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Those killed:
Charb – whose real name was Stephane Charbonnier, 47, artist and publisher of Charlie Hebdo.
Cabu – whose real name was Jean Cabut, 76, Charlie Hebdo’s lead cartoonist. He had been honoured with the legion of honour, France’s highest decoration, in 2005.
Georges Wolinski – Tuinisian-born artist, 80. Had been drawing cartoons since the 1960s, and worked for Hara-Kiri, a satirical magazine considered a forerunner to Charlie Hebdo.
Tignous – whose real name was Bernard Verlhac, 57, was a member of a group of artists called Cartoonists for Peace.
Bernard Maris – known as “Uncle Bernard”, 68, was an economist and wrote a regular column for Charlie Hebdo.
Honoré – Philippe Honoré, 73, was a cartoonist who had worked for Charlie Hebdo since 1992. He was the artist who drew the last cartoon tweeted by the weekly only moments before the massacre. The cartoon shows the leader of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, presenting his New Year message saying “and especially good health!”
Michel Renaud – a former journalist and political staffer who founded a cultural festival. He was visiting the Charlie Hebdo offices from Clermont-Ferrard.
Mustapha Ourrad – a copy-editor for Charlie Hebdo. Of Algerian descent.
Elsa Cayat – Charlie Hebdo analyst and columnist.
Frederic Boisseau – building maintenance worker.
Franck Brinsolaro – 49-year-old policeman appointed to head security for Charb. He was the father of a one-year-old daughter.
Ahmed Merabet - 42 and a French Muslim. A police officer and member of the 11th arrondissement brigade.
posted by Mister Bijou at 11:31 PM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
Charb – whose real name was Stephane Charbonnier, 47, artist and publisher of Charlie Hebdo.
Cabu – whose real name was Jean Cabut, 76, Charlie Hebdo’s lead cartoonist. He had been honoured with the legion of honour, France’s highest decoration, in 2005.
Georges Wolinski – Tuinisian-born artist, 80. Had been drawing cartoons since the 1960s, and worked for Hara-Kiri, a satirical magazine considered a forerunner to Charlie Hebdo.
Tignous – whose real name was Bernard Verlhac, 57, was a member of a group of artists called Cartoonists for Peace.
Bernard Maris – known as “Uncle Bernard”, 68, was an economist and wrote a regular column for Charlie Hebdo.
Honoré – Philippe Honoré, 73, was a cartoonist who had worked for Charlie Hebdo since 1992. He was the artist who drew the last cartoon tweeted by the weekly only moments before the massacre. The cartoon shows the leader of Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, presenting his New Year message saying “and especially good health!”
Michel Renaud – a former journalist and political staffer who founded a cultural festival. He was visiting the Charlie Hebdo offices from Clermont-Ferrard.
Mustapha Ourrad – a copy-editor for Charlie Hebdo. Of Algerian descent.
Elsa Cayat – Charlie Hebdo analyst and columnist.
Frederic Boisseau – building maintenance worker.
Franck Brinsolaro – 49-year-old policeman appointed to head security for Charb. He was the father of a one-year-old daughter.
Ahmed Merabet - 42 and a French Muslim. A police officer and member of the 11th arrondissement brigade.
posted by Mister Bijou at 11:31 PM on January 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
That link also said only 13% of respondents have favorable views of both of those groups, so y'know, way to bury the lede there.
Oh, I'm sorry, instead of saying that half of Muslims worldwide don't seem to have a problem with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it improves the situation to say mention that "only" 1 out of 8 of those actually favor them instead of being merely neutral -- that's burying the lede?
And hey, only 25-45% of young Muslims in America, France, Britain, and Germany think suicide bombings are justified. No biggie, right?
Only 80% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers, only 80% of Pakistani Muslims favor amputations as punishments, and only 50% of Nigerian Muslims favor death for apostates. Practically nobody!
It's the kind of thinking Charlie Hebdo might memorably have mocked. I love the idea of Muslim moderates, but they are sadly far from being the large majority.
posted by shivohum at 11:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Oh, I'm sorry, instead of saying that half of Muslims worldwide don't seem to have a problem with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it improves the situation to say mention that "only" 1 out of 8 of those actually favor them instead of being merely neutral -- that's burying the lede?
And hey, only 25-45% of young Muslims in America, France, Britain, and Germany think suicide bombings are justified. No biggie, right?
Only 80% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers, only 80% of Pakistani Muslims favor amputations as punishments, and only 50% of Nigerian Muslims favor death for apostates. Practically nobody!
It's the kind of thinking Charlie Hebdo might memorably have mocked. I love the idea of Muslim moderates, but they are sadly far from being the large majority.
posted by shivohum at 11:47 PM on January 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Americans support the death penalty.
Suicide bombing is just a warfare tactic, like drones.
posted by colie at 11:52 PM on January 7, 2015
Suicide bombing is just a warfare tactic, like drones.
posted by colie at 11:52 PM on January 7, 2015
About 60% favor the death penalty. Which is 60% too high, sure, but even as a staunch opponent of the death penalty for murderers I think it's ridiculous to equate that to support for stoning adulterers, amputations, or the death penalty for apostates. It's like saying that we jail people for armed robbery so we have no basis to criticize places which jail people for political expression.
posted by Justinian at 11:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:55 PM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Today, a poignant cartoon in French journal Ouest France
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:40 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:40 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
There are so many things I want to say and am not sure how to say them. I'll cut to the chase and say I would really hate to see the "terrorists win" and provoke people into insulting all Muslims with more prophet-drawings. It's always easy to sacrifice someone else's sacred cow. I seem to remember an Israeli newspaper that responded to the Danish Muhammad controversy by running a bunch of antisemitic cartoons. I don't consider it a matter of "victim blaming" but of selecting the proper tactical and principled approach to the future.
On that note, there are many exceptions to the first amendment in the U.S. One of them is "obscenity"; as far as I know the standard in Miller v California is still the relevant one. I use the term loosely because it's not much of a standard and I've heard there's an incredible amount of incoherence in U.S. law on the subject. Among other things it requires judges to try to figure out the local community standard of decency. A person wearing a t-shirt with a clever, pointed political satire printed on it that includes the word "fuck" might run afoul. I should say I'm not defending the idea of "obscenity" as an exception to free speech, just noting it exists in the law and who's to say a picture of Muhammad isn't it? That's quite the mote in our American eye.
In summary, if you want to show your commitment to the principle of free speech please do it by insulting your own prophet, whoever or whatever that is. And if you want to take a real stand, draw your own community's version of Muhammad: draw something legally obscene.
posted by traveler_ at 12:40 AM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
On that note, there are many exceptions to the first amendment in the U.S. One of them is "obscenity"; as far as I know the standard in Miller v California is still the relevant one. I use the term loosely because it's not much of a standard and I've heard there's an incredible amount of incoherence in U.S. law on the subject. Among other things it requires judges to try to figure out the local community standard of decency. A person wearing a t-shirt with a clever, pointed political satire printed on it that includes the word "fuck" might run afoul. I should say I'm not defending the idea of "obscenity" as an exception to free speech, just noting it exists in the law and who's to say a picture of Muhammad isn't it? That's quite the mote in our American eye.
In summary, if you want to show your commitment to the principle of free speech please do it by insulting your own prophet, whoever or whatever that is. And if you want to take a real stand, draw your own community's version of Muhammad: draw something legally obscene.
posted by traveler_ at 12:40 AM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
shivohum: “And hey, only 25-45% of young Muslims in America, France, Britain, and Germany think suicide bombings are justified. No biggie, right?”
That is flatly not what your link says. Your link says 15% of young American Muslims believe that suicide bombings can often or sometimes be justified. That's much smaller than 25%; and the overall proportion of American Muslims who believe that suicide bombings can often or sometimes be justified is actually 8%. (This is on pages 11 and 12.) Pew itself says that this is small. They are right.
I'm open to correction here, but as far as I can tell even if there's something I've missed you've distorted the report by lumping a bunch of countries together when the primary country being studied has a much lower proportion of Muslims who believe what you say they believe.
posted by koeselitz at 12:42 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
That is flatly not what your link says. Your link says 15% of young American Muslims believe that suicide bombings can often or sometimes be justified. That's much smaller than 25%; and the overall proportion of American Muslims who believe that suicide bombings can often or sometimes be justified is actually 8%. (This is on pages 11 and 12.) Pew itself says that this is small. They are right.
I'm open to correction here, but as far as I can tell even if there's something I've missed you've distorted the report by lumping a bunch of countries together when the primary country being studied has a much lower proportion of Muslims who believe what you say they believe.
posted by koeselitz at 12:42 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I love the idea of Muslim moderates, but they are sadly far from being the large majority.
My experience of Christians and other religious folk is that very few of them are moderates, either, when it comes to their beliefs and the institutions that reinforce those beliefs.
Hell, Christians are waging war against the rights of women to have personal autonomy in the United States right now, and I expect if you quizzed American Christians about that barbarism you'd find roughly equivalent support to the cherry-picked examples you present about islam.
Our justice system and especially our prisons are hell on earth if you are not rich and white. And yet our society is so vested in perpetrating this that to even utter doubts means you cannot get elected. That public support does not seem much different to me than some of the examples you cite. To claim our justice system, where the rubber actually meets the road, is in actual fact better is to speak from a position of privilege.
Some of CH's work makes me uncomfortable. But one small thing I've learned is that intellectual discomfort can sometimes be because something is actually vile--or sometimes because it causes me to realize something I assumed isn't actually so, or I dismissed something as unimportant that's important, or perhaps I had no actual knowledge of an issue I thought I was conversant about.
I can deal with uncomfortable.
It's so ridiculous. People killed over words. I'm so sorry for the folk in Paris, their families, and the inevitable witch hunt which will follow. Possibly with statistics and links to justify it.
posted by maxwelton at 12:43 AM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
My experience of Christians and other religious folk is that very few of them are moderates, either, when it comes to their beliefs and the institutions that reinforce those beliefs.
Hell, Christians are waging war against the rights of women to have personal autonomy in the United States right now, and I expect if you quizzed American Christians about that barbarism you'd find roughly equivalent support to the cherry-picked examples you present about islam.
Our justice system and especially our prisons are hell on earth if you are not rich and white. And yet our society is so vested in perpetrating this that to even utter doubts means you cannot get elected. That public support does not seem much different to me than some of the examples you cite. To claim our justice system, where the rubber actually meets the road, is in actual fact better is to speak from a position of privilege.
Some of CH's work makes me uncomfortable. But one small thing I've learned is that intellectual discomfort can sometimes be because something is actually vile--or sometimes because it causes me to realize something I assumed isn't actually so, or I dismissed something as unimportant that's important, or perhaps I had no actual knowledge of an issue I thought I was conversant about.
I can deal with uncomfortable.
It's so ridiculous. People killed over words. I'm so sorry for the folk in Paris, their families, and the inevitable witch hunt which will follow. Possibly with statistics and links to justify it.
posted by maxwelton at 12:43 AM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
That is flatly not what your link says
Look at the first table on page 60. Among American Muslims 18-29, 26% consider suicide bombing ever justified. That breaks down into 15% considering it often/sometimes justified, and 11% considering it rarely justified.
posted by shivohum at 12:50 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Look at the first table on page 60. Among American Muslims 18-29, 26% consider suicide bombing ever justified. That breaks down into 15% considering it often/sometimes justified, and 11% considering it rarely justified.
posted by shivohum at 12:50 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think it's because it's actually vile, like the "Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens" cartoon, or the time Charlie Hebdo portrayed France's black justice minister as a monkey. This is straight-up racism, and it's a pattern.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
shivohum: “Look at the first table on page 60. Among American Muslims 18-29, 26% consider suicide bombing ever justified. That breaks down into 15% considering it often/sometimes justified, and 11% considering it rarely justified.”
First, note that your phrasing is pretty imprecise. You said before that 25%-45% of young Muslims in these countries believe suicide bombings are justified. This is crucially different from saying that suicide bombings can ever be justified.
Pew, much more sanely, does not share your methodology in reading these results. On page 12, they say:
I think Juan Cole's piece was rather hasty, but it provided some good background, and part of that background was this useful link concerning the state of Islam in Paris and France and the views of Muslims there about terrorism. I suggest you peruse it; you will find that it contradicts what you've been saying about the nonexistence of a significant block of moderate Muslims. Less than 2/3 of French Muslims (68%) say that religion is an important part of their daily lives; this seems to bear out Cole's claim that French Muslims are perhaps more secular than any other population of Muslims in the world. Also, 77% rate the acceptability of political violence for a noble cause as low or very low.
It seems to me from reading this that, at least in France, there is in fact a very large proportion of Muslims who are moderate.
posted by koeselitz at 1:06 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
First, note that your phrasing is pretty imprecise. You said before that 25%-45% of young Muslims in these countries believe suicide bombings are justified. This is crucially different from saying that suicide bombings can ever be justified.
Pew, much more sanely, does not share your methodology in reading these results. On page 12, they say:
Moreover, more than twice as many Muslim Americans under age 30 as older Muslims believe that suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified in the defense of Islam (15% vs. 6%).... and I want to respond further to your about Islam being (in your apparent view) largely radicalized:
I think Juan Cole's piece was rather hasty, but it provided some good background, and part of that background was this useful link concerning the state of Islam in Paris and France and the views of Muslims there about terrorism. I suggest you peruse it; you will find that it contradicts what you've been saying about the nonexistence of a significant block of moderate Muslims. Less than 2/3 of French Muslims (68%) say that religion is an important part of their daily lives; this seems to bear out Cole's claim that French Muslims are perhaps more secular than any other population of Muslims in the world. Also, 77% rate the acceptability of political violence for a noble cause as low or very low.
It seems to me from reading this that, at least in France, there is in fact a very large proportion of Muslims who are moderate.
posted by koeselitz at 1:06 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I suggest you peruse it; you will find that it contradicts what you've been saying about the nonexistence of a significant block of moderate Muslims.
I haven't said such a block doesn't exist, I've simply denied that they are a large majority of Muslims worldwide. I'm rebutting the claim the conventional wisdom that extremists are tiny bands of thugs completely unrelated to mainstream Muslims. Yes, moderates exist in significant numbers. Extremists do too, very much so. And many moderates have at least some extremist views even if they are moderate on the whole.
Less than 2/3 of French Muslims (68%) say that religion is an important part of their daily lives; this seems to bear out Cole's claim that French Muslims are perhaps more secular than any other population of Muslims in the world.
But it's still about three times the rate in the general population, as the next sentence says.
Also, 77% rate the acceptability of political violence for a noble cause as low or very low.
So nearly a quarter consider it ok. That is not good.
Another number for perspective: a recent poll reports that one in six French citizens supports ISIS. That seems almost too high to believe, but even given a margin of error -- say the number were one in ten instead -- it would be like saying one in ten French citizens supported child sex trafficking. It's horrifying. The percentage jumps to 27% of 18-24 year olds.
posted by shivohum at 1:27 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I haven't said such a block doesn't exist, I've simply denied that they are a large majority of Muslims worldwide. I'm rebutting the claim the conventional wisdom that extremists are tiny bands of thugs completely unrelated to mainstream Muslims. Yes, moderates exist in significant numbers. Extremists do too, very much so. And many moderates have at least some extremist views even if they are moderate on the whole.
Less than 2/3 of French Muslims (68%) say that religion is an important part of their daily lives; this seems to bear out Cole's claim that French Muslims are perhaps more secular than any other population of Muslims in the world.
But it's still about three times the rate in the general population, as the next sentence says.
Also, 77% rate the acceptability of political violence for a noble cause as low or very low.
So nearly a quarter consider it ok. That is not good.
Another number for perspective: a recent poll reports that one in six French citizens supports ISIS. That seems almost too high to believe, but even given a margin of error -- say the number were one in ten instead -- it would be like saying one in ten French citizens supported child sex trafficking. It's horrifying. The percentage jumps to 27% of 18-24 year olds.
posted by shivohum at 1:27 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Shivohum, I find your pushing this barrow in this thread quite offensive and I do wish most fervently you would stop. I suspect you have had very little contact with Muslims in the real world and know even less about Islam and is practice.
You are demonstrating exactly the kind of equivalency and racism people have alluded to being afraid of. A better question to Muslims might be, "are you planning a suicide bombing or massacre, or would you?"
The answer is, self evidently, 99.999999% "no". Your willingness to lump all Muslims together is both ignorant and racist, I feel. A global population of nearly one point seven billion people do not deserve to be vilified by you - especially when the vast majority of Anglo crime escapes such explanations as "it's their culture and religion."
I find this ancient prejudice and ignorant hate far, far more offensive than anyone assessing the magazines output as racist - a fairly bland observation which has promoted several expeditions up the high horse already.
posted by smoke at 2:00 AM on January 8, 2015 [19 favorites]
You are demonstrating exactly the kind of equivalency and racism people have alluded to being afraid of. A better question to Muslims might be, "are you planning a suicide bombing or massacre, or would you?"
The answer is, self evidently, 99.999999% "no". Your willingness to lump all Muslims together is both ignorant and racist, I feel. A global population of nearly one point seven billion people do not deserve to be vilified by you - especially when the vast majority of Anglo crime escapes such explanations as "it's their culture and religion."
I find this ancient prejudice and ignorant hate far, far more offensive than anyone assessing the magazines output as racist - a fairly bland observation which has promoted several expeditions up the high horse already.
posted by smoke at 2:00 AM on January 8, 2015 [19 favorites]
Another shooting in Paris, with a police woman killed and a passerby wounded. Not known if there is a link to yesterday's attack.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 2:13 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by TWinbrook8 at 2:13 AM on January 8, 2015
It's the loudest and most vile voices that are heard. I was going to say on both sides of the fence but that's bullshit because there is no fence, not really. I find it hard to justify religious intolerance because I find it hard to justify religion but that's just me. I despise generalisations, and that's why I hate it when people like Bill Maher are all "this is what they believe!" and why I also hate people who feel justified in killing other people because they believe that what they draw and write is "wrong". These people want to start a war, they want to make people believe that there are "others" are amongst us.
I hope the people who shot and killed these people are caught and tried as murderers. I hope people stop waiting for reasons to despise other people based on a generalisation or stereotype and then feel justified in continuing this bullshit.
We need to stop extremists, every lazy moderate one of us.
posted by h00py at 2:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I hope the people who shot and killed these people are caught and tried as murderers. I hope people stop waiting for reasons to despise other people based on a generalisation or stereotype and then feel justified in continuing this bullshit.
We need to stop extremists, every lazy moderate one of us.
posted by h00py at 2:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Another shooting in Paris, with a police woman killed and a passerby wounded. Not known if there is a link to yesterday's attack.According to Le Monde, a car pulled up at the scene of a traffic accident, and the driver got out carrying a hand gun and a weapon of "première catégorie" (high-capacity automatic weapons) and started shooting. A female traffic cop was killed and a municipal roadworker wounded.
Meanwhile, RT reports that four grenades were thrown at a mosque in Le Mans overnight.
posted by brokkr at 3:09 AM on January 8, 2015
With basic school French and google translate I'd hesitate to say I totally understand the context of cartoons which depend on things in the French news cycle which I never knew about in the first place eg. cartoons which appear to be responses to insults printed by right wing magazines which seem to be using some of their own tropes to satirise their racist attitudes. If I had better French and knew the entire context I might be in a position to say, but even with my crap French and google I can see that some of the cartoons being waved about as proof of 'racism' don't seem to be so simple to interpret. Just maybe, if you have never read this magazine before, it would be a better idea not to rush to the most uncharitable construction possible. Hopefully we can hear more from some of the French or Francophile mefites who do have the context.
posted by Flitcraft at 3:11 AM on January 8, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by Flitcraft at 3:11 AM on January 8, 2015 [18 favorites]
There's even people in thread trying to argue that Charlie Hebdo is "not a left wing" magazine, for crying out loud, as though it's inconceivable that one could be a leftist but mock islamic beliefs. Again, I think this is the product of the bipolar American political system, and a failure to understand that not all nation-states divide along the same socio-cultural/political lines.
As I mentioned above, what passes for Leftism in America and in her cultural sphere of influence (i.e. the Guardian) seems to be the the establishment of a ordering of identity groups and the promotion of the interests of those groups lower down the order over those groups higher up. (The claims that there are multiple orthogonal pecking orders or that there's no strict total ordering in people's heads seem false: there are only two directions one can "punch", and, whenever there's a debate, it's about who is really higher or lower).
What you're seeing, on this thread and elsewhere, is the dissonance that arises when Leftists-of-this-sort have to deal with members of a group whose interests they would naturally promote carrying out heinous crimes against people higher up the ordering. Suddenly, those LOTS who in other contexts would be assiduous in calling out any implication, however subtle, that "she was asking for it, dressed like that" or "maybe it was a bad idea to drink so much at the frat party", are using those same tropes and hoping that a big disclaimer will do the trick. How would you expect that to work for you in one of those other contexts?
I guess what's happened is that the ordering was established as an instrument to promote the positive values of some sort of Leftism, but has now become almost an end in itself. I grew up in the 1980s reading the Daily Mirror, but it's fair to say I'm not an "ally" of LOTS. Which isn't to say I haven't learned anything from reading Mefi, LJ and even Tumblr (the shocking prevalence of street harassment, to take one example).
posted by pw201 at 3:21 AM on January 8, 2015 [22 favorites]
As I mentioned above, what passes for Leftism in America and in her cultural sphere of influence (i.e. the Guardian) seems to be the the establishment of a ordering of identity groups and the promotion of the interests of those groups lower down the order over those groups higher up. (The claims that there are multiple orthogonal pecking orders or that there's no strict total ordering in people's heads seem false: there are only two directions one can "punch", and, whenever there's a debate, it's about who is really higher or lower).
What you're seeing, on this thread and elsewhere, is the dissonance that arises when Leftists-of-this-sort have to deal with members of a group whose interests they would naturally promote carrying out heinous crimes against people higher up the ordering. Suddenly, those LOTS who in other contexts would be assiduous in calling out any implication, however subtle, that "she was asking for it, dressed like that" or "maybe it was a bad idea to drink so much at the frat party", are using those same tropes and hoping that a big disclaimer will do the trick. How would you expect that to work for you in one of those other contexts?
I guess what's happened is that the ordering was established as an instrument to promote the positive values of some sort of Leftism, but has now become almost an end in itself. I grew up in the 1980s reading the Daily Mirror, but it's fair to say I'm not an "ally" of LOTS. Which isn't to say I haven't learned anything from reading Mefi, LJ and even Tumblr (the shocking prevalence of street harassment, to take one example).
posted by pw201 at 3:21 AM on January 8, 2015 [22 favorites]
the dissonance that arises when Leftists-of-this-sort have to deal with members of a group whose interests they would naturally promote
I can't really follow this, but what leftists here would naturally promote Islamic Fundamentalists?
It's usually the left that calls out these guys first - while the right wing and liberals and media are supporting governments that actually fund and create these organisations as a preferred alternative to class consciousness/nationalism (see Hamas, Mujahedin, ISIS...)
posted by colie at 3:27 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I can't really follow this, but what leftists here would naturally promote Islamic Fundamentalists?
It's usually the left that calls out these guys first - while the right wing and liberals and media are supporting governments that actually fund and create these organisations as a preferred alternative to class consciousness/nationalism (see Hamas, Mujahedin, ISIS...)
posted by colie at 3:27 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
In summary, if you want to show your commitment to the principle of free speech please do it by insulting your own prophet, whoever or whatever that is. And if you want to take a real stand, draw your own community's version of Muhammad: draw something legally obscene.
I've been beating this drum repeatedly, so I'll give it a rest after this, but a couple of points. First, the existence blasphemous or otherwise offensive images has never actually physically hurt anyone. Really. If a group of Christian extremists had just staged a massacre in a museum that was exhibiting Piss Christ I very seriously doubt anyone would be doing this "well, it doesn't excuse the violence but..." false equivalence bullshit.
Secondly, it would be a mistake to make this about the west vs. Islam, or French secularists/Christians vs. French Muslims. This is about a publication that, by all informed accounts, was committed to nothing so much as their right to say whatever the hell they wanted to say vs. a small group of violent extremists who believe that right simply doesn't exist.
The fact that the cartoons were offensive and needlessly provocative was precisely the point of their existence. If one person says "I will kill anyone who says the word Jehovah" and, as a result, no one says the word Jehovah, then everyone has ceded their freedom of speech to the whims of that one person. It apparently wouldn't have made a difference to CH if it was a picture of Muhammed or a picture of a roast beef sandwich. Someone said "you cannot publish this or I will kill you" and it became a moral imperative for CH to publish it. That the staff of CH was literally willing to die in defense of their right to do so ought to be proof that they were, in fact, making a "real stand".
posted by seymourScagnetti at 3:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [43 favorites]
I've been beating this drum repeatedly, so I'll give it a rest after this, but a couple of points. First, the existence blasphemous or otherwise offensive images has never actually physically hurt anyone. Really. If a group of Christian extremists had just staged a massacre in a museum that was exhibiting Piss Christ I very seriously doubt anyone would be doing this "well, it doesn't excuse the violence but..." false equivalence bullshit.
Secondly, it would be a mistake to make this about the west vs. Islam, or French secularists/Christians vs. French Muslims. This is about a publication that, by all informed accounts, was committed to nothing so much as their right to say whatever the hell they wanted to say vs. a small group of violent extremists who believe that right simply doesn't exist.
The fact that the cartoons were offensive and needlessly provocative was precisely the point of their existence. If one person says "I will kill anyone who says the word Jehovah" and, as a result, no one says the word Jehovah, then everyone has ceded their freedom of speech to the whims of that one person. It apparently wouldn't have made a difference to CH if it was a picture of Muhammed or a picture of a roast beef sandwich. Someone said "you cannot publish this or I will kill you" and it became a moral imperative for CH to publish it. That the staff of CH was literally willing to die in defense of their right to do so ought to be proof that they were, in fact, making a "real stand".
posted by seymourScagnetti at 3:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [43 favorites]
Cowardly mainstream media won’t show cartoons of Muhammad
Appears worth remembering next time the chicken hawks at Fox, CNN, etc. talk about the necessity of some military action that'll kill thousands of innocent people.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Appears worth remembering next time the chicken hawks at Fox, CNN, etc. talk about the necessity of some military action that'll kill thousands of innocent people.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
While this is still ongoing and terrifying for those of us in Paris, I would love it if the theoretical arguments could hold off. Where is the fast moving mefi I love, throwing up links to information rather than arguing about free speech.
posted by ellieBOA at 4:13 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ellieBOA at 4:13 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
TITANIC (Das Engültige Satiremagazin), in a truly rare moment of seriousness...
Rough translation, for the understandably German-impaired:
In the wake of the terrible murders in Paris, it seems necessary to review some fundamentals on Humor and Satire. Because our experience at TITANIC has been that it's not only islamic terrorists who lack the basic equipment. First and foremost, humor is a tool to counteract, ideally to conquer, the seriousness of life, which, even without rocket launchers being fired in editors' offices, weighs heavily on most of us. Humor creates distance to events that worry us; it allows us to speak indirectly about the actually unbearable, and thus to fight the horror.
Many of those untutored in the art of humor, whether they are islamists, racists, or average German journalists, commit the error of trying to reduce a joke to an un-funny, serious (and mostly inaccurate) core point. Some do this because they want to extinguish the joke; others, because they believe that jokes about serious topics are appropriate only if they are "valuable", "thoughtful", or whatever.
Of course it's nice if humor conveys a meaningful message, but without it it is still very valuable. Most people should know this, because they practice it themselves. For example: Yesterday, about 100 journalists asked me for interviews and comments, and phrases like "we didn't mean to ambush you" or "OK, shoot" kept coming up - and what did those people do when they realized what they had said, accidentally and out of habit? They laughed. Not because they were making fun of murdered satirists, but because their usual phrases, in a new context, had suddenly acquired unwanted new meaning. There's no valuable message in that; it simply takes the power away from a moment of seriousness.
This is probably the reason why fanatics, particularly religious ones, despise humor. They represent a dead-serious, single, eternal truth. Jokes, no matter how thoughtful or funny, threaten that truth. Religion (along with plenty of other world views) is madness in the guise of rationality. Satire and humor are rationality in the guise of madness. The former must misunderstand the latter, which is why representatives of the sacred and serious must react to humor with anger. And it is their right to do so. As long as they do it with the same weapons satirists use: words and pictures. Not automatic weapons.
Since yesterday, more than ever: Long live the joke. The smart joke, the dumb joke. Any joke that finds enough people who laugh. And to all who don't like it, more than ever: Bear it, or ignore it. You will not conquer it!
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 4:34 AM on January 8, 2015 [72 favorites]
Rough translation, for the understandably German-impaired:
In the wake of the terrible murders in Paris, it seems necessary to review some fundamentals on Humor and Satire. Because our experience at TITANIC has been that it's not only islamic terrorists who lack the basic equipment. First and foremost, humor is a tool to counteract, ideally to conquer, the seriousness of life, which, even without rocket launchers being fired in editors' offices, weighs heavily on most of us. Humor creates distance to events that worry us; it allows us to speak indirectly about the actually unbearable, and thus to fight the horror.
Many of those untutored in the art of humor, whether they are islamists, racists, or average German journalists, commit the error of trying to reduce a joke to an un-funny, serious (and mostly inaccurate) core point. Some do this because they want to extinguish the joke; others, because they believe that jokes about serious topics are appropriate only if they are "valuable", "thoughtful", or whatever.
Of course it's nice if humor conveys a meaningful message, but without it it is still very valuable. Most people should know this, because they practice it themselves. For example: Yesterday, about 100 journalists asked me for interviews and comments, and phrases like "we didn't mean to ambush you" or "OK, shoot" kept coming up - and what did those people do when they realized what they had said, accidentally and out of habit? They laughed. Not because they were making fun of murdered satirists, but because their usual phrases, in a new context, had suddenly acquired unwanted new meaning. There's no valuable message in that; it simply takes the power away from a moment of seriousness.
This is probably the reason why fanatics, particularly religious ones, despise humor. They represent a dead-serious, single, eternal truth. Jokes, no matter how thoughtful or funny, threaten that truth. Religion (along with plenty of other world views) is madness in the guise of rationality. Satire and humor are rationality in the guise of madness. The former must misunderstand the latter, which is why representatives of the sacred and serious must react to humor with anger. And it is their right to do so. As long as they do it with the same weapons satirists use: words and pictures. Not automatic weapons.
Since yesterday, more than ever: Long live the joke. The smart joke, the dumb joke. Any joke that finds enough people who laugh. And to all who don't like it, more than ever: Bear it, or ignore it. You will not conquer it!
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 4:34 AM on January 8, 2015 [72 favorites]
Yes, yes. Thank you, kleinsteradikaleminderheit and TITANIC.
posted by rory at 4:39 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by rory at 4:39 AM on January 8, 2015
Opposing view: An editorial in USA Today by someone whose bio notes is a radical Muslim cleric who lectures on Sharia law.
posted by emelenjr at 4:45 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by emelenjr at 4:45 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Re: or the time Charlie Hebdo portrayed France's black justice minister as a monkey. This is straight-up racism, and it's a pattern.
Context: this image was a satirical defence of Christiane Taubira and an attack on the Front National after a FN mayoral candidate posted a Taubira-is-a-monkey photomontage on her facebook page. Taubira's party sued her for hate speech.
Context 2 : After the CH image, the extreme right-wing mag Minute did a cover with a Taubira-is-a-banana-loving-monkey unsubtle subtext and Taubira sued again. She won both cases in 2014 (France have rather strict hate speech laws). Taubira didn't sue CH about this image because she understood the context. (Christiane Taubira knows a couple of things about racism. One can also follow her on Twitter to read what she has to say about Charlie Hebdo.)
In a rather touching display of shared hate for Charlie Hebdo, islamophobic extreme-right wingers and radical islamists, however, have since used this image as a "proof" of "double standard". Indeed, the blog hosting the copy of the image is a racist, islamophobic website that should have not been linked to on Mefi in the first place.
posted by elgilito at 5:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [106 favorites]
Context: this image was a satirical defence of Christiane Taubira and an attack on the Front National after a FN mayoral candidate posted a Taubira-is-a-monkey photomontage on her facebook page. Taubira's party sued her for hate speech.
Context 2 : After the CH image, the extreme right-wing mag Minute did a cover with a Taubira-is-a-banana-loving-monkey unsubtle subtext and Taubira sued again. She won both cases in 2014 (France have rather strict hate speech laws). Taubira didn't sue CH about this image because she understood the context. (Christiane Taubira knows a couple of things about racism. One can also follow her on Twitter to read what she has to say about Charlie Hebdo.)
In a rather touching display of shared hate for Charlie Hebdo, islamophobic extreme-right wingers and radical islamists, however, have since used this image as a "proof" of "double standard". Indeed, the blog hosting the copy of the image is a racist, islamophobic website that should have not been linked to on Mefi in the first place.
posted by elgilito at 5:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [106 favorites]
Note that the USA Today editorial is by Anjem Choudary, not a person whom I would normally expect a national newspaper to approach for a contribution unless it was particularly hard up for ad revenue. It would be understating the case to say that Choudary's views aren't representative of those of the majority of Muslims. Pinch of salt.
posted by Zeinab Badawi's Twenty Hotels at 5:17 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Zeinab Badawi's Twenty Hotels at 5:17 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Google translation of Christiane Taubira's first tweet on the CH news: "#CharlieHebdo first wall and the last bastion of democracy, the free press is the enemy of obscurantism and violence. ChT"
elgilito, thank you for providing important context on these cartoons.
posted by rory at 5:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
elgilito, thank you for providing important context on these cartoons.
posted by rory at 5:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo... next issue (Wednesday, 14 january 2015) will have a print run of 1,000,000 copies.
To be financed by "Presse et pluralisme" (fund of an organisation of French editors) to the tune of 250,000 euros... and matched with another 250,000 euros from Google's "innovation numérique de la presse" (press digital innovation) fund. Presstalis, distrubutor of newspapers and magazines, is doing the distribution for this coming edition gratis.
source: Les Echos
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
To be financed by "Presse et pluralisme" (fund of an organisation of French editors) to the tune of 250,000 euros... and matched with another 250,000 euros from Google's "innovation numérique de la presse" (press digital innovation) fund. Presstalis, distrubutor of newspapers and magazines, is doing the distribution for this coming edition gratis.
source: Les Echos
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
elgilito completely has the dope here.
posted by Wolof at 5:35 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Wolof at 5:35 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Zeinab Badawi's Twenty Hotels--I concur 99% with your comments re: the editorial, Choudry's views and the extent it represents the broader Muslim community--However I would take it with a bit more than a pinch of salt. The simple fact is that radical preachers such as him do have a small, but devout, following whose stated beliefs are anathema to the communities in which they live. It is statements like his that give momentum to the far right, stir the right, unsettle the middle and confuse the left. While there certainly is no problem in holding these beliefs in a pluralistic secular society there is everything wrong with acting on them. Period.
posted by rmhsinc at 5:41 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rmhsinc at 5:41 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
(fund of an organisation of French editors)
Publishers, not editors.
/editor
posted by Wolof at 5:42 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Publishers, not editors.
/editor
posted by Wolof at 5:42 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Publishers, not editors.
Merde!
Wolof... Je vous remercie pour la correction.
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:49 AM on January 8, 2015
Merde!
Wolof... Je vous remercie pour la correction.
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:49 AM on January 8, 2015
I've been bothered by the "Fuck those cartoons" post that ArtW linked above since reading it last night. The author seems to have the wrong end of the stick on several points, but particularly when it comes to the response to the news by the world's cartoonists (or "hack cartoonists", as he sneeringly calls them). For once, the comments are worth reading, because several commenters there call him on it, but to highlight just one of his points:
A call “TO ARMS” is gross and inappropriate. To simplify the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices as “Good, Valiant Westerners vs. Evil, Savage Muslims” is not only racist, it’s dangerously overstated. Cartoonists (especially political cartoonists) generally reinforce the status quo, and they tend to be white men. Calling fellow cartoonists TO ARMS is calling other white men to arms against already marginalized people. The inevitable backlash against Muslims has begun in earnest.
He's talking there about an image that I happened to retweet yesterday, by Chilean illustrator Francisco Javier Olea. There is nothing in that image that "simplifies the attack as Good, Valiant Westerners vs. Evil, Savage Muslims". It's an obvious call to fellow cartoonists to pick up their pens and pencils in response to armed violence, not Islam. It's a fundamentally pacifist message, the entire point being that these "arms" aren't arms. Miscontruing it as a racist call to physical violence is deeply obnoxious. Does he seriously want to suggest that cartoonists shouldn't be speaking out in defence of their profession and the human right that makes it possible on this of all days?
posted by rory at 6:06 AM on January 8, 2015 [32 favorites]
A call “TO ARMS” is gross and inappropriate. To simplify the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices as “Good, Valiant Westerners vs. Evil, Savage Muslims” is not only racist, it’s dangerously overstated. Cartoonists (especially political cartoonists) generally reinforce the status quo, and they tend to be white men. Calling fellow cartoonists TO ARMS is calling other white men to arms against already marginalized people. The inevitable backlash against Muslims has begun in earnest.
He's talking there about an image that I happened to retweet yesterday, by Chilean illustrator Francisco Javier Olea. There is nothing in that image that "simplifies the attack as Good, Valiant Westerners vs. Evil, Savage Muslims". It's an obvious call to fellow cartoonists to pick up their pens and pencils in response to armed violence, not Islam. It's a fundamentally pacifist message, the entire point being that these "arms" aren't arms. Miscontruing it as a racist call to physical violence is deeply obnoxious. Does he seriously want to suggest that cartoonists shouldn't be speaking out in defence of their profession and the human right that makes it possible on this of all days?
posted by rory at 6:06 AM on January 8, 2015 [32 favorites]
More than anything I feel like the sudden offence we're seeing at the content of CH is symptomatic of the narcissism of a certain sliver of the left.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 6:21 AM on January 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 6:21 AM on January 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
More than anything I feel like the sudden offence we're seeing at the content of CH is symptomatic of the narcissism of a certain sliver of the left.
And I read it more generously than you: I think people are genuinely concerned about the content of the cartoons, and genuinely want to discuss the ethics of representing a minority group as a subject of satire and humor. And that's a totally valid discussion, although I think, at the moment, it is one that won't be appreciated, because it feels like bad timing.
But it's a discussion that is worth having at some time, whereas whether or not a certain sliver of the left are narcissists seems to exclusively be an ad hominem charge against a vaguely defined group, and I don't see how it forwards any discussion at all.
posted by maxsparber at 6:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
And I read it more generously than you: I think people are genuinely concerned about the content of the cartoons, and genuinely want to discuss the ethics of representing a minority group as a subject of satire and humor. And that's a totally valid discussion, although I think, at the moment, it is one that won't be appreciated, because it feels like bad timing.
But it's a discussion that is worth having at some time, whereas whether or not a certain sliver of the left are narcissists seems to exclusively be an ad hominem charge against a vaguely defined group, and I don't see how it forwards any discussion at all.
posted by maxsparber at 6:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
I think there might have been a point in doing that at the time of publication, but revisiting the content as a consequence of the massacre is effectively victim-blaming - or worse, an ingratiating attempt to be one of the good Westerners.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:35 AM on January 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:35 AM on January 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
revisiting the content as a consequence of the massacre is effectively victim-blaming
The victims' spokespeople want us to revisit their work, don't they? That's what all these cartoons on Twitter are about.
posted by colie at 6:42 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The victims' spokespeople want us to revisit their work, don't they? That's what all these cartoons on Twitter are about.
posted by colie at 6:42 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The victims' spokespeople want us to revisit their work, don't they? That's what all these cartoons on Twitter are about.
Memorializing someone by republishing their work is not the same thing as posting something to criticize it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Memorializing someone by republishing their work is not the same thing as posting something to criticize it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I really don't think these guys minded people commenting on their cartoons negatively. That was half the reason they drew them in the first place.
posted by colie at 6:55 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by colie at 6:55 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
The victims' spokespeople want us to revisit their work, don't they? That's what all these cartoons on Twitter are about.
For pity's sake... I know I'm taking your obnoxious and disingenuous bait here, but it bears stating that it's smug moralistic pronouncements about the CH cartoonist's true motives (like suggestions of racism against all Arabs or Muslims with satire of fundamentalist Islamist attitudes) and what such oh-so-mean and -disrespectful folks might deserve for writing such biting satire, ignorant of political and cultural context and heavily equivocating on the freedoms of expression that I thought were, or at least that used to be, taken as a freaking given in western democracies, that are the problem -- not increased exposure the murdered cartoonists' work might be getting.
posted by aught at 6:57 AM on January 8, 2015 [17 favorites]
For pity's sake... I know I'm taking your obnoxious and disingenuous bait here, but it bears stating that it's smug moralistic pronouncements about the CH cartoonist's true motives (like suggestions of racism against all Arabs or Muslims with satire of fundamentalist Islamist attitudes) and what such oh-so-mean and -disrespectful folks might deserve for writing such biting satire, ignorant of political and cultural context and heavily equivocating on the freedoms of expression that I thought were, or at least that used to be, taken as a freaking given in western democracies, that are the problem -- not increased exposure the murdered cartoonists' work might be getting.
posted by aught at 6:57 AM on January 8, 2015 [17 favorites]
maxsparber, I agree that the vast majority of people raising their problems with the content of CH are coming from a well-intentioned place.
Maybe the problem is not viscerally understanding the awfulness of political killings, or perhaps distance from the victims - which I can sort of understand.
But it's still behaviour with which I have a huge problem. It feels gross in the same way as the "if only they had guns" garbage from Trump - though I'm not quite so willing to assume he's being sincere.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 6:59 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Maybe the problem is not viscerally understanding the awfulness of political killings, or perhaps distance from the victims - which I can sort of understand.
But it's still behaviour with which I have a huge problem. It feels gross in the same way as the "if only they had guns" garbage from Trump - though I'm not quite so willing to assume he's being sincere.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 6:59 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo will come out next week, despite bloodbath
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:01 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:01 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I really don't think these guys minded people commenting on their cartoons negatively. That was half the reason they drew them in the first place.
I'm sure that they could only hope that after they were gunned down for publishing a few tasteless cartoons, that western liberals would take time out of their day to trash their life's work.
posted by empath at 7:11 AM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm sure that they could only hope that after they were gunned down for publishing a few tasteless cartoons, that western liberals would take time out of their day to trash their life's work.
posted by empath at 7:11 AM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
The context of criticizing their work has shifted more than slightly since they were murdered yesterday.
posted by malocchio at 7:17 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by malocchio at 7:17 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
"The cartoons must be reprinted on every newspaper cover, for free speach!" and "the xenophobic content of the cartoons must not be discussed" are fundamentally incompatible positions.
posted by Artw at 7:21 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:21 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
Maryam Namazie - "A defence of Charlie Hebdo must also turn into defence of other blasphemers and apostates"
I don’t think there are many atheist, ex-Muslim or secular activists (including Muslims) like myself who have spoken up publicly and not faced some form of threat or intimidation.posted by audi alteram partem at 7:24 AM on January 8, 2015 [18 favorites]
So for us, Charlie Hebdo’s refusal to back down when so many have has meant a great deal over these years. Also, though, in addition to the rage one feels at any such tragedy, the massacre is personal for us.
It could really have been any of us. We are truly all Charlie Hebdo.
With the focus now on Charlie Hebdo and the crucial need and right to criticise Islam and religion, though, let us not forget the many across the globe who face execution or imprisonment for “insulting the prophet” and criticising Islam. Below you will find some examples which include Muslims, believers and atheists; the charges aim not to protect “Muslim sensibilities” as we so often hear in the west but to protect the status quo and the political power of Islamists.
I really don't think these guys minded people commenting on their cartoons negatively. That was half the reason they drew them in the first place.
I completely agree... while in another context the criticism of CH would elict howls of 'stop the victim blaming', I seriously doubt that the cartoonists would want to be shielded by that piece of rhetoric (which is much overused in these parts IMHO). Their work is obviously an integral part of the conversation, and that includes being open to criticism, even if the timing might be judged bad taste by some.
What's really the issue here is the many knee-jerk reactions from those viewing the cartoons and immediately jumping to 'racist!' and 'islamophobic!'. I'm guessing most of those reactions are from people who don't speak french, aren't intimately familiar with the history of satire in the french/european context, and plain just didn't get the satire, to the point of being exactly wrong interpreting it. I fully support CH's mission, for if nothing else they are a canary-in-the-coal-mine for whether we are actually able to exercise the rights that we supposedly have.
posted by amorphatist at 7:27 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
I completely agree... while in another context the criticism of CH would elict howls of 'stop the victim blaming', I seriously doubt that the cartoonists would want to be shielded by that piece of rhetoric (which is much overused in these parts IMHO). Their work is obviously an integral part of the conversation, and that includes being open to criticism, even if the timing might be judged bad taste by some.
What's really the issue here is the many knee-jerk reactions from those viewing the cartoons and immediately jumping to 'racist!' and 'islamophobic!'. I'm guessing most of those reactions are from people who don't speak french, aren't intimately familiar with the history of satire in the french/european context, and plain just didn't get the satire, to the point of being exactly wrong interpreting it. I fully support CH's mission, for if nothing else they are a canary-in-the-coal-mine for whether we are actually able to exercise the rights that we supposedly have.
posted by amorphatist at 7:27 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
Via Alex Massie's article in The Spectator I have learned that today is the 318th anniversary of the execution of Thomas Aikenhead, the last person in Britain to be executed for blasphemy.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:30 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:30 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
While this is still ongoing and terrifying for those of us in Paris, I would love it if the theoretical arguments could hold off. Where is the fast moving mefi I love, throwing up links to information rather than arguing about free speech.
Maybe because there are not a lot of French-speakers or otherwise informed MeFites in this thread? I just follow AFP, Le Figaro, and Le Monde for breaking updates, not MetaFilter.
posted by Nevin at 7:31 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Maybe because there are not a lot of French-speakers or otherwise informed MeFites in this thread? I just follow AFP, Le Figaro, and Le Monde for breaking updates, not MetaFilter.
posted by Nevin at 7:31 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
More than anything I feel like the sudden offence we're seeing at the content of CH is symptomatic of the narcissism of a certain sliver of the left.
The New Yorker on the attack after Charlie Hebdo's 2011 cover:
With its offices under police protection, Charb said that mocking Islam must continue “until Islam is just as banal as Catholicism.”
I just don't understand how to take this goal other than as a kind of hubris. It strikes me as naive and irresponsible, in the way it seems it did to the French, as reported above.
Will Self (via Kitteh's link above):
The trouble with a lot of so-called "satire" directed against so-called religious extremists is that it's not clear who it's afflicting, or who it's comforting. This is in no way to condone the shooting of the journalists, which is evil, pure and simple, but our society makes a fetish of the 'right to free speech' without ever questioning what responsibilities are implied by this right.
They were sitting on a tinderbox, filled with racially inflected tensions between a local population of immigrants and a Le Pen-loving majority. Lighting the match has to involve a certain level of perversity.
I don't know, I do feel that those whose words and images have power and reach should feel responsible for what they put out.
(To be clear, I am not suggesting this attack was "deserved".)
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
The New Yorker on the attack after Charlie Hebdo's 2011 cover:
With its offices under police protection, Charb said that mocking Islam must continue “until Islam is just as banal as Catholicism.”
I just don't understand how to take this goal other than as a kind of hubris. It strikes me as naive and irresponsible, in the way it seems it did to the French, as reported above.
Will Self (via Kitteh's link above):
The trouble with a lot of so-called "satire" directed against so-called religious extremists is that it's not clear who it's afflicting, or who it's comforting. This is in no way to condone the shooting of the journalists, which is evil, pure and simple, but our society makes a fetish of the 'right to free speech' without ever questioning what responsibilities are implied by this right.
They were sitting on a tinderbox, filled with racially inflected tensions between a local population of immigrants and a Le Pen-loving majority. Lighting the match has to involve a certain level of perversity.
I don't know, I do feel that those whose words and images have power and reach should feel responsible for what they put out.
(To be clear, I am not suggesting this attack was "deserved".)
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't know, I do feel that those whose words and images have power and reach should feel responsible for what they put out.
There's no indication that these artists were not responsible for their work. They signed their pieces.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:34 AM on January 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
There's no indication that these artists were not responsible for their work. They signed their pieces.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:34 AM on January 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
I don't know, I do feel that those whose words and images have power and reach should feel responsible for what they put out.
"This may be a bit pompous what I'm saying, but I prefer to die standing than live on my knees." - Charb
I don't know if you can feel any more responsible than that.
posted by amorphatist at 7:40 AM on January 8, 2015 [17 favorites]
"This may be a bit pompous what I'm saying, but I prefer to die standing than live on my knees." - Charb
I don't know if you can feel any more responsible than that.
posted by amorphatist at 7:40 AM on January 8, 2015 [17 favorites]
They were sitting on a tinderbox, filled with racially inflected tensions between a local population of immigrants and a Le Pen-loving majority. Lighting the match has to involve a certain level of perversity.
This seems to suggest that their murder (or at least a violent attack), while a horrible crime, was to be expected.
But why would their murder or a violent attack be expected? And who are you anticipating would pull the trigger? The "local population of immigrants"? Because that would suggest this is some sort of "clash of civilizations" which it was not.
The people who did this do not have legitimate war aims. If this is a war, whose side would you be on? That of Charlie Hebdo, or the assassins?
posted by Nevin at 7:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
This seems to suggest that their murder (or at least a violent attack), while a horrible crime, was to be expected.
But why would their murder or a violent attack be expected? And who are you anticipating would pull the trigger? The "local population of immigrants"? Because that would suggest this is some sort of "clash of civilizations" which it was not.
The people who did this do not have legitimate war aims. If this is a war, whose side would you be on? That of Charlie Hebdo, or the assassins?
posted by Nevin at 7:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
But why would their murder or a violent attack be expected? And who are you anticipating would pull the trigger? The "local population of immigrants"? Because that would suggest this is some sort of "clash of civilizations" which it was not.
Some feel that in today's context, radicalization of immigrant (and not-so immigrant, second-generation) youth might be expected when they are rejected by a dominant majority.
If this is a war, whose side would you be on? That of Charlie Hebdo, or the assassins?
I like to think I'm on the side of the kind of tolerance and inclusion that might prevent these kinds of horrors.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:00 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Some feel that in today's context, radicalization of immigrant (and not-so immigrant, second-generation) youth might be expected when they are rejected by a dominant majority.
If this is a war, whose side would you be on? That of Charlie Hebdo, or the assassins?
I like to think I'm on the side of the kind of tolerance and inclusion that might prevent these kinds of horrors.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:00 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
me: “Also, 77% rate the acceptability of political violence for a noble cause as low or very low.”
shivohum: “So nearly a quarter consider it ok. That is not good.”
But I consider it okay! Don't you?
Seriously, think about this for a moment.
posted by koeselitz at 8:07 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
shivohum: “So nearly a quarter consider it ok. That is not good.”
But I consider it okay! Don't you?
Seriously, think about this for a moment.
posted by koeselitz at 8:07 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
What's really the issue here is the many knee-jerk reactions from those viewing the cartoons and immediately jumping to 'racist!' and 'islamophobic!'. I'm guessing most of those reactions are from people who don't speak french, aren't intimately familiar with the history of satire in the french/european context, and plain just didn't get the satire, to the point of being exactly wrong interpreting it. I fully support CH's mission, for if nothing else they are a canary-in-the-coal-mine for whether we are actually able to exercise the rights that we supposedly have.
When I read some posts with links here and other that I found it's also makes a big difference in understanding the politics they're in context with. I've found that what seems on the face of it to be 'wow, what the?' isn't so much when you get that part of the context as well as the cultural context you spoke of.
I'm in Canada and heck even people next door to the south, which share cultural stuff even more closely don't get some of my political humour or general humour, especially if it refers more detailed political goings on here.
Transfering humour and especially satirical types of humour cross culture and political isn't always easy.
posted by Jalliah at 8:07 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
When I read some posts with links here and other that I found it's also makes a big difference in understanding the politics they're in context with. I've found that what seems on the face of it to be 'wow, what the?' isn't so much when you get that part of the context as well as the cultural context you spoke of.
I'm in Canada and heck even people next door to the south, which share cultural stuff even more closely don't get some of my political humour or general humour, especially if it refers more detailed political goings on here.
Transfering humour and especially satirical types of humour cross culture and political isn't always easy.
posted by Jalliah at 8:07 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I am 100% on the side of tolerance and inclusiveness in general, and practice it myself whenever possible, but not everyone needs to be tolerant and inclusive all the time.
I don't accept at all that satirizing Islam is 'punching down', btw. It's one of the largest religions in the world, and there are incredibly powerful and wealthy Muslim dictatorships and theocracies that are funding terror and mayhem all over the world in the name of their faith, and brutally repressing their own people. Taking the piss out of religion of any kind, but particularly large and powerful religions, while annoying and hurtful to the genuinely faithful, can be only good for humanity in the long run.
Yes, it's 'easier' to do it from a western country like France or the US where are the protections for free speech, but as we see, it's not without its risks even here. People wouldn't dream of doing it in a place like Saudi Arabia because they'd be thrown in prison or beheaded for it. If anything, punching down is attacking a bunch of cartoonists for daring to poke fun at a guy that's been dead for over a thousand years while their bodies are still warm.
posted by empath at 8:09 AM on January 8, 2015 [27 favorites]
I don't accept at all that satirizing Islam is 'punching down', btw. It's one of the largest religions in the world, and there are incredibly powerful and wealthy Muslim dictatorships and theocracies that are funding terror and mayhem all over the world in the name of their faith, and brutally repressing their own people. Taking the piss out of religion of any kind, but particularly large and powerful religions, while annoying and hurtful to the genuinely faithful, can be only good for humanity in the long run.
Yes, it's 'easier' to do it from a western country like France or the US where are the protections for free speech, but as we see, it's not without its risks even here. People wouldn't dream of doing it in a place like Saudi Arabia because they'd be thrown in prison or beheaded for it. If anything, punching down is attacking a bunch of cartoonists for daring to poke fun at a guy that's been dead for over a thousand years while their bodies are still warm.
posted by empath at 8:09 AM on January 8, 2015 [27 favorites]
If this is a war, whose side would you be on? That of Charlie Hebdo, or the assassins?
I like to think I'm on the side of the kind of tolerance and inclusion that might prevent these kinds of horrors.
I'm not sure the gunmen would be persuaded by "tolerance and inclusion". If fact, I think people who murder others over cartoons may actually be against tolerance and inclusion.
posted by spaltavian at 8:10 AM on January 8, 2015 [18 favorites]
I like to think I'm on the side of the kind of tolerance and inclusion that might prevent these kinds of horrors.
I'm not sure the gunmen would be persuaded by "tolerance and inclusion". If fact, I think people who murder others over cartoons may actually be against tolerance and inclusion.
posted by spaltavian at 8:10 AM on January 8, 2015 [18 favorites]
shivohum: “Another number for perspective: a recent poll reports that one in six French citizens supports ISIS. That seems almost too high to believe, but even given a margin of error -- say the number were one in ten instead -- it would be like saying one in ten French citizens supported child sex trafficking. It's horrifying. The percentage jumps to 27% of 18-24 year olds.”
I am not really willing to trust a poll done for Russia Today and reported in Vox. You may feel differently.
posted by koeselitz at 8:12 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
I am not really willing to trust a poll done for Russia Today and reported in Vox. You may feel differently.
posted by koeselitz at 8:12 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'm not sure the gunmen would be persuaded by "tolerance and inclusion". If fact, I think people who murder others over cartoons may actually be against tolerance and inclusion.
You're using this as an argument against tolerance and inclusion?
posted by Artw at 8:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're using this as an argument against tolerance and inclusion?
posted by Artw at 8:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Do 1 in 6 French citizens really support Islamic State? (Washington Post)
posted by tykky at 8:23 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by tykky at 8:23 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure the gunmen would be persuaded by "tolerance and inclusion". If fact, I think people who murder others over cartoons may actually be against tolerance and inclusion.
You're using this as an argument against tolerance and inclusion?
Yes, that's a fair and logical reading of what I said. I am against tolerance and inclusion. I am history's greatest monster.
posted by spaltavian at 8:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
You're using this as an argument against tolerance and inclusion?
Yes, that's a fair and logical reading of what I said. I am against tolerance and inclusion. I am history's greatest monster.
posted by spaltavian at 8:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
The journalists were shot while they were having a meeting to organise a conference against racism, which is hysterically funny. Who will apologise to the memory of good people who never harmed anyone and died in the name of equality and freedom from oppression?
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:26 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:26 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
The demands that we choose a side of either being with or against and then commit to murdering the opposition is the extremists game and we shouldn't play it.
posted by humanfont at 8:26 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 8:26 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Note to self: next time, wait for Jim C. Hines to pretty much tweet what you were trying to say because he said it better.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure the gunmen would be persuaded by "tolerance and inclusion".
How do you know? Not sure it's really been tried with any conviction. They were boys before they were men.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:30 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
How do you know? Not sure it's really been tried with any conviction. They were boys before they were men.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:30 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also, 77% rate the acceptability of political violence for a noble cause as low or very low.
So nearly a quarter consider it ok. That is not good.
The other day I was behind a pickup truck at a light. That's when I noticed the bumper sticker. "Where's Oswald when you need him?" Ann Coulter famously said we should invade Muslim countries and forcibly convert their citizens to Christianity. The Iraq War (and, for that matter, Afghanistan) was frequently sold as political violence for a noble cause. Nobody thinks to poll Christians on this, though.
Anyway, what are you wanting us to do with this information?
posted by dirigibleman at 8:32 AM on January 8, 2015
So nearly a quarter consider it ok. That is not good.
The other day I was behind a pickup truck at a light. That's when I noticed the bumper sticker. "Where's Oswald when you need him?" Ann Coulter famously said we should invade Muslim countries and forcibly convert their citizens to Christianity. The Iraq War (and, for that matter, Afghanistan) was frequently sold as political violence for a noble cause. Nobody thinks to poll Christians on this, though.
Anyway, what are you wanting us to do with this information?
posted by dirigibleman at 8:32 AM on January 8, 2015
They were sitting on a tinderbox, filled with racially inflected tensions between a local population of immigrants and a Le Pen-loving majority. Lighting the match has to involve a certain level of perversity.
I don't know, I do feel that those whose words and images have power and reach should feel responsible for what they put out.
(To be clear, I am not suggesting this attack was "deserved".)
You may not be saying this attack was "deserved",* but you are saying that it was deserved. I can't see any other way this comment can read and tacking on the last sentence doesn't change that.
*I'm not sure if the scare quotes give the word a different meaning somehow, so I left them in.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't know, I do feel that those whose words and images have power and reach should feel responsible for what they put out.
(To be clear, I am not suggesting this attack was "deserved".)
You may not be saying this attack was "deserved",* but you are saying that it was deserved. I can't see any other way this comment can read and tacking on the last sentence doesn't change that.
*I'm not sure if the scare quotes give the word a different meaning somehow, so I left them in.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Taking the piss out of religion of any kind, but particularly large and powerful religions, while annoying and hurtful to the genuinely faithful, can be only good for humanity in the long run.
But this is it, the "long run", "equality", "freedom", even "religion" - these are dangerous abstractions. It's the medium-term, micro-processes, particular contexts and dynamics that that make them live or die. Frowner and others have spoken about the context here. It matters.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:34 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
But this is it, the "long run", "equality", "freedom", even "religion" - these are dangerous abstractions. It's the medium-term, micro-processes, particular contexts and dynamics that that make them live or die. Frowner and others have spoken about the context here. It matters.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:34 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
while in another context the criticism of CH would elict howls of 'stop the victim blaming'
At the same time, in other contexts, saying "you just don't understand their culture, this thing which looks racist or homophobic or misogynist to you is actually totally acceptable, don't be intolerant" would be viewed as a bad argument. "You just don't understand France, this looks racist but it's not" is given much more weight than "You just don't understand [an African country, for example], this is totally acceptable". We grant a lot of weight to "national traditions" and "national intellectual life" for certain nations and very little for others - which is why I think that kind of argument has to be handled very carefully. I think it's a rhetorical shortcut which almost always ends up in a marsh rather than at the intended destination, because it suggests that "they" are a unified culture - that there is a "France" (or any nation) which can be "understood" as one thing, one context.
I feel like most of us are flailing around for a "universal" explanation/viewpoint/cause/fault about this terrible crime - "this is censorship!" "French intellectual life is accepted this way by all French people" "This is clearly and universally racist" "They were clearly being Islamophobic" - when it seems like this is a muddy and horrible thing with muddy and horrible roots.
~~~
When we talk about the importance of reading these cartoons in a French context: the context of these cartoons is vigorous and direct French political satire which is very different from American, yes, but it's also French support for banning hijab, the isolation of Muslim immigrants in the banlieux, police harassment of Muslim youth, a rise in hate crimes against Muslims, ridiculous pronouncements by politicians about Muslim school children....(Much the same stuff that I see in Minneapolis, actually, now that we have a meaningful Muslim population - day to day harassment of Muslims takes place throughout the West.) It's important to read the cartoons in a French context, yes, but the French context is not just vigorous, boundary- pushing satire; it's also active discrimination against and harassment of Muslim citizens. There's a "French national character" and a "French intellectual tradition" just the way that there's an "American national character" and an "American intellectual tradition" - these terms try to unify what is actually diverse, conflicted and divided against itself, even though there is some truth to them.
What I'm trying to say is that it's both, and other things besides, and putting this all together is very, very difficult - saying that these cartoons are a complicated matter and that it's not clear whether publishing them was the best choice is one thing; blaming cartoonists is another thing, and a bad one, because most of the time no one makes the "best choice" in complicated situations.
posted by Frowner at 8:35 AM on January 8, 2015 [25 favorites]
At the same time, in other contexts, saying "you just don't understand their culture, this thing which looks racist or homophobic or misogynist to you is actually totally acceptable, don't be intolerant" would be viewed as a bad argument. "You just don't understand France, this looks racist but it's not" is given much more weight than "You just don't understand [an African country, for example], this is totally acceptable". We grant a lot of weight to "national traditions" and "national intellectual life" for certain nations and very little for others - which is why I think that kind of argument has to be handled very carefully. I think it's a rhetorical shortcut which almost always ends up in a marsh rather than at the intended destination, because it suggests that "they" are a unified culture - that there is a "France" (or any nation) which can be "understood" as one thing, one context.
I feel like most of us are flailing around for a "universal" explanation/viewpoint/cause/fault about this terrible crime - "this is censorship!" "French intellectual life is accepted this way by all French people" "This is clearly and universally racist" "They were clearly being Islamophobic" - when it seems like this is a muddy and horrible thing with muddy and horrible roots.
~~~
When we talk about the importance of reading these cartoons in a French context: the context of these cartoons is vigorous and direct French political satire which is very different from American, yes, but it's also French support for banning hijab, the isolation of Muslim immigrants in the banlieux, police harassment of Muslim youth, a rise in hate crimes against Muslims, ridiculous pronouncements by politicians about Muslim school children....(Much the same stuff that I see in Minneapolis, actually, now that we have a meaningful Muslim population - day to day harassment of Muslims takes place throughout the West.) It's important to read the cartoons in a French context, yes, but the French context is not just vigorous, boundary- pushing satire; it's also active discrimination against and harassment of Muslim citizens. There's a "French national character" and a "French intellectual tradition" just the way that there's an "American national character" and an "American intellectual tradition" - these terms try to unify what is actually diverse, conflicted and divided against itself, even though there is some truth to them.
What I'm trying to say is that it's both, and other things besides, and putting this all together is very, very difficult - saying that these cartoons are a complicated matter and that it's not clear whether publishing them was the best choice is one thing; blaming cartoonists is another thing, and a bad one, because most of the time no one makes the "best choice" in complicated situations.
posted by Frowner at 8:35 AM on January 8, 2015 [25 favorites]
You may not be saying this attack was "deserved",* but you are saying that it was deserved. I can't see any other way this comment can read and tacking on the last sentence doesn't change that.
No, I'm saying it could be expected.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:36 AM on January 8, 2015
No, I'm saying it could be expected.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:36 AM on January 8, 2015
It has been interesting how the images all decried as instantly racist have, with context, more than just the meaning proscribed by, at best, looking at a picture and throwing a few words through Google Translate.
Satire is a context-heavy medium. It doesn't really work to apply only your own context to what's happening half a world away, with a different country, different language, different demographics and hot-button issues.
I agree that a lot - not all, but a lot - of the discussion has been in good faith and an attempt to tease out the complexities of the issue. However, it does look an awful lot like concern trolling, the emphasis on not focussing so much on the dozen murders that have already taken place than the unknown, unperformed potential acts of violence that might be inspired by them.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Satire is a context-heavy medium. It doesn't really work to apply only your own context to what's happening half a world away, with a different country, different language, different demographics and hot-button issues.
I agree that a lot - not all, but a lot - of the discussion has been in good faith and an attempt to tease out the complexities of the issue. However, it does look an awful lot like concern trolling, the emphasis on not focussing so much on the dozen murders that have already taken place than the unknown, unperformed potential acts of violence that might be inspired by them.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
> Frowner and others have spoken about the context here. It matters.
Frowner and others have spoken about the context they like to imagine, while ignoring everything of the context in France and of Charlie Hebdo. I do agree with you that it does matter a lot, though.
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:38 AM on January 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
Frowner and others have spoken about the context they like to imagine, while ignoring everything of the context in France and of Charlie Hebdo. I do agree with you that it does matter a lot, though.
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:38 AM on January 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
No, I'm saying it could be expected.
It wasn't unexpected. The editor of CH had a bodyguard. No one is debating this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:40 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
It wasn't unexpected. The editor of CH had a bodyguard. No one is debating this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:40 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
No, I'm saying it could be expected.
To quote your comment about publishing the cartoons: "Lighting the match has to involve a certain level of perversity." It is hard to see how that doesn't roll the blame back onto the cartoonists as perversely doing this to themselves in some way. (Unless you have a different, less morally problematic meaning of the word in mind.)
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:41 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
To quote your comment about publishing the cartoons: "Lighting the match has to involve a certain level of perversity." It is hard to see how that doesn't roll the blame back onto the cartoonists as perversely doing this to themselves in some way. (Unless you have a different, less morally problematic meaning of the word in mind.)
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:41 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
Out of interest, can anyone point me in the direction of a CH Islam-based cartoon which is actually funny? (with or without the context explained).
I mentioned upthread that the UK's Private Eye seems to have no trouble featuring cartoons with Islam themes such as jihad and burkas etc.
posted by colie at 8:49 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mentioned upthread that the UK's Private Eye seems to have no trouble featuring cartoons with Islam themes such as jihad and burkas etc.
posted by colie at 8:49 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Out of interest, can anyone point me in the direction of a CH Islam-based cartoon which is actually funny? (with or without the context explained).
Funny to who? Just because you don't find them funny doesn't mean they aren't funny.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:50 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Funny to who? Just because you don't find them funny doesn't mean they aren't funny.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:50 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Funny to anyone on the thread? I liked the recent Private Eye ones.
posted by colie at 8:51 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by colie at 8:51 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
France's original hijab ban originated with France's educators, Frowner. And the ban enjoyed major support from French Muslim women.
American's preaching about the hijab ban sounds like right-wing Americans claiming that affirmative action is reverse discrimination, i.e. tone deaf and flat wrong. Ya know, Turkey banned headscarves for ages, while absolutely not seeking to stop being Islamic.
Also, I'd hope this kills the "racism" victim blaming :
“They were killed during a meeting discussing a conference on the fight against racism. Voila."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
American's preaching about the hijab ban sounds like right-wing Americans claiming that affirmative action is reverse discrimination, i.e. tone deaf and flat wrong. Ya know, Turkey banned headscarves for ages, while absolutely not seeking to stop being Islamic.
Also, I'd hope this kills the "racism" victim blaming :
“They were killed during a meeting discussing a conference on the fight against racism. Voila."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
Frowner and others have spoken about the context they like to imagine, while ignoring everything of the context in France and of Charlie Hebdo.
"You can't call our particular brand of racism out because you don't understand our context" is something I got sick to the teeth of hearing when I was dealing with overt racists in Quebec, more sick to the teeth when dealing with white racists in the American South, and am getting thoroughly sick to the teeth of hearing here.
posted by Shepherd at 8:53 AM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
"You can't call our particular brand of racism out because you don't understand our context" is something I got sick to the teeth of hearing when I was dealing with overt racists in Quebec, more sick to the teeth when dealing with white racists in the American South, and am getting thoroughly sick to the teeth of hearing here.
posted by Shepherd at 8:53 AM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
It is hard to see how that doesn't roll the blame back onto the cartoonists as perversely doing this to themselves in some way. (Unless you have a different, less morally problematic meaning of the word in mind.)
Charlie Hebdo's 2011 cartoon promised that its loose spoof of The Intouchables film was "sure to “set the Muslim world ablaze.” " Beyond the self-satisfaction I'm seeing in it, I read that as a perverse indifference to consequences.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:54 AM on January 8, 2015
Charlie Hebdo's 2011 cartoon promised that its loose spoof of The Intouchables film was "sure to “set the Muslim world ablaze.” " Beyond the self-satisfaction I'm seeing in it, I read that as a perverse indifference to consequences.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:54 AM on January 8, 2015
And "I know nothing of what's going on but that won't stop me from pontificating" is something I got sick to the teeth of hearing from just about everywhere.
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:58 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:58 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
The cartoon thing is a pointless distraction. ISIS etc have been calling for attacks in France and elsewhere for some time. If it hadn't been Charlie Hebdo it would have been something else. Indeed, just last month, the targets were in Dijon, in Joue-les-Tours, and in Nantes.
I expect there will be more.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
I expect there will be more.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
"You can't call our particular brand of racism out because you don't understand our context" is something I got sick to the teeth of hearing when I was dealing with overt racists in Quebec, more sick to the teeth when dealing with white racists in the American South, and am getting thoroughly sick to the teeth of hearing here.
When the level of ignorance about the cartoons reaches the equivalent level of being angry at Jonathan Swift for his callous indifference to the plight of Irish babies ( oh my God! Eating them?!), then it's a very fair criticism. So far in this thread specific criticism of Charlie Hebdo comics has amounted to A) a persistent misconception that they were the originators of the Danish cartoons that became a worldwide cause celebre in 2005 and B) the Boko Haram cartoon that turns out to have been wildly and absurdly misread.
If people want to make the claim that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists regularly perpetrated genuinely racist attacks on muslims (or anyone else) it would behoove those people to provide some examples AND to show that they understand the context of those examples well enough so as not to make the Jonathan-Swift-supported-cannibalism level of misreading we've witnessed thus far.
posted by yoink at 9:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [55 favorites]
When the level of ignorance about the cartoons reaches the equivalent level of being angry at Jonathan Swift for his callous indifference to the plight of Irish babies ( oh my God! Eating them?!), then it's a very fair criticism. So far in this thread specific criticism of Charlie Hebdo comics has amounted to A) a persistent misconception that they were the originators of the Danish cartoons that became a worldwide cause celebre in 2005 and B) the Boko Haram cartoon that turns out to have been wildly and absurdly misread.
If people want to make the claim that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists regularly perpetrated genuinely racist attacks on muslims (or anyone else) it would behoove those people to provide some examples AND to show that they understand the context of those examples well enough so as not to make the Jonathan-Swift-supported-cannibalism level of misreading we've witnessed thus far.
posted by yoink at 9:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [55 favorites]
Post-September 11: "They hate us for our freedoms"
Post-Charlie Hebdo attack: "They hate us for our freedom of speech."
posted by FJT at 9:13 AM on January 8, 2015
Post-Charlie Hebdo attack: "They hate us for our freedom of speech."
posted by FJT at 9:13 AM on January 8, 2015
Post-September 11: "They hate us for our freedoms"
Post-Charlie Hebdo attack: "They hate us for our freedom of speech."
This is not even remotely a good or appropriate comparison.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Post-Charlie Hebdo attack: "They hate us for our freedom of speech."
This is not even remotely a good or appropriate comparison.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm seeing a similar level of people turning their brains off. Hitchens has been invoked, for fucks sake. When do we invade Iraq?
posted by Artw at 9:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Mosque attacks reported in wake of Charlie Hebdo attack
posted by Artw at 9:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Hitchens has been invoked, for fucks sake. When do we invade Iraq? Your ultimate shutdown quip. Nothing else he said or advocated for can be mentioned when you invoke that one. Tiresome.
posted by feste at 9:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by feste at 9:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
> Out of interest, can anyone point me in the direction of a CH Islam-based cartoon which is actually funny? (with or without the context explained).
Humor is but one standard for measuring satire, and quite frankly it's not the important one here. Was Charlie Hebdo polemical? Yes. Were they constructive? I dunno, possibly so.
posted by Sunburnt at 9:34 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Humor is but one standard for measuring satire, and quite frankly it's not the important one here. Was Charlie Hebdo polemical? Yes. Were they constructive? I dunno, possibly so.
posted by Sunburnt at 9:34 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
IndigoJones, the killers apparently asked for some of their victims by name, and you reckon "the cartoon thing is a pointless distraction"? This was a political assassination.
posted by rory at 9:36 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by rory at 9:36 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Columbia Journalism Review: The missing Charlie Hebdo cartoons
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
All the talk about cartoons is premised on this idea that a group of people who happened to be sitting on a bunch of guns and bombs were totally not planning on using them were it not for these nasty cartoon images, but then they just had no choice.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 9:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
IndigoJones, the killers apparently asked for some of their victims by name, and you reckon "the cartoon thing is a pointless distraction"? This was a political assassination.
Do you honestly think that had Charlie Hebdo done nothing that these two would not have found some other French target?
posted by IndigoJones at 9:44 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Do you honestly think that had Charlie Hebdo done nothing that these two would not have found some other French target?
posted by IndigoJones at 9:44 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
"You can't call our particular brand of racism out because you don't understand our context" is something I got sick to the teeth of hearing when I was dealing with overt racists in Quebec, more sick to the teeth when dealing with white racists in the American South, and am getting thoroughly sick to the teeth of hearing here.
I'm not reading that being said. What I read being said is more people are calling out that this or that one is racist without enough info or understanding of the particular context to make the determination that it is indeed racist within that particular culture and yes context.
It's relatively easy for me to get what is racist in Quebec because I live within the culture it exists in. With all the exposure to American culture we get up here it's also relatively easy to 'see' racism in the American south.
Transfering my cultural experience to France and making the determination 'yes' or 'no' without a deeper look is just asking to be wrong.
Heck. I can give numerous examples of how humor and satire translate super badly even with communities in my own country. I have some pretty intimate experience with some First Nations communities and there is humour that I just would not even bother bringing outside of it because people just don't get it. Stuff that sounds to outsiders as being really offensive and plain wrong.
I can barely even explain for instance why my nickname, which comes directly from a white racist joke is part of a reversal of that joke and was given to me as a term of endearment and respect and that when there I wear it proudly because it's a joke and satire of a joke, within a joke.
That people think it's hilariously funny but get down right pissed if anyone says it's a bad thing to call me because...it's a joke and satire and we all get it, in that group. And yes it has been humorous when out as a mixed group because I have had well meaning people freak out for a number of reasons and lecture me about it. Which then leads to even more joking that people without the group(community) context just don't get.
posted by Jalliah at 9:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm not reading that being said. What I read being said is more people are calling out that this or that one is racist without enough info or understanding of the particular context to make the determination that it is indeed racist within that particular culture and yes context.
It's relatively easy for me to get what is racist in Quebec because I live within the culture it exists in. With all the exposure to American culture we get up here it's also relatively easy to 'see' racism in the American south.
Transfering my cultural experience to France and making the determination 'yes' or 'no' without a deeper look is just asking to be wrong.
Heck. I can give numerous examples of how humor and satire translate super badly even with communities in my own country. I have some pretty intimate experience with some First Nations communities and there is humour that I just would not even bother bringing outside of it because people just don't get it. Stuff that sounds to outsiders as being really offensive and plain wrong.
I can barely even explain for instance why my nickname, which comes directly from a white racist joke is part of a reversal of that joke and was given to me as a term of endearment and respect and that when there I wear it proudly because it's a joke and satire of a joke, within a joke.
That people think it's hilariously funny but get down right pissed if anyone says it's a bad thing to call me because...it's a joke and satire and we all get it, in that group. And yes it has been humorous when out as a mixed group because I have had well meaning people freak out for a number of reasons and lecture me about it. Which then leads to even more joking that people without the group(community) context just don't get.
posted by Jalliah at 9:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
FJT: Post-September 11: "They hate us for our freedoms"
Post-Charlie Hebdo attack: "They hate us for our freedom of speech."
The Charlie Hebdo attackers didn't target a symbol of France, or a military/financial/administrative target. They apparently targeted cartoonists whom they deem to have committed blasphemy. I feel fairly confident guessing that they think cartoons mocking Islam should not be allowed.
So, yes, these particular murderers do seem to hate "our" freedom of speech.
The perpetrators of 9/11 very likely do hate western-style freedom, but that is not why 9/11 was comitted, as they did attack a target symbolic of America, and military/financial/administrative targets. They did not target Larry Flynt, or NOW or the ACLU.
Your comparison is insulting.
posted by spaltavian at 9:51 AM on January 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
Post-Charlie Hebdo attack: "They hate us for our freedom of speech."
The Charlie Hebdo attackers didn't target a symbol of France, or a military/financial/administrative target. They apparently targeted cartoonists whom they deem to have committed blasphemy. I feel fairly confident guessing that they think cartoons mocking Islam should not be allowed.
So, yes, these particular murderers do seem to hate "our" freedom of speech.
The perpetrators of 9/11 very likely do hate western-style freedom, but that is not why 9/11 was comitted, as they did attack a target symbolic of America, and military/financial/administrative targets. They did not target Larry Flynt, or NOW or the ACLU.
Your comparison is insulting.
posted by spaltavian at 9:51 AM on January 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
Humor is but one standard for measuring satire
I'm not measuring it, I'm just genuinely curious as to what anyone French or otherwise got out of the CH type of cartoons, which apart from anything else, seem incredibly dated to my eyes. I am happy to be educated.
posted by colie at 9:57 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not measuring it, I'm just genuinely curious as to what anyone French or otherwise got out of the CH type of cartoons, which apart from anything else, seem incredibly dated to my eyes. I am happy to be educated.
posted by colie at 9:57 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not measuring it, I'm just genuinely curious as to what anyone French or otherwise got out of the CH type of cartoons, which apart from anything else, seem incredibly dated to my eyes. I am happy to be educated.
A lot of people find them funny. I'm not sure what you don't get about this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:00 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
A lot of people find them funny. I'm not sure what you don't get about this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:00 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
> All the talk about cartoons is premised on this idea that a group of people who happened to be sitting on a bunch of guns and bombs...
It's not. Stockpiling is a thing, because acquiring weapons requires one or more opportunities and a supply chain to steal, smuggle, or build weapons, while getting angry happens all the time.
This could've just been a coincidence of the two events, with cartoons as the tipping point or just the latest outrage, or maybe it was the target before the weapons arrived. We won't know unless these guys talk or we find their twitter accounts. Maybe this was a deep-seated plot going to the highest levels of the Paris-based Islamosphere. Or maybe it was someone getting angry at some clickbait they saw on facebook just when they had the tools to do something about it.
posted by Sunburnt at 10:02 AM on January 8, 2015
It's not. Stockpiling is a thing, because acquiring weapons requires one or more opportunities and a supply chain to steal, smuggle, or build weapons, while getting angry happens all the time.
This could've just been a coincidence of the two events, with cartoons as the tipping point or just the latest outrage, or maybe it was the target before the weapons arrived. We won't know unless these guys talk or we find their twitter accounts. Maybe this was a deep-seated plot going to the highest levels of the Paris-based Islamosphere. Or maybe it was someone getting angry at some clickbait they saw on facebook just when they had the tools to do something about it.
posted by Sunburnt at 10:02 AM on January 8, 2015
But nobody here finds them funny. Who are all the laughers?
posted by colie at 10:02 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by colie at 10:02 AM on January 8, 2015
People who speak French and understand their context.
posted by enamon at 10:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by enamon at 10:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
But nobody here finds them funny.
How do you know that? (It's simply not true.)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
How do you know that? (It's simply not true.)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
IndigoJones, the killers apparently asked for some of their victims by name, and you reckon "the cartoon thing is a pointless distraction"? This was a political assassination.
I think this is a fundamental misreading of the situation. You seem to imagine these guys as basically peaceful, well-adjusted citizens who, because they are such deeply devout and engaged Muslims find themselves profoundly shocked and hurt every time they see a Charlie Hebdo cover on the newsstand, to the point where eventually something just snaps and they go on this killing spree.
I will bet anything you like that this doesn't end up being at all the case. That is, I'm very confident that it will turn out that these guys are like the Boston Marathon bombers--not particularly devout, not particularly ardent believers, unlikely to have been genuinely and personally driven to distraction by Charlie Hebdo, but, rather, disaffected and alienated young men who took up a cause because it seemed to provide some kind of grander purpose and meaning to their lives and who selected Charlie Hebdo because it was a convenient symbol ("So, who should we target? The Prime Minister? A synagogue?" "Hey, what about that magazine that everyone got so worked up about a few years back...what was it's name again?"). Yes, having opted to make Charlie Hebdo their target the killings become a deliberate "assassination" from that point forward, but reading that as evidence as to how profoundly the magazine's cartoons distressed the killers is like reading the selection of the Boston Marathon as a target as evidence that those guys were profoundly distressed by the sight of people in running clothes.
posted by yoink at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [18 favorites]
I think this is a fundamental misreading of the situation. You seem to imagine these guys as basically peaceful, well-adjusted citizens who, because they are such deeply devout and engaged Muslims find themselves profoundly shocked and hurt every time they see a Charlie Hebdo cover on the newsstand, to the point where eventually something just snaps and they go on this killing spree.
I will bet anything you like that this doesn't end up being at all the case. That is, I'm very confident that it will turn out that these guys are like the Boston Marathon bombers--not particularly devout, not particularly ardent believers, unlikely to have been genuinely and personally driven to distraction by Charlie Hebdo, but, rather, disaffected and alienated young men who took up a cause because it seemed to provide some kind of grander purpose and meaning to their lives and who selected Charlie Hebdo because it was a convenient symbol ("So, who should we target? The Prime Minister? A synagogue?" "Hey, what about that magazine that everyone got so worked up about a few years back...what was it's name again?"). Yes, having opted to make Charlie Hebdo their target the killings become a deliberate "assassination" from that point forward, but reading that as evidence as to how profoundly the magazine's cartoons distressed the killers is like reading the selection of the Boston Marathon as a target as evidence that those guys were profoundly distressed by the sight of people in running clothes.
posted by yoink at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [18 favorites]
I'm not measuring it, I'm just genuinely curious as to what anyone French or otherwise got out of the CH type of cartoons, which apart from anything else, seem incredibly dated to my eyes. I am happy to be educated.
But nobody here finds them funny. Who are all the laughers?
Your participation in this thread is starting to be distasteful, colie. You've gone from stating that their comics were outright racist and xenophobic, and after being corrected, you're falling back on them being merely not funny. Okay, we get it, you don't find them funny. You don't need to keep repeating yourself. Maybe we can have a thread about relative quality of the creative output of these dead cartoonists after their bodies are in the ground.
posted by empath at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [33 favorites]
But nobody here finds them funny. Who are all the laughers?
Your participation in this thread is starting to be distasteful, colie. You've gone from stating that their comics were outright racist and xenophobic, and after being corrected, you're falling back on them being merely not funny. Okay, we get it, you don't find them funny. You don't need to keep repeating yourself. Maybe we can have a thread about relative quality of the creative output of these dead cartoonists after their bodies are in the ground.
posted by empath at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [33 favorites]
A couple of the cartoons as explained in the Vox piece gave me a chuckle. I assume they're funnier if you are a fluent French speaker and are well-versed in the French political context. Certainly they seemed much, much less offensive than some of the descriptions of them on this thread.
posted by crazy with stars at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by crazy with stars at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I will bet anything you like that this doesn't end up being at all the case. That is, I'm very confident that it will turn out that these guys are like the Boston Marathon bombers--not particularly devout, not particularly ardent believers, unlikely to have been genuinely and personally driven to distraction by Charlie Hebdo, but, rather, disaffected and alienated young men who took up a cause because it seemed to provide some kind of grander purpose and meaning to their lives and who selected Charlie Hebdo because it was a convenient symbol ("So, who should we target? The Prime Minister? A synagogue?" "Hey, what about that magazine that everyone got so worked up about a few years back...what was it's name again?")
According to the news, they were known to police, had been arrested previously, and had attempted to go to Iraq to join ISIS.
posted by empath at 10:06 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
According to the news, they were known to police, had been arrested previously, and had attempted to go to Iraq to join ISIS.
posted by empath at 10:06 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yes, the French news report one of the brothers had spent time in jail for funneling warriors to the ISIS precursor. They're professional terrorists.
posted by Spanner Nic at 10:09 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 10:09 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Colie, No they are not clearly racist. At least not in many people's opinions. And they've posted tons to try to explain to you why they think that coming in from the outside and making such a decree about them and their authors is fraught with problems of cultural communication.
You disagree. I doubt you're going to find what your after here.
I don't get why the French seem to love Jerry Lewis so much. I don't get what they find so funny about him. It's a mystery to me. I'm sure there are things that they would not understand about me finding funny or bad or offensive. It's not my culture and appears not yours either. People see things differently.
posted by Jalliah at 10:13 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
You disagree. I doubt you're going to find what your after here.
I don't get why the French seem to love Jerry Lewis so much. I don't get what they find so funny about him. It's a mystery to me. I'm sure there are things that they would not understand about me finding funny or bad or offensive. It's not my culture and appears not yours either. People see things differently.
posted by Jalliah at 10:13 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
According to the news, they were known to police, had been arrested previously, and had attempted to go to Iraq to join ISIS.
Yes, and also according to the news they came from secular backgrounds, were not notably devout muslims (ardently committed to jihad, yes, but not ardently committed to their religion). Their motivations were largely political (according to the NYT: "Chérif’s interest in radical Islam, it was said at the 2008 trial, was rooted in his fury over the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, particularly the mistreatment of Muslims held at Abu Ghraib prison.") So, again, the notion that this was stimulated by profound psychological distress at the very idea of someone creating pictorial representations of the prophet just doesn't hold water.
Their motivation was the sense of belonging to the jihadist cause. The selection of Charlie Hebdo was simply a conveniently symbolic one.
posted by yoink at 10:14 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yes, and also according to the news they came from secular backgrounds, were not notably devout muslims (ardently committed to jihad, yes, but not ardently committed to their religion). Their motivations were largely political (according to the NYT: "Chérif’s interest in radical Islam, it was said at the 2008 trial, was rooted in his fury over the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, particularly the mistreatment of Muslims held at Abu Ghraib prison.") So, again, the notion that this was stimulated by profound psychological distress at the very idea of someone creating pictorial representations of the prophet just doesn't hold water.
Their motivation was the sense of belonging to the jihadist cause. The selection of Charlie Hebdo was simply a conveniently symbolic one.
posted by yoink at 10:14 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
You've gone from stating that their comics were outright racist and xenophobic, and after being corrected, you're falling back on them being merely not funny.
I haven't changed my mind on this and I'm not the only person who feels that way.
posted by colie at 10:14 AM on January 8, 2015
I haven't changed my mind on this and I'm not the only person who feels that way.
posted by colie at 10:14 AM on January 8, 2015
I haven't changed my mind on this and I'm not the only person who feels that way.
But you're the only person that's insisting that nobody could find these cartoons funny.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:15 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
But you're the only person that's insisting that nobody could find these cartoons funny.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:15 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm really not seeing how context makes ethnic caricatures and deliberate stabs at minorities funny or defensible. I can see how aspects of French culture might make that sort of thing more acceptable to some French people, but that is not the same thing.
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
I mean let's think about this for one second, why on earth would an "Islamophobic" magazine, as you and others called them take pot-shots at a group of most-likely-Christian girls that were kidnapped by Muslim terrorists. You don't even need to understand the cultural context to get your first-impression of the cover makes no sense.
posted by empath at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by empath at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I asked who found them funny and indeed one poster said they did, so yes, I was wrong on that.
posted by colie at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by colie at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2015
I haven't changed my mind on this and I'm not the only person who feels that way.
Great! Now let's move on.
posted by futz at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Great! Now let's move on.
posted by futz at 10:17 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
The perpetrators of 9/11 very likely do hate western-style freedom
You mean the ones who went to strip clubs and drank alcohol? Which freedoms did they hate, exactly?
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
You mean the ones who went to strip clubs and drank alcohol? Which freedoms did they hate, exactly?
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:19 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Colie, I'm not sure how to say this. The cartoonists spent all their life fighting racism, discrimination, and the oppression of anyone from all institutions. One of them, in particular, was probably the most influential cultural force to make racism appear crass and vile. When people wade in with a pursed mouth and a wagging finger and screech 'they were racists! RACISTS!' they are in fact pissing on the grave of heroes - and I never use that word - who died for what the waggers profess to care for. And then they take a shit on it, for good measure. Please give it up.
posted by Spanner Nic at 10:20 AM on January 8, 2015 [43 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 10:20 AM on January 8, 2015 [43 favorites]
If we really want to get to the roots of the Islamic rage against 'the West', let's look at the break-up of the Ottoman empire, the division of the Islamic world into complete artificial territories, the propping up of dictatorial regimes, the billions of oil dollars that goes to funding Sunni extremism, the overthrow of democratic governments, illegal invasions of sovereign countries, drone campaigns that murder innocents, black prisons where we literally tortured innocent people to death.
The idea that illogically violent responses to insults to islam are the cause of Islamic terrorism is fucking laughable on its face. These people have perfectly legitimate rage that they're taking out on whatever targets are available. I'm amazed muslims aren't burning down everything every fucking day until it stops, honestly.
You want the Islamic world to discover peace? Maybe we should stop fucking murdering and torturing them and destroying their countries. Maybe we could prosecute the people who set up torture prisons and committed crimes against humanity.
posted by empath at 10:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
The idea that illogically violent responses to insults to islam are the cause of Islamic terrorism is fucking laughable on its face. These people have perfectly legitimate rage that they're taking out on whatever targets are available. I'm amazed muslims aren't burning down everything every fucking day until it stops, honestly.
You want the Islamic world to discover peace? Maybe we should stop fucking murdering and torturing them and destroying their countries. Maybe we could prosecute the people who set up torture prisons and committed crimes against humanity.
posted by empath at 10:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yeah, the thing that bothers me about the #JeSuisAhmed hashtag is that it implies a lot of things about Ahmed Merabet that we just don't know.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:29 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:29 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's not enough attention being put on the killers and too much attention on the cartoons, imo. We don't know exactly who did it, but I have heard there are a lot of young wanna-be jihadists in France and elsewhere in Europe, and I wonder just how prevalent and visible the jihadist youth culture is. I can remember walking into an internet cafe in Brussels more than ten years ago (probably before 9/11) and being shocked at seeing kids openly looking at glorified pictures of jihadists with AK-47's.
The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders
I don't completely agree with Packer. The jihadism is not just ideological, it seems to me, but cultural and aesthetic. The failure of France to integrate with its colonial population probably is a contributing facter in jihadist culture's growth and development. I don't think there are any easy answers, but it certainly seems like it would be good if there were more European Muslim role models and political leaders embraced by the entire society.
By the way, what is the true fully contextual meaning of the Boko Haram cartoon? I've read most of the comments here and I'm still confused by it. Please help this American idiot out.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:29 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders
I don't completely agree with Packer. The jihadism is not just ideological, it seems to me, but cultural and aesthetic. The failure of France to integrate with its colonial population probably is a contributing facter in jihadist culture's growth and development. I don't think there are any easy answers, but it certainly seems like it would be good if there were more European Muslim role models and political leaders embraced by the entire society.
By the way, what is the true fully contextual meaning of the Boko Haram cartoon? I've read most of the comments here and I'm still confused by it. Please help this American idiot out.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:29 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
George_Spiggott: The perpetrators of 9/11 very likely do hate western-style freedom
You mean the ones who went to strip clubs and drank alcohol? Which freedoms did they hate, exactly?
Why to miss the point!
but that is not why 9/11 was committed
The attack was pretty clearly driven by a sense of grievance of Western actions on the Muslim world. As for what freedoms religious theocratics hate, or if religious theocrats might engage in hypocrisy, or if they might use angry young men who may or may not match up to the ideal of "devout" to carry out their plans, I'll let that be an exercise for you, the good-faith reader.
posted by spaltavian at 10:32 AM on January 8, 2015
You mean the ones who went to strip clubs and drank alcohol? Which freedoms did they hate, exactly?
Why to miss the point!
but that is not why 9/11 was committed
The attack was pretty clearly driven by a sense of grievance of Western actions on the Muslim world. As for what freedoms religious theocratics hate, or if religious theocrats might engage in hypocrisy, or if they might use angry young men who may or may not match up to the ideal of "devout" to carry out their plans, I'll let that be an exercise for you, the good-faith reader.
posted by spaltavian at 10:32 AM on January 8, 2015
In this thread so far:
Generalized accusations of consistent racism on the part of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists: too many to count.
Links to actual specific instances of Charlie Hebdo cartoons that are of clearly racist intent: 0.
I never read Charlie Hebdo and have no opinion one way or the other as to whether its cartoonists were or were not racists; but the inability of the mag's detractors to provide evidence to support their position is beginning to look like a kind of evidence against their position in itself.
posted by yoink at 10:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
Generalized accusations of consistent racism on the part of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists: too many to count.
Links to actual specific instances of Charlie Hebdo cartoons that are of clearly racist intent: 0.
I never read Charlie Hebdo and have no opinion one way or the other as to whether its cartoonists were or were not racists; but the inability of the mag's detractors to provide evidence to support their position is beginning to look like a kind of evidence against their position in itself.
posted by yoink at 10:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
Seconding sio42, and adding that it seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding going on here:
I don't think anyone is saying that the cartoons are funnier to the French because the French find racism socially acceptable.
I think people are saying that the cartoons, properly understood, are not racist at all.
posted by kelborel at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
I don't think anyone is saying that the cartoons are funnier to the French because the French find racism socially acceptable.
I think people are saying that the cartoons, properly understood, are not racist at all.
posted by kelborel at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
By the way, what is the true fully contextual meaning of the Boko Haram cartoon?
That is a contested issue and 'meaning' is slippery anyway. But I defer to the majority view here and will not criticise it further.
posted by colie at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2015
That is a contested issue and 'meaning' is slippery anyway. But I defer to the majority view here and will not criticise it further.
posted by colie at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2015
The boko haram girls cartoon, to me, says that all these people who want to take away support for welfare are treating women no better than the captors.
That does indeed seem to be the message, but I really don't understand what is added by drawing the girls as ugly racial caricatures.
posted by naoko at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
That does indeed seem to be the message, but I really don't understand what is added by drawing the girls as ugly racial caricatures.
posted by naoko at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
By the way, what is the true fully contextual meaning of the Boko Haram cartoon? I've read most of the comments here and I'm still confused by it. Please help this American idiot out.
"Immigrants are scroungers, foreign people are all potential immigrants, more foreign babies means more potential scroungers"
posted by Artw at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Immigrants are scroungers, foreign people are all potential immigrants, more foreign babies means more potential scroungers"
posted by Artw at 10:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
But Artw, couldn't the point be that the right-wing xenophobic nationalists are so messed up that they'd even view the Boko Haram girls that way?
posted by kelborel at 10:37 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by kelborel at 10:37 AM on January 8, 2015
Admittedly I've only spent a little time in France and my interest in French language cartooning has mainly centered on Belgians and so I might be missing some subtleties.
posted by Artw at 10:37 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by Artw at 10:37 AM on January 8, 2015
I don't think it's a subtlety; I think it's the point.
posted by kelborel at 10:39 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by kelborel at 10:39 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
That does indeed seem to be the message, but I really don't understand what is added by drawing the girls as ugly racial caricatures.
Have you seen the drawings of the Catholic priests? Everyone is drawn as grotesque caricatures.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:41 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Have you seen the drawings of the Catholic priests? Everyone is drawn as grotesque caricatures.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:41 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think the caricatures are the main reason these cartoons look so bad to some of us.
posted by colie at 10:42 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by colie at 10:42 AM on January 8, 2015
It's worth linking to this New Yorker cover again for the Americans who aren't getting it. The artist (nor the magazine) does not actually believe that Obama is a terrorist Muslim and it's not really that hard to grasp given that the depiction is so over the top.
posted by desjardins at 10:44 AM on January 8, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 10:44 AM on January 8, 2015 [17 favorites]
At the same time, in other contexts, saying "you just don't understand their culture, this thing which looks racist or homophobic or misogynist to you is actually totally acceptable, don't be intolerant" would be viewed as a bad argument. "You just don't understand France, this looks racist but it's not" is given much more weight than "You just don't understand [an African country, for example], this is totally acceptable".
I think this is conflating different kinds of context. There's ethical, moral, cultural context, which should perhaps be taken into account before evaluating the acceptability of similar ideas and behaviours in various places and times. That's the kind of context that's tricky for well-meaning critics to grapple with from the outside -- you might want to promote your outlook and principles on matters both trivial and profound, but you don't want to be unjust to a culture you don't belong to or understand.
But there's another kind of context, which is just plain factual context -- knowledge about people and events and the literal meanings of words. Which has been lacking in this thread. We've had people attacking these cartoons without knowing who or what they're about, what comment they intend to make, what political stance they align themselves with, or what the other activities of the people who made them might be. Without attempting to understand non-English descriptions and commentaries. And apparently without having any doubt that their instinctive interpretations of what is actually for real going on are correct. That is just arrogant and ludicrous. It's not just a matter of cultural conditioning but one of ignorance.
On preview, kelborel said it shorter, better and sooner, but oh well.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 10:45 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think this is conflating different kinds of context. There's ethical, moral, cultural context, which should perhaps be taken into account before evaluating the acceptability of similar ideas and behaviours in various places and times. That's the kind of context that's tricky for well-meaning critics to grapple with from the outside -- you might want to promote your outlook and principles on matters both trivial and profound, but you don't want to be unjust to a culture you don't belong to or understand.
But there's another kind of context, which is just plain factual context -- knowledge about people and events and the literal meanings of words. Which has been lacking in this thread. We've had people attacking these cartoons without knowing who or what they're about, what comment they intend to make, what political stance they align themselves with, or what the other activities of the people who made them might be. Without attempting to understand non-English descriptions and commentaries. And apparently without having any doubt that their instinctive interpretations of what is actually for real going on are correct. That is just arrogant and ludicrous. It's not just a matter of cultural conditioning but one of ignorance.
On preview, kelborel said it shorter, better and sooner, but oh well.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 10:45 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
gilrain, did you see the Cancel Colbert thread? Because the people outraged by what happened there weren't confused about Colbert's parody, they just don't think it can be justified.
Basically, some progressives on MetaFilter believe there is a problem with "ironic racism", even in the service of satire, in that it still marginalizes the supposed "beneficiaries" of the satire. This is along the same lines of thinking intent doesn't matter at all, only perception.
I hope I'm doing justice to their viewpoint, I don't agree with it. While I think it has merits, and should be kept in mind, I think it's myopically over-applied outside certain contexts, like here or Colbert. It's basically treating all situations like this as a crude joke told by an American dude-bro who insists he's not racist.
I think it's incorrect, and frankly, a case of disrespectful American/Anglophone chauvinism to assume this is the same problem in French satire. Especially from people who don't understand the damn language.
posted by spaltavian at 10:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
Basically, some progressives on MetaFilter believe there is a problem with "ironic racism", even in the service of satire, in that it still marginalizes the supposed "beneficiaries" of the satire. This is along the same lines of thinking intent doesn't matter at all, only perception.
I hope I'm doing justice to their viewpoint, I don't agree with it. While I think it has merits, and should be kept in mind, I think it's myopically over-applied outside certain contexts, like here or Colbert. It's basically treating all situations like this as a crude joke told by an American dude-bro who insists he's not racist.
I think it's incorrect, and frankly, a case of disrespectful American/Anglophone chauvinism to assume this is the same problem in French satire. Especially from people who don't understand the damn language.
posted by spaltavian at 10:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
Also worth noting is their flattering portrayal of the British.
If anything, they pulled their punches when it came to caricaturing non-whites.
posted by seymourScagnetti at 10:47 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
If anything, they pulled their punches when it came to caricaturing non-whites.
posted by seymourScagnetti at 10:47 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
Colie, this is my interpretation of the Boko Haram cartoon. I'm not a French speaker so take this with a grain of salt:
At the time, there were ongoing reports of the capture and rape of young women by Boko Haram. This situation is ongoing, as far as I know.
Simultaneously, people were alleging that women were getting pregnant in order to obtain welfare benefits. Also ongoing, of course. And there were also protests about mooted cuts to those benefits. And, as always, there were accusations that migrants (particularly refugees) want to enter the country to access welfare benefits.
Sarcasm comes from a Greek word meaning "flesh"; it literally means something like "humor that is cutting, that tears, that rips the flesh. It's not "ha-ha" funny. Ideally, it dismays or shames the target. So read the cover in that light:
We have some young African women, all very visibly pregnant, all visibly angry. The title says "Angry sex slaves of Boko Haram" and the women are saying "Hands off our welfare payments!" Of course, they don't actually get welfare payments - they're in Africa, not in France, and since they're slaves they presumably don't get much of anything other than abuse and rape. So it cannot be meant as a literal depiction. It simply cannot; that would be incoherent.
My interpretation of this cartoon is that it rebukes and shames people who:
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:47 AM on January 8, 2015 [29 favorites]
At the time, there were ongoing reports of the capture and rape of young women by Boko Haram. This situation is ongoing, as far as I know.
Simultaneously, people were alleging that women were getting pregnant in order to obtain welfare benefits. Also ongoing, of course. And there were also protests about mooted cuts to those benefits. And, as always, there were accusations that migrants (particularly refugees) want to enter the country to access welfare benefits.
Sarcasm comes from a Greek word meaning "flesh"; it literally means something like "humor that is cutting, that tears, that rips the flesh. It's not "ha-ha" funny. Ideally, it dismays or shames the target. So read the cover in that light:
We have some young African women, all very visibly pregnant, all visibly angry. The title says "Angry sex slaves of Boko Haram" and the women are saying "Hands off our welfare payments!" Of course, they don't actually get welfare payments - they're in Africa, not in France, and since they're slaves they presumably don't get much of anything other than abuse and rape. So it cannot be meant as a literal depiction. It simply cannot; that would be incoherent.
My interpretation of this cartoon is that it rebukes and shames people who:
- Claim refugees are gaming the system to get an easier life;
- Claim that women get pregnant in order to get welfare payments;
- Claim welfare cuts encourage responsible behaviour;
- Ignore the horrors of what is going on in Africa, in favor of their own welfare.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:47 AM on January 8, 2015 [29 favorites]
I think if you're going to accuse people who have just been brutally murdered for their art racists you probably ought to be pretty damn confident you understand the overall nature of their work and the shared understandings which the artist drew on in the specific language and culture in which he or she published. The example given of Colbert, above, should be a pretty salutary reminder that humor often depends on pretty deeply encoded frames that are invisible to outsiders.
posted by yoink at 10:47 AM on January 8, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by yoink at 10:47 AM on January 8, 2015 [27 favorites]
And here are the terrible Islamophobic racists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert recreating the New Yorker cover..
posted by desjardins at 10:48 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 10:48 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Also, Charlie Hebdo has been publishing weekly in its current form since 1992. That's roughly 1000 issues. If the accusation is systemic and consistent racism, it really should be possible to find more examples to support that thesis than this one Boko Haram cartoon, the meaning of which seems relatively difficult for outsiders to grasp.
Lots of people came into this thread with very decided opinions to the effect that Charlie Hebdo was a bad, racist magazine. So far as I can tell, none of those people had actually seen the Boko Haram cartoon which is currently bearing the entire evidentiary weight of that claim. Perhaps some of those people could link to examples of the specific works which had caused them to form their strongly expressed opinions prior to entering the thread?
posted by yoink at 10:53 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Lots of people came into this thread with very decided opinions to the effect that Charlie Hebdo was a bad, racist magazine. So far as I can tell, none of those people had actually seen the Boko Haram cartoon which is currently bearing the entire evidentiary weight of that claim. Perhaps some of those people could link to examples of the specific works which had caused them to form their strongly expressed opinions prior to entering the thread?
posted by yoink at 10:53 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
The example given of Colbert, above, should be a pretty salutary reminder that humor often depends on pretty deeply encoded frames that are invisible to outsiders.
And often even to insiders, if they try hard enough.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:55 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
And often even to insiders, if they try hard enough.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:55 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
That does indeed seem to be the message, but I really don't understand what is added by drawing the girls as ugly racial caricatures.
I got past this when I remembered that if all you know about South Park is the words Eric Cartman says, you miss a whole lot about what the show is actually saying.
posted by jackflaps at 10:55 AM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
I got past this when I remembered that if all you know about South Park is the words Eric Cartman says, you miss a whole lot about what the show is actually saying.
posted by jackflaps at 10:55 AM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
Anti-racist Satire that actually ends up just being racist certainly isn't an unheard of thing, so that might be the charitable interpretation. Then there's the Toothless cover with it's sweeping hordes trope - charitably that could be taken at face value as about free speech, but my god is the sweeping hordes trope evident in it, and that it's defending an actual for real racist doesn't help. As for their dozen or so cover that are an attempt to piss off Muslims by depicting Mohammed, sure that could be defended as something to make Islamic extremists unhappy, but it's also something that would make neonazis happy so the value there is questionable. I like the kissing one best FWIW, that has a bit of wit to it.
So to the extend that I can take context into consideration they seem borderline racist at best, sorry. Hopefully the nonracist stuff is better.
posted by Artw at 10:57 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
So to the extend that I can take context into consideration they seem borderline racist at best, sorry. Hopefully the nonracist stuff is better.
posted by Artw at 10:57 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
So to the extend that I can take context into consideration they seem borderline racist at best, sorry. Hopefully the nonracist stuff is better.
...except that tons of people here who understand French and the cartoons are telling you that your interpretation is wrong.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:58 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
...except that tons of people here who understand French and the cartoons are telling you that your interpretation is wrong.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:58 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'd also point out that appealing to context is pretty much moot when you're demanding those covers be posted places without context, which is the main reason were discussing the subject.
posted by Artw at 10:59 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:59 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I really don't understand what is added by drawing the girls as ugly racial caricatures.
They're not, actually. I mean, they have brown skin, but they don't have the exaggerated features that are found in racial caricatures. They're drawn in the house style, with big mouths, bad teeth, and badly proportioned bodies, but compared to the characters on most Charlie Hebdo covers the young women are almost realistic. Not that I don't think Riss would have held back from using racial caricatures if it contributed to the humour; it just wasn't right in this context: the women stand in for specific women, in a specific (awful) situation, and we're supposed to sympathise with them: they're shown as making a ridiculous demand, but when you think about why it's ridiculous you should feel ashamed.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:59 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
They're not, actually. I mean, they have brown skin, but they don't have the exaggerated features that are found in racial caricatures. They're drawn in the house style, with big mouths, bad teeth, and badly proportioned bodies, but compared to the characters on most Charlie Hebdo covers the young women are almost realistic. Not that I don't think Riss would have held back from using racial caricatures if it contributed to the humour; it just wasn't right in this context: the women stand in for specific women, in a specific (awful) situation, and we're supposed to sympathise with them: they're shown as making a ridiculous demand, but when you think about why it's ridiculous you should feel ashamed.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:59 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
Live Event: Paris honors Charlie Hebdo victims
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:59 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:59 AM on January 8, 2015
Then there's the Toothless cover with it's sweeping hordes trope
Are you referring to the cover showing a toothless Houllebecq? You are aware that it's mocking Houllebecq, right? Houllebecq is the one who is claiming that France is going to become Islamic in a few years; Charlie Hebdo is making fun of him as a senile old fool. I'm not sure how, in your view, that becomes an endorsement of the 'sweeping hordes' trope.
posted by yoink at 11:02 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Are you referring to the cover showing a toothless Houllebecq? You are aware that it's mocking Houllebecq, right? Houllebecq is the one who is claiming that France is going to become Islamic in a few years; Charlie Hebdo is making fun of him as a senile old fool. I'm not sure how, in your view, that becomes an endorsement of the 'sweeping hordes' trope.
posted by yoink at 11:02 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
The Pope in Paris: French people stupider than blacks.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:02 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:02 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Eiffel Tower lights dimmed to mourn Paris
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not that I don't think Riss would have held back from using racial caricatures if it contributed to the humour;
Black Piet.
Swedish Art.
Belgian Museum.
I'm not sure you know where you're going with your defense Joe, in Australia.
posted by infini at 11:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Black Piet.
Swedish Art.
Belgian Museum.
I'm not sure you know where you're going with your defense Joe, in Australia.
posted by infini at 11:03 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seriously, Artw; it just seems weird to be jumping up and down on these very freshly dug graves when you clearly have only the most superficial I-just-saw-this-thing-on-the-internet grasp on their work.
posted by yoink at 11:04 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by yoink at 11:04 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Thank you Joe in Australia, your description has illuminated lots of things I had not properly weighed up with the Boko cartoon, and further, the CH house style of caricatures does indeed seem to suggest that it was not a racial caricature primarily.
I did come into this thread not liking what I had seen of these cartoons (and still very much not liking the pointless reprinting of the Danish Muhamad cartoons) but I do accept that CH has qualities that I needed to learn more about and I apologise for not being properly informed. Yoink, I accept your criticisms and stand corrected (but it's not as if the whole world hasn't been talking about this issue and these cartoons and nearly all of us haven't read CH before.)
posted by colie at 11:06 AM on January 8, 2015 [23 favorites]
I did come into this thread not liking what I had seen of these cartoons (and still very much not liking the pointless reprinting of the Danish Muhamad cartoons) but I do accept that CH has qualities that I needed to learn more about and I apologise for not being properly informed. Yoink, I accept your criticisms and stand corrected (but it's not as if the whole world hasn't been talking about this issue and these cartoons and nearly all of us haven't read CH before.)
posted by colie at 11:06 AM on January 8, 2015 [23 favorites]
In fact reposting the Mohammed cartoons does worse than shear them of context, it recontextualises them as a responses to a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists, and while a defiant response is good one that can be read as "fuck all Muslims, extremist or not" is a very bad thing.
posted by Artw at 11:06 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by Artw at 11:06 AM on January 8, 2015
Anti-racist Satire that actually ends up just being racist certainly isn't an unheard of thing, so that might be the charitable interpretation. ...
I'm reminded of Alf Garnett or Al Murray's Pub Landlord, which sucked in the bigots it meant to satirize. It managed to ridicule them once by the portrayal, and then a second time by their ignorance. Personally, I think this is top notch stuff.
posted by Thing at 11:08 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm reminded of Alf Garnett or Al Murray's Pub Landlord, which sucked in the bigots it meant to satirize. It managed to ridicule them once by the portrayal, and then a second time by their ignorance. Personally, I think this is top notch stuff.
posted by Thing at 11:08 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think a lack of context is the problem.
I think a misunderstanding of satire is the problem.
posted by kelborel at 11:10 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think a misunderstanding of satire is the problem.
posted by kelborel at 11:10 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Black Piet.
Zwarte Piet's not even a joke. It's a racist hangover kept alive through "tradition". I kinda hope that Netherlands people will put a stop to it themselves, which might slowly be happening.
posted by Thing at 11:11 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Zwarte Piet's not even a joke. It's a racist hangover kept alive through "tradition". I kinda hope that Netherlands people will put a stop to it themselves, which might slowly be happening.
posted by Thing at 11:11 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Lots of people came into this thread with very decided opinions to the effect that Charlie Hebdo was a bad, racist magazine.
Social media is full of this shit today. The Boko Haram cover has been retweeted thousands of times with the same "OMG Charlie Hebdo was racist" screech by everyone+dog.
Twitter does a couple of things well. Context isn't one of them. Meaning isn't either, not really.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:12 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Social media is full of this shit today. The Boko Haram cover has been retweeted thousands of times with the same "OMG Charlie Hebdo was racist" screech by everyone+dog.
Twitter does a couple of things well. Context isn't one of them. Meaning isn't either, not really.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:12 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't even get why it matters. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is a magazine full of nasty, unfunny and badly-drawn material: what broader argument is advanced by that fact?
posted by sobarel at 11:13 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by sobarel at 11:13 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Pope in Paris: French people stupider than blacks.
I'm not even a native French speaker and I can find two problems with this translation. Where did you get it?
About the Boko Haram slaves cartoon, I really doubt the attackers gave a shit about it, but admittedly that's just guess on my part. I was under the impression CH had gotten on the wanted list due to blasphemy.
posted by ODiV at 11:14 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not even a native French speaker and I can find two problems with this translation. Where did you get it?
About the Boko Haram slaves cartoon, I really doubt the attackers gave a shit about it, but admittedly that's just guess on my part. I was under the impression CH had gotten on the wanted list due to blasphemy.
posted by ODiV at 11:14 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seriously, Artw; it just seems weird to be jumping up and down on these very freshly dug graves when you clearly have only the most superficial I-just-saw-this-thing-on-the-internet grasp on their work.
Well, the Mohammed stuff I-just-saw-on-the-internet in 2011ish and have been following since, I'll admit this is the first time I've seen the Boko Haram cover.
I don't want to jump on these peoples graves, but I still see pretending there's nothing troubling about a lot if their work is entering the land of wishful thinking and delusion. Entering the land of delusion in response to terrorism has served us very badly in the past.
posted by Artw at 11:15 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, the Mohammed stuff I-just-saw-on-the-internet in 2011ish and have been following since, I'll admit this is the first time I've seen the Boko Haram cover.
I don't want to jump on these peoples graves, but I still see pretending there's nothing troubling about a lot if their work is entering the land of wishful thinking and delusion. Entering the land of delusion in response to terrorism has served us very badly in the past.
posted by Artw at 11:15 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem is that these cartoons, like the one of the minister of justice as a monkey, might have been non-racist in context but now they're going to be plastered all over the place without any context, to be seen by people who will think it is satire to draw people of african descent as monkeys. Effectively no people will have a Frenchman on hand to explain it to them, as has otherwise happened in this thread. And that, of course, exactly plays into the hands of extremists of all stripes.
posted by brokkr at 11:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by brokkr at 11:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
but I still see pretending there's nothing troubling about a lot if their work is entering the land of wishful thinking and delusion.
Again. For the millionth time. Satire is meant to trouble you.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Again. For the millionth time. Satire is meant to trouble you.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
The Charlie Hebdo attackers didn't target a symbol of France, or a military/financial/administrative target. They apparently targeted cartoonists whom they deem to have committed blasphemy. I feel fairly confident guessing that they think cartoons mocking Islam should not be allowed.
I think this is ignoring that the Charlie Hebdo offices were a relatively soft target and when the opportunity presented itself, the attackers took advantage. I think right now the event is unfolding, but it sounds reasonable that if the Hebdo attackers had the wherewithal and planning of the 9/11 attackers and that the opportunity to attack a much larger symbol of the France or the West presented itself, they probably would have gone for that target.
So, yes, these particular murderers do seem to hate "our" freedom of speech.
The cartoons functioned as a catalyst or possibly a proximate cause, but I don't agree that they're the primary cause. Many in this topic have written that even if Charlie Hebdo didn't draw those cartoons, the attack would have happened in some form anyway. If that's the case, the cries of "they hate our freedom of speech" sound more a kind of rallying cry for us in the West then a diagnosis of the actual causes of the attack.
posted by FJT at 11:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think this is ignoring that the Charlie Hebdo offices were a relatively soft target and when the opportunity presented itself, the attackers took advantage. I think right now the event is unfolding, but it sounds reasonable that if the Hebdo attackers had the wherewithal and planning of the 9/11 attackers and that the opportunity to attack a much larger symbol of the France or the West presented itself, they probably would have gone for that target.
So, yes, these particular murderers do seem to hate "our" freedom of speech.
The cartoons functioned as a catalyst or possibly a proximate cause, but I don't agree that they're the primary cause. Many in this topic have written that even if Charlie Hebdo didn't draw those cartoons, the attack would have happened in some form anyway. If that's the case, the cries of "they hate our freedom of speech" sound more a kind of rallying cry for us in the West then a diagnosis of the actual causes of the attack.
posted by FJT at 11:16 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Here's the deal:
I don't think it matters whether Charlie Hebdo is or was racist. In fact, I think it is emphatically important that it doesn't matter whether Charlie Hebdo is or was racist. The whole point is that even racists and bigots get freedom of speech, and shouldn't be slaughtered by lunatics in a vile terrorist attack.
So it might be a good idea to leave off arguing about whether the cartoons were racist. It doesn't matter – and it's important that it doesn't.
I have to confess that I'm a bit disgusted by the tendency of some media (particularly Fox in this case, although it seems like it's common in other outlets too) to attempt to turn the dead into glorious martyrs. Mark Steyn, for example, has taken to calling the cartoonists "heroes." The implication here, of course, is that this is a terrible tragedy specifically because these particular cartoonists happened to be magnificent human beings.
But that's not why this was a tragedy. This was a tragedy because normal, plain human beings – who might be assholes, or nice folks, or jerks, or kind and gentle folks – shouldn't be slaughtered.
And it's wrong to imply that the tragic nature of this even has anything to do with whether or not these people published racist cartoons.
posted by koeselitz at 11:18 AM on January 8, 2015 [34 favorites]
I don't think it matters whether Charlie Hebdo is or was racist. In fact, I think it is emphatically important that it doesn't matter whether Charlie Hebdo is or was racist. The whole point is that even racists and bigots get freedom of speech, and shouldn't be slaughtered by lunatics in a vile terrorist attack.
So it might be a good idea to leave off arguing about whether the cartoons were racist. It doesn't matter – and it's important that it doesn't.
I have to confess that I'm a bit disgusted by the tendency of some media (particularly Fox in this case, although it seems like it's common in other outlets too) to attempt to turn the dead into glorious martyrs. Mark Steyn, for example, has taken to calling the cartoonists "heroes." The implication here, of course, is that this is a terrible tragedy specifically because these particular cartoonists happened to be magnificent human beings.
But that's not why this was a tragedy. This was a tragedy because normal, plain human beings – who might be assholes, or nice folks, or jerks, or kind and gentle folks – shouldn't be slaughtered.
And it's wrong to imply that the tragic nature of this even has anything to do with whether or not these people published racist cartoons.
posted by koeselitz at 11:18 AM on January 8, 2015 [34 favorites]
The whole point is that even racists and bigots get freedom of speech ...In the US, perhaps. Not in most parts of western Europe.
posted by brokkr at 11:20 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
In the US, perhaps. Not in most parts of western Europe.
Remind me again: in which parts of western Europe is summary execution the punishment for racism and bigotry?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:23 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Remind me again: in which parts of western Europe is summary execution the punishment for racism and bigotry?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:23 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Agreed completely in principle, koeselitz.
But to allow these cartoonists to be misunderstood as racists, after they've given their lives to satirize racism, would be a horrible shame.
posted by kelborel at 11:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
But to allow these cartoonists to be misunderstood as racists, after they've given their lives to satirize racism, would be a horrible shame.
posted by kelborel at 11:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
> Which freedoms did they hate, exactly?
9/11 wasn't just 19 guys with flight lessons and box-cutters; it was a giant network of people, some of them who were a hell of a lot more devout and hate that women get to be in the Senate and drive cars or that strip clubs exist without being balanced by compulsory daily prayers, some of them who wanted to just harm America because America harmed them and they had the money to do something about it, and some of whom were just analytical guys who read and plot flight schedules and test security layers. A bunch of people's skills and baggage all drawing them to a common conclusion.
In any case, I'm pretty sure guys who are willing to incinerate themselves for their cause are devout about something, even if they're not so devout about strip clubs.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
9/11 wasn't just 19 guys with flight lessons and box-cutters; it was a giant network of people, some of them who were a hell of a lot more devout and hate that women get to be in the Senate and drive cars or that strip clubs exist without being balanced by compulsory daily prayers, some of them who wanted to just harm America because America harmed them and they had the money to do something about it, and some of whom were just analytical guys who read and plot flight schedules and test security layers. A bunch of people's skills and baggage all drawing them to a common conclusion.
In any case, I'm pretty sure guys who are willing to incinerate themselves for their cause are devout about something, even if they're not so devout about strip clubs.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Again. For the millionth time. Satire is meant to trouble you.
It might be helpful to engage under the assumption that people who are critical of these works actually understand satire as well or better than you and have come to different conclusions than you have. I mean, no less than The Onion has said that an issue they endlessly wrestle with when doing satire is that sometimes the target can be unclear, and I bet it's not because they don't understand satire I don't understand that it is meant to be troubling, but instead because they understand that when you choose to trouble, it is useful to know who you are troubling and why, what sort of trouble you are starting, and if people will understand the trouble you're generating.
posted by maxsparber at 11:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
It might be helpful to engage under the assumption that people who are critical of these works actually understand satire as well or better than you and have come to different conclusions than you have. I mean, no less than The Onion has said that an issue they endlessly wrestle with when doing satire is that sometimes the target can be unclear, and I bet it's not because they don't understand satire I don't understand that it is meant to be troubling, but instead because they understand that when you choose to trouble, it is useful to know who you are troubling and why, what sort of trouble you are starting, and if people will understand the trouble you're generating.
posted by maxsparber at 11:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
one more dead town's last parade: "Remind me again in which parts of western Europe summary execution is the punishment for racism and bigotry."
It's not, but speech with racism and bigotry is explicitly illegal in many countries in Western Europe.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not, but speech with racism and bigotry is explicitly illegal in many countries in Western Europe.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:25 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Tehmina Kazi of British Muslims for Secular Democracy - "Charlie Hebdo: Dismantling nine mistaken assumptions about the Paris atrocities"
Professor Karima Bennoune said it best in her article, ‘Why Bill Maher and Ben Affleck are both wrong‘: “We do not need either stereotypical generalizations or minimising responses to fundamentalism, however well-intentioned.posted by audi alteram partem at 11:26 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
What we need is a principled, anti-racist critique of Muslim fundamentalism that pulls no punches, but that also distinguishes between Islam (the diverse religious tradition) and Islamism (an extreme right-wing political ideology). We need support, understanding and to have our existence recognised.”
koeselitz, they're heroes because they understood the risk and thought it was important to publish the cartoons anyway, in the interest of not cowing to terrorists. (I did not watch the interview and I don't know if that is Mark Steyn's argument as well.)
posted by desjardins at 11:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 11:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
koeselitz: "And it's wrong to imply that the tragic nature of this even has anything to do with whether or not these people published racist cartoons."
I agree. But if their stuff is racist, it is problematic to say that "We are all Charlie", or demand that their stuff should be endlessly reprinted, etc. I thought they were wrong to reprint the Danish cartoons (some of which are racist), I think some of their cartoons are racist, or at least borderline so, and I think they seemed like assholes in many ways. That does not mean I think they should have been killed or somehow deserved it, but I don't think I share many values with these people, and I don't want to be identified with them.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I agree. But if their stuff is racist, it is problematic to say that "We are all Charlie", or demand that their stuff should be endlessly reprinted, etc. I thought they were wrong to reprint the Danish cartoons (some of which are racist), I think some of their cartoons are racist, or at least borderline so, and I think they seemed like assholes in many ways. That does not mean I think they should have been killed or somehow deserved it, but I don't think I share many values with these people, and I don't want to be identified with them.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:28 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Joakim: This is a busy thread so you may have missed the reply to your comment earlier.
posted by ODiV at 11:30 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by ODiV at 11:30 AM on January 8, 2015
If a native French speaker could properly translate the Pope cartoon I would much appreciate. The internet is useless right now as I've come across several different translations and people screaming about it. I know enough from my French language education and CBC radio that it's full of idioms and phrases that don't directly translate in meaning and am wondering if this is one of those cases of layers of meaning. Straight google translation is goobilty gook and it looks like some of the translations people are screaming about are translations of the google translation.
posted by Jalliah at 11:30 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by Jalliah at 11:30 AM on January 8, 2015
...speech with racism and bigotry is explicitly illegal in many countries in Western Europe.
Then aren't we done with the discussion? Charlie Hebdo has been publishing since 1992, were they punished by the government for hate speech or not?
posted by desjardins at 11:30 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Then aren't we done with the discussion? Charlie Hebdo has been publishing since 1992, were they punished by the government for hate speech or not?
posted by desjardins at 11:30 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's not, but speech with racism and bigotry is explicitly illegal in many countries in Western Europe.
Charlie Hebdo has been publishing in its current form since 1992. If they were breaking the law badly enough to be shut down, you'd think someone would have caught on by now.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Charlie Hebdo has been publishing in its current form since 1992. If they were breaking the law badly enough to be shut down, you'd think someone would have caught on by now.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:32 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or what desjardins said.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:33 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:33 AM on January 8, 2015
I don't want to jump on these peoples graves, but I still see pretending there's nothing troubling about a lot if [sic] their work is entering the land of wishful thinking and delusion.
What exactly is troubling about their work? Have you read the Vox piece reprinting and translating some of their cartoons on Islam? The humor is pretty banal, frankly -- nothing worse than you would hear on the Colbert Report.
Specifically, it's really hard to see it as tarring all Muslims with the same brush: they distinguish between Mohammed, who they suggest would support their work, and his extremist followers. Their Mohammed says about fundamentalists "It's hard to be loved by idiots." After their office was firebombed, their next cover promoted "love" between Muslims and their magazine (albeit provocatively with a gay kiss).
It would be so easy to imagine what genuinely racist cartoons would look like: offensive caricatures of the Muslims living in poverty in the banlieues, for example, or depictions of extremists in French society being indistinguishable from other Muslims. We don't get that here. It is really troubling to see people jumping to assumptions about the magazine and, I agree with many others, suggesting that these dead men deserved what they got.
posted by crazy with stars at 11:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
What exactly is troubling about their work? Have you read the Vox piece reprinting and translating some of their cartoons on Islam? The humor is pretty banal, frankly -- nothing worse than you would hear on the Colbert Report.
Specifically, it's really hard to see it as tarring all Muslims with the same brush: they distinguish between Mohammed, who they suggest would support their work, and his extremist followers. Their Mohammed says about fundamentalists "It's hard to be loved by idiots." After their office was firebombed, their next cover promoted "love" between Muslims and their magazine (albeit provocatively with a gay kiss).
It would be so easy to imagine what genuinely racist cartoons would look like: offensive caricatures of the Muslims living in poverty in the banlieues, for example, or depictions of extremists in French society being indistinguishable from other Muslims. We don't get that here. It is really troubling to see people jumping to assumptions about the magazine and, I agree with many others, suggesting that these dead men deserved what they got.
posted by crazy with stars at 11:33 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
By the way, the cover of the new issue of Charlie Hebdo features Michel Houellebecq, whose new book is out today, and imagines France in the near future taken over by Muslims. It takes its title, "Submission", from the controversial film by Theo van Gogh, (also a racist and Islamophobe, by the way), who was murdered because of his criticism of Islam.
This is the man who says: "When I was tried for racism and acquitted, a decade ago," he said, "the prosecutor remarked, correctly, that the Muslim religion was not a racial trait. This has become even more obvious today. So we have extended the domain of 'racism' by inventing the crime of Islamophobia."
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:35 AM on January 8, 2015
This is the man who says: "When I was tried for racism and acquitted, a decade ago," he said, "the prosecutor remarked, correctly, that the Muslim religion was not a racial trait. This has become even more obvious today. So we have extended the domain of 'racism' by inventing the crime of Islamophobia."
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:35 AM on January 8, 2015
The problematic areas seem to be around the reuse of the cartoons which may now take on a meaning different to what was intended by the magazine; and for me at least, whether CH now actually represents the establishment more than they perhaps realise or would want to.
Other posts have pointed out that they are an all-white group of guys who were perhaps challenging the status quo a fair bit more in the 1960s than recently, when we have demonstrations in the UK of men chanting 'Allah is a paedo' and every newspaper harping on about evil muslims every day.
posted by colie at 11:36 AM on January 8, 2015
Other posts have pointed out that they are an all-white group of guys who were perhaps challenging the status quo a fair bit more in the 1960s than recently, when we have demonstrations in the UK of men chanting 'Allah is a paedo' and every newspaper harping on about evil muslims every day.
posted by colie at 11:36 AM on January 8, 2015
Guys, Hara Kiri has been around since at least the 1970's, and translated into multiple languages. I know because my father used to read it. I wish I could find a time machine, buy MetaFilter, keep everything the same, and highlight zompist's comment upthread and increase the font by about 100px.
posted by phaedon at 11:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by phaedon at 11:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
one more dead town's last parade: "Charlie Hebdo has been publishing in its current form since 1992. If they were breaking the law badly enough to be shut down, you'd think someone would have caught on by now."
No, like Houellebecq, who they feature on the cover of their last issue, they get away with it because of the old saw that islamophobia is not racism.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, like Houellebecq, who they feature on the cover of their last issue, they get away with it because of the old saw that islamophobia is not racism.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:37 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
So they're getting away with breaking the law because what they're doing isn't illegal?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:38 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:38 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Do you honestly think that had Charlie Hebdo done nothing that these two would not have found some other French target?
I don't know, and neither do you.
For a start, we don't have to imagine "what if CH hadn't been CH", because everything is contingent anyway: the killers could have got stuck in traffic and the staff might all have been out for lunch when they got there. So what? If John F. Kennedy had never been born, might Lee Harvey Oswald or someone else altogether have assassinated some other president of 1960-64, or some other political figure entirely? Yes, no, maybe, so what? Does that make discussing the life and death of JFK any less important?
Saying that "the cartoon thing is a pointless distraction" dismisses the fact that France just lost five eminent cartoonists in a single day, and it's not as if eminent cartoonists are ten a centime. And suggesting that their work was a "pointless distraction" because "these two" (three, wasn't it?) would have killed somebody else if it hadn't been them is like shrugging off somebody's life because if their parents had conceived a month earlier they would have had a completely different child.
Their killers chose their targets. They may have had a list with second and third choices - for all we know CH may have been their second or third choice after failed attempts elsewhere - but CH was on their list for a reason. Discussing their target and their reasons is not a "pointless distraction".
posted by rory at 11:38 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know, and neither do you.
For a start, we don't have to imagine "what if CH hadn't been CH", because everything is contingent anyway: the killers could have got stuck in traffic and the staff might all have been out for lunch when they got there. So what? If John F. Kennedy had never been born, might Lee Harvey Oswald or someone else altogether have assassinated some other president of 1960-64, or some other political figure entirely? Yes, no, maybe, so what? Does that make discussing the life and death of JFK any less important?
Saying that "the cartoon thing is a pointless distraction" dismisses the fact that France just lost five eminent cartoonists in a single day, and it's not as if eminent cartoonists are ten a centime. And suggesting that their work was a "pointless distraction" because "these two" (three, wasn't it?) would have killed somebody else if it hadn't been them is like shrugging off somebody's life because if their parents had conceived a month earlier they would have had a completely different child.
Their killers chose their targets. They may have had a list with second and third choices - for all we know CH may have been their second or third choice after failed attempts elsewhere - but CH was on their list for a reason. Discussing their target and their reasons is not a "pointless distraction".
posted by rory at 11:38 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
ODiV: "Joakim: This is a busy thread so you may have missed the reply to your comment earlier"
I had indeed missed that. It seems I was wrong about the Taubira image, and I apologize. I stand by my criticism of the Danish Mohammad cartoons, the Boko Haram sex slaves one, the general hooknosed sword or gun wielding Arab ones, the "French people are as stupid as blacks" one, and so on.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:41 AM on January 8, 2015
I had indeed missed that. It seems I was wrong about the Taubira image, and I apologize. I stand by my criticism of the Danish Mohammad cartoons, the Boko Haram sex slaves one, the general hooknosed sword or gun wielding Arab ones, the "French people are as stupid as blacks" one, and so on.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:41 AM on January 8, 2015
one more dead town's last parade: "So they're getting away with breaking the law because what they're doing isn't illegal?"
They're getting away with racism and xenophobia because they keep away from stuff that's so obvious that it's prosecutable, yes.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:42 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
They're getting away with racism and xenophobia because they keep away from stuff that's so obvious that it's prosecutable, yes.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:42 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I tried to do some research into that cover with the Pope, and I found that it was published in 1980 (thus it's referring to John Paul II) and that he visited Paris and spoke in front of UNESCO. Since I'm not Catholic, or French, and I was six years old in 1980, I'm stopping there.
posted by desjardins at 11:43 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 11:43 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't say they've gotten away with anything.
posted by ODiV at 11:43 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by ODiV at 11:43 AM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
The cover with the pope on it (whatever the translation should prove to mean) is from 35 years ago in 1980 and the previous incarnation of the magazine - not the present one.
posted by Flitcraft at 11:44 AM on January 8, 2015
posted by Flitcraft at 11:44 AM on January 8, 2015
ODiV: "I wouldn't say they've gotten away with anything."
I meant in the eyes of French anti-racism laws, but fair point.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:44 AM on January 8, 2015
I meant in the eyes of French anti-racism laws, but fair point.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:44 AM on January 8, 2015
They're getting away with racism and xenophobia because they keep away from stuff that's so obvious that it's prosecutable, yes.
So it sounds like they weren't breaking the law badly enough to be shut down. Which would imply that what they're doing isn't illegal.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:44 AM on January 8, 2015
So it sounds like they weren't breaking the law badly enough to be shut down. Which would imply that what they're doing isn't illegal.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:44 AM on January 8, 2015
like Houellebecq, who they feature on the cover of their last issue
Not in a terribly flattering manner, you must admit.
In any case Houellebecq should be allowed to say what he wants, just as we should be allowed to call him a weaselly dimwit for spouting such nonsense if we want.
posted by sobarel at 11:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not in a terribly flattering manner, you must admit.
In any case Houellebecq should be allowed to say what he wants, just as we should be allowed to call him a weaselly dimwit for spouting such nonsense if we want.
posted by sobarel at 11:46 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think you guys are talking around each other, Just because there are hate speech laws in France doesn't mean everything racist or hateful will be prosecuted. Tax fraud is illegal in the US, but it doesn't mean corporations aren't committing tax fraud because look how long they have gone without being arrested.
Whether or not the cartoons were prosecuted for hate speech proves and disproves nothing about the content of the cartoons.
posted by maxsparber at 11:49 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Whether or not the cartoons were prosecuted for hate speech proves and disproves nothing about the content of the cartoons.
posted by maxsparber at 11:49 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Flitcraft: "The cover with the pope on it ( whatever the translation should prove to mean) is from 35 years ago in 1980 and the previous incarnation of the magazine - not the present one."
The previous incarnation of the magazine was run by many of the same people, including Gebé, Cabu, and Wolinski.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:49 AM on January 8, 2015
The previous incarnation of the magazine was run by many of the same people, including Gebé, Cabu, and Wolinski.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:49 AM on January 8, 2015
Yes, the Houellebecq cover is clearly designed to make him look ridiculous -- he's portrayed as as decrepit fortune-teller. Are you trying to argue that they put him on the cover because they share his beliefs?
posted by neroli at 11:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by neroli at 11:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Whether or not the cartoons were prosecuted for hate speech proves and disproves nothing about the content of the cartoons.
If that's the case (which I don't believe it is) then your personal opinion of whether the cartoons are racist or not also does not prove or disprove anything.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:52 AM on January 8, 2015
If that's the case (which I don't believe it is) then your personal opinion of whether the cartoons are racist or not also does not prove or disprove anything.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:52 AM on January 8, 2015
Whether or not the cartoons were prosecuted for hate speech proves and disproves nothing about the content of the cartoons.
Except to make you feel bad for treating this as anything other than what in Western civilization we would describe as "an unprovoked attack."
posted by phaedon at 11:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Except to make you feel bad for treating this as anything other than what in Western civilization we would describe as "an unprovoked attack."
posted by phaedon at 11:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mefites of Paris and France - particularly Berend and anyone else who had first-hand connections to the dead or wounded - I am so deeply sorry this happened, I send my condolences to you. I know how troubled I was by events close to me in Boston ... my thoughts are with you.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by madamjujujive at 11:52 AM on January 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
Continuing to bring up the nature of the content produced by the murdered cartoonists, in the immediate aftermath of their murder, is victim-blaming of a sort that is not usually accepted around here.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:54 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:54 AM on January 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
So it sounds like they weren't breaking the law badly enough to be shut down. Which would imply that what they're doing isn't illegal.Nobody (at this end) has said they did anything illegal. Koeselitz said it was an issue of free speech, I pointed out that there isn't exactly "free speech" in western Europe, and then you said that must mean I think the CH peeps deserved to get shot. For which you win an internet medal, I guess.
posted by brokkr at 11:54 AM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I would be interested to know if progressive French Muslims find the cartoons racist. They're conversant with the culture and - if the cartoons were racist - they would be the intended targets, not us. I'm not being confrontational, I'm genuinely interested if people have run across interviews with progressives (we can obviously write off the extremists). zompist linked an interview with an Algerian cartoonist above, do we have any more?
posted by desjardins at 11:56 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 11:56 AM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Continuing to bring up the nature of the content produced by the murdered cartoonists, in the immediate aftermath of their murder, is victim-blaming of a sort that is not usually accepted around here.
Animal kingdom "wisdom."
posted by phaedon at 11:56 AM on January 8, 2015
Animal kingdom "wisdom."
posted by phaedon at 11:56 AM on January 8, 2015
Except to make you feel bad for treating this as anything other than what in Western civilization we would describe as "an unprovoked attack."
I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but I don't actually see anyone in this thread who thinks the attack was deserved.
posted by maxsparber at 11:56 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but I don't actually see anyone in this thread who thinks the attack was deserved.
posted by maxsparber at 11:56 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but I don't actually see anyone in this thread who thinks the attack was deserved.
Anyone talking about the dangers of the subjects in these cartoons is implying that the attack was deserved.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:58 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Anyone talking about the dangers of the subjects in these cartoons is implying that the attack was deserved.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:58 AM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am not really willing to trust a poll done for Russia Today and reported in Vox.
We live in an age where state agencies produce the worst kind of trashy propaganda that gets reprinted by arrogant web startups and then gets repeated in the echo chamber of the web. The people who do live according to ideals are of course slaughtered and then we blame them for it.
posted by Nevin at 11:59 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
We live in an age where state agencies produce the worst kind of trashy propaganda that gets reprinted by arrogant web startups and then gets repeated in the echo chamber of the web. The people who do live according to ideals are of course slaughtered and then we blame them for it.
posted by Nevin at 11:59 AM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not clear on what you mean by this, but I don't actually see anyone in this thread who thinks the attack was deserved.
That's what make trolls so mesmerizing, isn't it.
posted by phaedon at 11:59 AM on January 8, 2015
That's what make trolls so mesmerizing, isn't it.
posted by phaedon at 11:59 AM on January 8, 2015
Anyone talking about the dangers of the subjects in these cartoons is implying that the attack was deserved.
I disagree. I have said above that I think this is probably not the best time to discuss the content of the cartoons, because it is likely to come off as victim blaming, but I don't think anyone having that discussion is directly implying anything of the sort, especially since so many have offered caveats explicitly saying "This was criminal, it shouldn't have happened, and the cartoonists didn't deserve to be murdered."
posted by maxsparber at 12:00 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I disagree. I have said above that I think this is probably not the best time to discuss the content of the cartoons, because it is likely to come off as victim blaming, but I don't think anyone having that discussion is directly implying anything of the sort, especially since so many have offered caveats explicitly saying "This was criminal, it shouldn't have happened, and the cartoonists didn't deserve to be murdered."
posted by maxsparber at 12:00 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
It serves to erode the position that the events that took place were categorically wrong, regardless of the content, at a time when this issue is actually on the table, and as such, is responded to as if it were doing just that. Absolving yourself of this implication is probably less genuine than owning it. I mean you can't have a conversation with someone who is making arguments but doesn't hold a position.
posted by phaedon at 12:05 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by phaedon at 12:05 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
You seem to imagine these guys as basically peaceful, well-adjusted citizens who, because they are such deeply devout and engaged Muslims find themselves profoundly shocked and hurt every time they see a Charlie Hebdo cover on the newsstand, to the point where eventually something just snaps and they go on this killing spree.
What? No, of course not. I'm entirely prepared to accept that they chose CH opportunistically, as a softer target than blowing up the Gare du Nord or something, but their target still has meaning. They didn't storm through through the offices of Paris Match, which I'd bet would have been just as soft a target.
I read an old news story yesterday about Kouachi from a Twitter link, before his name had even been mentioned on this thread, and it seemed pretty clear that were he confirmed as one of the killers we were looking at angry, alienated young local men itching for a fight. But they chose their target. They didn't choose others. They didn't just start shooting randomly in the Metro. They didn't even shoot everyone they passed by in pursuit of their victims: they asked one poor woman for directions to specific individuals.
but reading that as evidence as to how profoundly the magazine's cartoons distressed the killers
Where did I do this? I'm not doing that. The killers strike me exactly the same way they seem to have struck you, as angry young men who got hold of a cause and some guns, and all I'm saying is that once they chose CH as a target, the killings become a deliberate assassination. Not in scare quotes, mind you. It's the very definition of the word.
What I was questioning is the suggestion that the "cartoon thing" is a "pointless distraction". Charlie Hebdo, along with Le Canard Enchaine, is at the heart of the French satirical journalism, and that's why they were chosen as a target.
CH knew they were a target, and carried on bravely despite it. I don't think that's pointless, I think that's the point.
posted by rory at 12:06 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
What? No, of course not. I'm entirely prepared to accept that they chose CH opportunistically, as a softer target than blowing up the Gare du Nord or something, but their target still has meaning. They didn't storm through through the offices of Paris Match, which I'd bet would have been just as soft a target.
I read an old news story yesterday about Kouachi from a Twitter link, before his name had even been mentioned on this thread, and it seemed pretty clear that were he confirmed as one of the killers we were looking at angry, alienated young local men itching for a fight. But they chose their target. They didn't choose others. They didn't just start shooting randomly in the Metro. They didn't even shoot everyone they passed by in pursuit of their victims: they asked one poor woman for directions to specific individuals.
but reading that as evidence as to how profoundly the magazine's cartoons distressed the killers
Where did I do this? I'm not doing that. The killers strike me exactly the same way they seem to have struck you, as angry young men who got hold of a cause and some guns, and all I'm saying is that once they chose CH as a target, the killings become a deliberate assassination. Not in scare quotes, mind you. It's the very definition of the word.
What I was questioning is the suggestion that the "cartoon thing" is a "pointless distraction". Charlie Hebdo, along with Le Canard Enchaine, is at the heart of the French satirical journalism, and that's why they were chosen as a target.
CH knew they were a target, and carried on bravely despite it. I don't think that's pointless, I think that's the point.
posted by rory at 12:06 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
"The previous incarnation of the magazine was run by many of the same people, including Gebé, Cabu, and Wolinski."
Ziegler, the cover with the Pope is a single cover from 35 years ago when the magazine was under a different chief editor - this is shameful clutching at straws to smear people who were gunned down yesterday while organising an anti-racism conference. Meanwhile, you've already repeatedly been shown to be wrong in your interpretations of the material from CH on this thread and it hasn't stopped you relentlessly trying to smear the murdered journalists from what (alas) seems to be a position of ignorance about all things French. For the love of goodness, please stop - you are giving anti-racism a bad name.
posted by Flitcraft at 12:08 PM on January 8, 2015 [23 favorites]
brokkr: “Koeselitz said it was an issue of free speech, I pointed out that there isn't exactly ‘free speech’ in western Europe...”
I guess this is kind of a small point, and we've moved on I guess, but: in western Europe – particularly in France – freedom of speech is still indeed a lauded tenet. It's what Charlie Hebdo were standing for, and as far as I can tell they said so many times. In France and many other countries hatespeech is indeed sometimes named as an exception to the freedom of speech, so I take your point on that. But I think this is an issue of free speech, in the larger context.
posted by koeselitz at 12:08 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I guess this is kind of a small point, and we've moved on I guess, but: in western Europe – particularly in France – freedom of speech is still indeed a lauded tenet. It's what Charlie Hebdo were standing for, and as far as I can tell they said so many times. In France and many other countries hatespeech is indeed sometimes named as an exception to the freedom of speech, so I take your point on that. But I think this is an issue of free speech, in the larger context.
posted by koeselitz at 12:08 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Another number for perspective: a recent poll reports that one in six French citizens supports ISIS.
How was the question phrased? Vox says: how many people support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
I am pretty doubtful about the confusion factor, many people are ignorant and misinformed about geography, let alone political factions. Some may be hearing the question as "do you support an Islamic Iraq, an Islamic Syria?"
For a better read, ask - Do you support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria coming to France? Do you support the political/religious group in Syria and Iraq who are beheading journalists?
Whatever. We have our own hefty segments of people with appalling beliefs.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:09 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
How was the question phrased? Vox says: how many people support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
I am pretty doubtful about the confusion factor, many people are ignorant and misinformed about geography, let alone political factions. Some may be hearing the question as "do you support an Islamic Iraq, an Islamic Syria?"
For a better read, ask - Do you support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria coming to France? Do you support the political/religious group in Syria and Iraq who are beheading journalists?
Whatever. We have our own hefty segments of people with appalling beliefs.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:09 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Once more, because I actually lived in the country for a few decades, and have some amount of information: CH is very actively anti-racist. One of the dead cartoonists is single-handedly responsible for a 40-year-old, mainstream French word describing the common type of petty, crass French racist, a word that's so definitive in its contempt that, once called that, you never wash the stain.
CH is/was full of ex-Flower Power figures, and draws from the same tradition of nihilistic benevolence that gave existentialism. CH's line is strictly egalitarian, mocking and taking down any organisation harming or oppressing people, whomever they are. CH considers that mostly everyone is mostly all right and deserves to be left to do what they want, except for some assholes. CH are not the shiny-toothed leaders taking the world to a better place, they are the unshaven, tobacco-spitting ruffians that will fight for the cause because that's what you do if you have a conscience. CH despairs of people, but really hope that they are wrong, and respects everyone everywhere's intelligence enough to notice they have a problem with the institution and not its adherents, which is obviously way, way too idealistic of them.
posted by Spanner Nic at 12:11 PM on January 8, 2015 [57 favorites]
CH is/was full of ex-Flower Power figures, and draws from the same tradition of nihilistic benevolence that gave existentialism. CH's line is strictly egalitarian, mocking and taking down any organisation harming or oppressing people, whomever they are. CH considers that mostly everyone is mostly all right and deserves to be left to do what they want, except for some assholes. CH are not the shiny-toothed leaders taking the world to a better place, they are the unshaven, tobacco-spitting ruffians that will fight for the cause because that's what you do if you have a conscience. CH despairs of people, but really hope that they are wrong, and respects everyone everywhere's intelligence enough to notice they have a problem with the institution and not its adherents, which is obviously way, way too idealistic of them.
posted by Spanner Nic at 12:11 PM on January 8, 2015 [57 favorites]
It serves to erode the position that the events that took place were categorically wrong, regardless of the content, and as such, is responded to as if it were doing just that.
There are a lot of points that surround this event. It is wildly complicated. At the moment, out of respect for the dead, I agree that the primary point is "this was categorically wrong," but, I mean, eventually we should be able to discuss the content of the cartoons. In fact, since the murdered people included cartoonists, and cartoonists whose cartoons were, in part, designed to incite discussion, I think it would be disrespectful to now encase them in amber and say "any discussion of the content they created now makes it sound like they deserved death."
It doesn't. It makes it sound like they deserved to be discussed critically, and I don't know a single artist who thinks they should never be discussed critically, except, perhaps, for very bad ones.
posted by maxsparber at 12:11 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
There are a lot of points that surround this event. It is wildly complicated. At the moment, out of respect for the dead, I agree that the primary point is "this was categorically wrong," but, I mean, eventually we should be able to discuss the content of the cartoons. In fact, since the murdered people included cartoonists, and cartoonists whose cartoons were, in part, designed to incite discussion, I think it would be disrespectful to now encase them in amber and say "any discussion of the content they created now makes it sound like they deserved death."
It doesn't. It makes it sound like they deserved to be discussed critically, and I don't know a single artist who thinks they should never be discussed critically, except, perhaps, for very bad ones.
posted by maxsparber at 12:11 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
We are Charlie | Guardian Live
an evening of discussion and debate in support of our murdered French colleagues. Speakers will include Natalie Nougayrede, former editor of Le Monde, now a columnist with the Guardian; our two main cartoonists Steve Bell and Martin Rowson; Observer columnists Nick Cohen and Henry Porter; writers Sunny Hundal and Shahida Bari.
posted by phoque at 12:12 PM on January 8, 2015
an evening of discussion and debate in support of our murdered French colleagues. Speakers will include Natalie Nougayrede, former editor of Le Monde, now a columnist with the Guardian; our two main cartoonists Steve Bell and Martin Rowson; Observer columnists Nick Cohen and Henry Porter; writers Sunny Hundal and Shahida Bari.
posted by phoque at 12:12 PM on January 8, 2015
Cartoonist Martin Rowson has a great piece in today's Guardian:
...there appears to be something exquisitely intolerable to the serious mind about mockery when it is visual. Largely this is due to the way the visual is consumed: rather than nibbling your way through text, however incendiary, a cartoon floods the eyes and gets swallowed whole – and often makes the recipient choke. Worse, cartoons should be seen more as a kind of sympathetic magic than anything else: we steal our subjects’ souls by recreating them through caricature and then mock them in narratives of our own devising. Worst of all, we then pretend that it’s all just a good-natured laugh: it is a laugh, but it’s also assassination without the blood.
He goes on to talk about his own discomfort with the Danish cartoons and draws an important distinction in the power dynamic at work:
This time it is cartoonists’ blood that’s been shed. Yet however much their murderers may identify themselves as victims of mockery, they have clearly also identified themselves as on the side of power, electing to act as agents avenging the hurt feelings of the most Powerful Being in the Universe. Don’t forget that demanding either respect or silence from everyone else is one of the most common abuses of power going.
The terrorists chose their target with great strategic care. They knew that going after the French liberal intelligentsia would polarise opinion on the middle ground and result in a load of pearl-clutching about the merits of CH's off-colour equal-opportunity-offensive humour. The very fact that we're debating the merits of the cartoons and whether or not these cartoonists were racists represents a victory of sorts for the fundamentalists. We can't let them win the censorship war.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 12:12 PM on January 8, 2015 [21 favorites]
...there appears to be something exquisitely intolerable to the serious mind about mockery when it is visual. Largely this is due to the way the visual is consumed: rather than nibbling your way through text, however incendiary, a cartoon floods the eyes and gets swallowed whole – and often makes the recipient choke. Worse, cartoons should be seen more as a kind of sympathetic magic than anything else: we steal our subjects’ souls by recreating them through caricature and then mock them in narratives of our own devising. Worst of all, we then pretend that it’s all just a good-natured laugh: it is a laugh, but it’s also assassination without the blood.
He goes on to talk about his own discomfort with the Danish cartoons and draws an important distinction in the power dynamic at work:
This time it is cartoonists’ blood that’s been shed. Yet however much their murderers may identify themselves as victims of mockery, they have clearly also identified themselves as on the side of power, electing to act as agents avenging the hurt feelings of the most Powerful Being in the Universe. Don’t forget that demanding either respect or silence from everyone else is one of the most common abuses of power going.
The terrorists chose their target with great strategic care. They knew that going after the French liberal intelligentsia would polarise opinion on the middle ground and result in a load of pearl-clutching about the merits of CH's off-colour equal-opportunity-offensive humour. The very fact that we're debating the merits of the cartoons and whether or not these cartoonists were racists represents a victory of sorts for the fundamentalists. We can't let them win the censorship war.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 12:12 PM on January 8, 2015 [21 favorites]
I have said above that I think this is probably not the best time to discuss the content of the cartoons, because it is likely to come off as victim blaming, but I don't think anyone having that discussion is directly implying anything of the sort, especially since so many have offered caveats explicitly saying "This was criminal, it shouldn't have happened, and the cartoonists didn't deserve to be murdered."
Perhaps not directly, but as disclaimers go, though, that one feels like a particularly weaselly way of trying to have one's cake and eat it too when it's combined with a constant insistence to change the topic of discussion in a thread about the cartoonists being assassinated back to how racist their cartoons are.
The fact that this is combined in so many of its exponents with very basic errors in explicitly confusing the positions being satirized with positions being advocated is sort of the cherry on top, but I don't think two paragraphs of victim-blaming combined with tacking on one sentence of "but of course, I'm not blaming the victims!" at the end would fly in any other context either.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 12:19 PM on January 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
Perhaps not directly, but as disclaimers go, though, that one feels like a particularly weaselly way of trying to have one's cake and eat it too when it's combined with a constant insistence to change the topic of discussion in a thread about the cartoonists being assassinated back to how racist their cartoons are.
The fact that this is combined in so many of its exponents with very basic errors in explicitly confusing the positions being satirized with positions being advocated is sort of the cherry on top, but I don't think two paragraphs of victim-blaming combined with tacking on one sentence of "but of course, I'm not blaming the victims!" at the end would fly in any other context either.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 12:19 PM on January 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
Well, I'm not a weasel, but I did buy this cake and intend to eat it.
posted by maxsparber at 12:21 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 12:21 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
French government donates $1.2 million to ensure Charlie Hebdo lives on
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:21 PM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:21 PM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
A wonderful assembly of tributes from cartoonists around the world
posted by feste at 12:26 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by feste at 12:26 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Joakim Ziegler: By the way, the cover of the new issue of Charlie Hebdo features Michel Houellebecq, whose new book is out today, and imagines France in the near future taken over by Muslims.
----
No, like Houellebecq, who they feature on the cover of their last issue,
Uh, what are getting at here? Those covers appear to be mocking Houellebecq.
posted by spaltavian at 12:26 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
----
No, like Houellebecq, who they feature on the cover of their last issue,
Uh, what are getting at here? Those covers appear to be mocking Houellebecq.
posted by spaltavian at 12:26 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Karima Bennoune (previously) - Charlie Hebdo: "There is no way they will make us put down our pens."
Our community organizations should move from reactive condemnations of terrorism post hoc, to proactive, systematic efforts to root out Islamist ideology through awareness-raising, and humanist education. We must also do more to support those doing this work back home in our countries of origin. As difficult as it can be to speak out in our highly charged contemporary environment in which the Western far right campaigns against Islam – akin to “walking on a tightrope” as one young Arab-American activist recently described it - it takes just a fraction of the moral courage shown by those most at risk. Pakistani lawyer Asma Jahangir, who has to have armed guards in her Lahore office, implored the diaspora community to speak out about the slaughter in countries like hers when I interviewed her.posted by audi alteram partem at 12:30 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
It is especially critical not to blame the victims for the Paris attack, however challenging some of their drawings and writings may have been for some. That is what satirists do – push boundaries. That is their right, and indeed modern society needs those who dare to claim that none of our emperors have any clothes. Charlie Hebdo are equal opportunity offenders, lampooning the Pope, Jewish orthodoxy and the Mullahs. Many people of Muslim heritage appreciate satire. The late great Pakistani arts promoter Faizan Peerzada told me of the Danish cartoons that Charlie Hebdo reprinted, “if this cartoon was seen by Mohamed, he would have had a laugh. As simple as that.”
At the moment, out of respect for the dead, I agree that the primary point is "this was categorically wrong," but, I mean, eventually we should be able to discuss the content of the cartoons.
I don't disagree. Perhaps the type of humor in CH is indicative of an entrenched racism that Muslims in France have to deal with on a daily basis and are miserable for it, and its twisted public expression is a cloud hanging over their heads. Perhaps we can all hope for a better day when such humor is neither necessary nor does it come to define a people's experience, nor will it cut so deeply. In my opinion, that's something respectful that could be said to couch the point being made about the "content of the cartoons."
Let's just not create any direct correlations between the fact that twelve people were killed yesterday and my need to understand where this is coming from and how an analysis of the "content of the cartoons" will lead me to a better understanding of the position I should be taking. Because this goes against what I believe at a root level.
Furthermore, the exercise of making people uncomfortable on this site as a result of their treating this incident as categorically wrong, by pushing them to defend "racism and xenophobia" when a lot of these charges are brought by people who are merely expressing an opinion or are ill-informed as to the "social landscape" in which this satire was expressed - which again, I agree, perhaps has its limits in terms of outright justifiability - constitutes a form of trolling and is in and of itself offensive, insofar that perhaps I should be questioning the "wisdom" of certain protected acts, today of all days, simply because of the devastating effects of theocratic totalitarianism and the type of retribution it endorses.
Everybody here is doing the best they can in terms of figuring out where they stand, and just as so many people have told me that "nobody is saying this attack was justified," I should mention that nobody in this thread nor in the mainstream political channels is advocating for the expulsion of Muslims in France en masse. The fact that these people will eventually be caught and "brought to justice" is, in and of itself and considering the circumstances, extremely charitable, by the standards with which these cartoonists and the people charged to protect them were treated.
We are all participating in a conversation in which "the contents" of our comments are being examined. But today? This story? This story is shaking a lot of us to our core because it is almost certainly not about that.
posted by phaedon at 12:38 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't disagree. Perhaps the type of humor in CH is indicative of an entrenched racism that Muslims in France have to deal with on a daily basis and are miserable for it, and its twisted public expression is a cloud hanging over their heads. Perhaps we can all hope for a better day when such humor is neither necessary nor does it come to define a people's experience, nor will it cut so deeply. In my opinion, that's something respectful that could be said to couch the point being made about the "content of the cartoons."
Let's just not create any direct correlations between the fact that twelve people were killed yesterday and my need to understand where this is coming from and how an analysis of the "content of the cartoons" will lead me to a better understanding of the position I should be taking. Because this goes against what I believe at a root level.
Furthermore, the exercise of making people uncomfortable on this site as a result of their treating this incident as categorically wrong, by pushing them to defend "racism and xenophobia" when a lot of these charges are brought by people who are merely expressing an opinion or are ill-informed as to the "social landscape" in which this satire was expressed - which again, I agree, perhaps has its limits in terms of outright justifiability - constitutes a form of trolling and is in and of itself offensive, insofar that perhaps I should be questioning the "wisdom" of certain protected acts, today of all days, simply because of the devastating effects of theocratic totalitarianism and the type of retribution it endorses.
Everybody here is doing the best they can in terms of figuring out where they stand, and just as so many people have told me that "nobody is saying this attack was justified," I should mention that nobody in this thread nor in the mainstream political channels is advocating for the expulsion of Muslims in France en masse. The fact that these people will eventually be caught and "brought to justice" is, in and of itself and considering the circumstances, extremely charitable, by the standards with which these cartoonists and the people charged to protect them were treated.
We are all participating in a conversation in which "the contents" of our comments are being examined. But today? This story? This story is shaking a lot of us to our core because it is almost certainly not about that.
posted by phaedon at 12:38 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Furthermore, the exercise of making people uncomfortable on this site as a result of their treating this incident as categorically wrong, by pushing them to defend "racism and xenophobia" when a lot of these charges are brought by people who are merely expressing an opinion or are ill-informed as to the "social landscape" in which this satire was expressed - which again, I agree, perhaps has its limits in terms of outright justifiability - constitutes a form of trolling
Nobody is trolling in this thread, or, if they are, I'd suggest flagging them. And I have seen at least as large a push on the site to tell people not to criticize the cartoons at all, as doing so is victim blaming, and I'd say that's also an exercise in making people uncomfortable. I agree this isn't the best time to discuss it, but, my goodnness, some other people have been behaving as though concern about the content of the cartoons is tantamount to having called for the murder of the cartoonists, and it isn't.
posted by maxsparber at 12:43 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Nobody is trolling in this thread, or, if they are, I'd suggest flagging them. And I have seen at least as large a push on the site to tell people not to criticize the cartoons at all, as doing so is victim blaming, and I'd say that's also an exercise in making people uncomfortable. I agree this isn't the best time to discuss it, but, my goodnness, some other people have been behaving as though concern about the content of the cartoons is tantamount to having called for the murder of the cartoonists, and it isn't.
posted by maxsparber at 12:43 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Self-Sponsored Terror: Were the Charlie Hebdo Killers in a ‘Wolf Pack’?
posted by homunculus at 12:45 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by homunculus at 12:45 PM on January 8, 2015
The irony, it burns:
NY Daily Post today:
Not only did it censor a picture that wasn't even supposed to depict Mohammed, it underscored its cowardice by only censoring one of the two caricatures on the page. Via Elder of Ziyon, which also shows the uncensored photo.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:46 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
NY Daily Post today:
Now, all the world knows about Charlie Hebdo, about the journalists who held to their principles — and about the monsters who cannot abide freedom.NY Daily Post in 2012
Not only did it censor a picture that wasn't even supposed to depict Mohammed, it underscored its cowardice by only censoring one of the two caricatures on the page. Via Elder of Ziyon, which also shows the uncensored photo.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:46 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Not at all. I just think it's funny that back then they were very clearly scared of attacks; they weren't scared of causing offence, or they'd have censored both halves of the image. Now they're all about "journalists who held to their principles", but back then they censored something that nobody had even objected to.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:51 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:51 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Kevin Street: Making fun of Islam or drawing cartoons of Muhammad isn't normally a very nice thing to do. It can usually be seen as an aggressive behavior, something that stupidly attacks people who are already persecuted and causes trouble for no particular reason.There's nothing wrong with the part I emphasized. I don't care one bit if your church says drawing Muhammed, boobies, or Granny Smith apples is sacrilegious. This kind of deference to religious assholes is related to the problem we're discussing.
GIS for the prophet Muhammed. This isn't disrespectful to Islam because I'm not muslim, just like eating meat on Lenten Fridays isn't disrespectful to the Catholic church.
I'll go further, and say that making fun of the stupid parts of Islam (stupid IMO) isn't persecution; some sects cut off girls' clitorises, and I'll be damned if those butchers don't deserve worse in life than mockery. However much they are being persecuted, it isn't as much as they deserve - even if it isn't aimed at that particular fault of theirs.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:52 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I support gay marriage. I'm sorry that doing so offends all sorts of religious nuts. Don't bomb be, bro.
posted by enamon at 12:54 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by enamon at 12:54 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Guy Smiley: I can tell IAmBroom it's Andres Serrano, not Robert Mapplethorpe.Thanks! Robert's exhibit was famously attacked in Cincinnati by the local asshole sheriff while I worked there, and I guess I just elided things together.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:54 PM on January 8, 2015
A wonderful assembly of tributes from cartoonists around the world
Negar Mortazavi (an Iranian journalist), has tweeted a number of other tributes. A few from Iranian cartoonists:
Iranian cartoonist for #CharlieHebdo
By Iran designer @_arashasghari
By Iran Cartoonist @ManaNeyestani
I like this one: For slain journalists at Charlie Hebdo
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:56 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Negar Mortazavi (an Iranian journalist), has tweeted a number of other tributes. A few from Iranian cartoonists:
Iranian cartoonist for #CharlieHebdo
By Iran designer @_arashasghari
By Iran Cartoonist @ManaNeyestani
I like this one: For slain journalists at Charlie Hebdo
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:56 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
carping demon: The people who do this are not at all religious, they're barbaric. What's truly horrifying is how many others there are.Your "No True Scotsman" claim is false. The people who did that are obviously, self-descriptively, barbaricly... religious.
Don't pretend that religious people would never stoop so low. There are literally thousands of examples in history, from ancient times to yesterday's news.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:59 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
Don't pretend that religious people would never stoop so low.
It's not worded for precision, but it's not a no true scotsman so much as it is a "this betrays the best possibilities of the religion," and it is always worth remembering that there are people of every stripe who do great evil under the same banner that others do great good under.
posted by maxsparber at 1:05 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's not worded for precision, but it's not a no true scotsman so much as it is a "this betrays the best possibilities of the religion," and it is always worth remembering that there are people of every stripe who do great evil under the same banner that others do great good under.
posted by maxsparber at 1:05 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I posed the question of context to a French friend who is a cartoonist/graphic designer living in Montreal. She is going through gender reassignment (female to male)
To generalize the issue of context for her I brought up the Jerry Lewis statement up thread. The French love him. We don't get it. How does this apply to yesterday re: satire and racism. I am posting her response in the order received. She is aware I am doing this.
The link that begins her response...
" I disagree with the article. It is easy to encapsulate the journal in its potential offenses looking at it from the distance, but the cultural context and history of the journal and its redactors is too important to do so.
Their satire was always on point because not necessarily reflective of their own opinion (Their editor in chief has been a long standing far left supporter which is our most liberal/socialist political party. They are pro LGBT, against anti-immigration policies ...) but rather what they succeeded at doing often was to be thought provoking as they have been on the forefront of actually pointing fingers at the rise of the far right for the past 10 years in France and blunt in depicting the opinions of a rising number of intolerant folks in a way that indeed sparked debate. People are too quick to read dark humor as a face value thing and the opinion of this OP'd piece clearly needs more extensive homework before taking a stance. Taking circumstantial humor out of its social/cultural context is the best way to strip it of its real meaning and miss the mark.
Criticizing religion and fundamentalism is not the same thing. They did contextually attack only when the social or political context was seeing a raise in opinions be it national or international that were non-liberal ones. They did not care for people who do not try to enforce views or impose restrictions on others. Either by depicting the bigotry or the hypocrisy of those who did hold the views or literally their opinion they always defended the same ideal. Their editorial is probably the most liberal we have in the country and that's why it is a loss."
End of response
posted by goalyeehah at 1:07 PM on January 8, 2015 [20 favorites]
To generalize the issue of context for her I brought up the Jerry Lewis statement up thread. The French love him. We don't get it. How does this apply to yesterday re: satire and racism. I am posting her response in the order received. She is aware I am doing this.
The link that begins her response...
" I disagree with the article. It is easy to encapsulate the journal in its potential offenses looking at it from the distance, but the cultural context and history of the journal and its redactors is too important to do so.
Their satire was always on point because not necessarily reflective of their own opinion (Their editor in chief has been a long standing far left supporter which is our most liberal/socialist political party. They are pro LGBT, against anti-immigration policies ...) but rather what they succeeded at doing often was to be thought provoking as they have been on the forefront of actually pointing fingers at the rise of the far right for the past 10 years in France and blunt in depicting the opinions of a rising number of intolerant folks in a way that indeed sparked debate. People are too quick to read dark humor as a face value thing and the opinion of this OP'd piece clearly needs more extensive homework before taking a stance. Taking circumstantial humor out of its social/cultural context is the best way to strip it of its real meaning and miss the mark.
Criticizing religion and fundamentalism is not the same thing. They did contextually attack only when the social or political context was seeing a raise in opinions be it national or international that were non-liberal ones. They did not care for people who do not try to enforce views or impose restrictions on others. Either by depicting the bigotry or the hypocrisy of those who did hold the views or literally their opinion they always defended the same ideal. Their editorial is probably the most liberal we have in the country and that's why it is a loss."
End of response
posted by goalyeehah at 1:07 PM on January 8, 2015 [20 favorites]
When I heard about the attack yesterday I thought of how on 9/11 I came to metafilter to follow the famous 911 FPP to stay informed of what was happening. Shortly after that I created my account.
So my first instinct yesterday was to run to metafilter and see what was being written about the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. When I discovered to my surprise there was no FPP yet, I started this one.
I may be oversensitive, but to be honest I am very hurt by the various "blame the victim" comments in this thread. Especially because most of them seem to come from people who have never read Charlie Hebdo and don't seem to understand its satirical style.
In some way I already foresaw this happening, that's why I emphasized in my FPP Charlie Hebdo is left-wing, hoping people wouldn't start by saying "it's just some small racist right-wing rag that got hit".
These were not insignificant people. They were the top in their art. If I have to make a comparison to a US situation, it would be as if a group of comedians like George Carlin, Richard Prior, and Louie CK were murdered in a shooting in a standup club. And that I would barge in here as a European without having followed any of their work saying "yeah, it's horrible that they were killed, but I heard their jokes were all racist and in bad taste" (but maybe that actually is how Americans look at these comedians, what do I know).
I share the feeling of @seesom as having landed "in some type of bizarro world" here.
I was most touched by the comment of @zompist. There were more comments of people trying to explain why it is ridiculous to consider Charlie Hebdo racist, but as @phaedon said: "I wish I could find a time machine, buy MetaFilter, keep everything the same, and highlight zompist's comment upthread and increase the font by about 100px."
People do not understand satire anymore. The people that condemn the Boko Haram cartoon probably would have condemned Swift's Modest Proposal as well for being cruel to children.
And to close: to those who are trying to blame all muslims for what happened or who expect them to apologize for it as if they had a hand in it, I say frak you!
posted by Berend at 1:11 PM on January 8, 2015 [76 favorites]
So my first instinct yesterday was to run to metafilter and see what was being written about the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. When I discovered to my surprise there was no FPP yet, I started this one.
I may be oversensitive, but to be honest I am very hurt by the various "blame the victim" comments in this thread. Especially because most of them seem to come from people who have never read Charlie Hebdo and don't seem to understand its satirical style.
In some way I already foresaw this happening, that's why I emphasized in my FPP Charlie Hebdo is left-wing, hoping people wouldn't start by saying "it's just some small racist right-wing rag that got hit".
These were not insignificant people. They were the top in their art. If I have to make a comparison to a US situation, it would be as if a group of comedians like George Carlin, Richard Prior, and Louie CK were murdered in a shooting in a standup club. And that I would barge in here as a European without having followed any of their work saying "yeah, it's horrible that they were killed, but I heard their jokes were all racist and in bad taste" (but maybe that actually is how Americans look at these comedians, what do I know).
I share the feeling of @seesom as having landed "in some type of bizarro world" here.
I was most touched by the comment of @zompist. There were more comments of people trying to explain why it is ridiculous to consider Charlie Hebdo racist, but as @phaedon said: "I wish I could find a time machine, buy MetaFilter, keep everything the same, and highlight zompist's comment upthread and increase the font by about 100px."
People do not understand satire anymore. The people that condemn the Boko Haram cartoon probably would have condemned Swift's Modest Proposal as well for being cruel to children.
And to close: to those who are trying to blame all muslims for what happened or who expect them to apologize for it as if they had a hand in it, I say frak you!
posted by Berend at 1:11 PM on January 8, 2015 [76 favorites]
Re: If a native French speaker could properly translate the Pope cartoon I would much appreciate.
That's pretty straightforward: The Pope in Paris: The French are as stupid as N***s. It's a cartoon from 1980 by Reiser, who died in 1983.
The colon implies that it's a direct quote of John Paul II (note his smug face) or at least of what the Pope thinks. Basically it's the Pope mocking the French by comparing them to Africans. It lampoons 1) the condescending and colonialist attitude of the Catholic Church. Catholic missionaries in Africa were a frequent target of Reiser, like in this classic cartoon (if some people don't get it let me now) and 2) the "popemania" surrounding the new Pope at that time, even in France.
Note that Charlie Hebdo would not use the N*** word on a cover today, that was 35 years ago when lots of people would use the word more liberally. I went on a Reiser binge a couple of months ago and while the man was immensely talented, some of the stuff he did back then wouldn't fly today.
posted by elgilito at 1:15 PM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
That's pretty straightforward: The Pope in Paris: The French are as stupid as N***s. It's a cartoon from 1980 by Reiser, who died in 1983.
The colon implies that it's a direct quote of John Paul II (note his smug face) or at least of what the Pope thinks. Basically it's the Pope mocking the French by comparing them to Africans. It lampoons 1) the condescending and colonialist attitude of the Catholic Church. Catholic missionaries in Africa were a frequent target of Reiser, like in this classic cartoon (if some people don't get it let me now) and 2) the "popemania" surrounding the new Pope at that time, even in France.
Note that Charlie Hebdo would not use the N*** word on a cover today, that was 35 years ago when lots of people would use the word more liberally. I went on a Reiser binge a couple of months ago and while the man was immensely talented, some of the stuff he did back then wouldn't fly today.
posted by elgilito at 1:15 PM on January 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
More from my friend....
The context is a non context really
One of the guys that got arrested and did prison for being caught apparently he was arranging travel for members of a cell of extremists
I think it's his way of getting back at the country according to his beliefs
and he just happened to find a couple of accomplices
posted by goalyeehah at 1:19 PM on January 8, 2015
The context is a non context really
One of the guys that got arrested and did prison for being caught apparently he was arranging travel for members of a cell of extremists
I think it's his way of getting back at the country according to his beliefs
and he just happened to find a couple of accomplices
posted by goalyeehah at 1:19 PM on January 8, 2015
maxsparber: It's not worded for precision, but it's not a no true scotsman so much as it is a "this betrays the best possibilities of the religion," and it is always worth remembering that there are people of every stripe who do great evil under the same banner that others do great good under.That wasn't nearly what was stated, and I'm not sure you have the authority to speak for carping demon. The statement was "The people who do this are not at all religious, they're barbaric."
That is false in the first claim, and sets up a false duality. Many religious practices, from the dawn of history to today, are barbaric. Religious does not equate to evil, as some atheists would claim, but it sure as shit doesn't equate to good, either.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:20 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
it is always worth remembering that there are people of every stripe who do great evil under the same banner that others do great good under.
Yes. Nonreligious people have committed atrocities for nonreligious reasons. Nonreligious people have done great good for non-religious reasons. And the same is true in both counts for religious people.
The claim that an act "betrays the best possibilities of [a] religion" is distinct from the one that says terrorists "are not at all religious, they're barbaric." To say "The people who do this are not at all religious, they're barbaric" implicitly links barbarism to nonreligion and implies that religion is inherently a buffer against barbarism in ways that nonreligion is not.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:22 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes. Nonreligious people have committed atrocities for nonreligious reasons. Nonreligious people have done great good for non-religious reasons. And the same is true in both counts for religious people.
The claim that an act "betrays the best possibilities of [a] religion" is distinct from the one that says terrorists "are not at all religious, they're barbaric." To say "The people who do this are not at all religious, they're barbaric" implicitly links barbarism to nonreligion and implies that religion is inherently a buffer against barbarism in ways that nonreligion is not.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:22 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
If a native French speaker could properly translate the Pope cartoon I would much appreciate.
"The Pope in Paris: the French as idiotic as the negroes."
The reference is to JPII's habit of globetrotting, and the colonialist whiff of his African photo-ops, riffed-on here to lampoon/ridicule the secular capital's overzealous/hypocritical feting of the pope's visit.
The by-line of Hara-Kiri was "journal bête et méchant", the stupid and vicious magazine - this is a perfect example of that tradition.
posted by progosk at 1:26 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
"The Pope in Paris: the French as idiotic as the negroes."
The reference is to JPII's habit of globetrotting, and the colonialist whiff of his African photo-ops, riffed-on here to lampoon/ridicule the secular capital's overzealous/hypocritical feting of the pope's visit.
The by-line of Hara-Kiri was "journal bête et méchant", the stupid and vicious magazine - this is a perfect example of that tradition.
posted by progosk at 1:26 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
on twitter a stream of great cartoons: so i looked on facebook for some actual charlie hebdo ones, and got an endless stream of old mohamed=paedophile ones being reposted, most of which were too strong for me, and i did think, hate is what got us here, please...which isn't what the cartoonists would have thought. They even shot the janitor:(
posted by maiamaia at 1:37 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by maiamaia at 1:37 PM on January 8, 2015
That is false in the first claim, and sets up a false duality.
Well, we can pick it to pieces as much as we like, but ultimately it's not really important to me that we clearly and absolutely make sure that every single person comes out and says that religious people sometimes do shitty things. If somebody thinks that a really awful thing is not the kind of thing a religious person should do, and they shouldn't be able to call themselves religious if they do such a thing -- well, good. I'm all for stripping the righteousness and the flag of piety from horrific acts.
posted by maxsparber at 1:38 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, we can pick it to pieces as much as we like, but ultimately it's not really important to me that we clearly and absolutely make sure that every single person comes out and says that religious people sometimes do shitty things. If somebody thinks that a really awful thing is not the kind of thing a religious person should do, and they shouldn't be able to call themselves religious if they do such a thing -- well, good. I'm all for stripping the righteousness and the flag of piety from horrific acts.
posted by maxsparber at 1:38 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Europe’s Anti-Immigrant Parties Make Hay From Paris Terror Attack
posted by Artw at 1:39 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by Artw at 1:39 PM on January 8, 2015
I'm all for stripping the righteousness and the flag of piety from horrific acts.
I'd rather strip away the aura of presumed goodness from religion, personally.
posted by empath at 1:43 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'd rather strip away the aura of presumed goodness from religion, personally.
posted by empath at 1:43 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
Not everyone is celebrating Charlie Hebdo's satire
Shockingly I appear to be in agreement with Glenn Greenwald.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on January 8, 2015
Shockingly I appear to be in agreement with Glenn Greenwald.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on January 8, 2015
Artw: From that article:
"One cartoon portrayed France's black Justice Minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey. Another mocked the sex slaves of the militant group Boko Haram. An issue that followed the death of Michael Jackson depicted the pop star as a skeleton with a caption suggesting he realized a dream to be a white man. "
All this has been debunked here (about Taubira) and here (concerning the Boko Haram cover).
I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that Charlie Hebdo is being racist and xenophobic by lampooning France's extreme right's racism and xenophobia?
posted by enamon at 2:02 PM on January 8, 2015 [17 favorites]
"One cartoon portrayed France's black Justice Minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey. Another mocked the sex slaves of the militant group Boko Haram. An issue that followed the death of Michael Jackson depicted the pop star as a skeleton with a caption suggesting he realized a dream to be a white man. "
All this has been debunked here (about Taubira) and here (concerning the Boko Haram cover).
I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that Charlie Hebdo is being racist and xenophobic by lampooning France's extreme right's racism and xenophobia?
posted by enamon at 2:02 PM on January 8, 2015 [17 favorites]
I think rushing to accuse these cartoonists of bigotry without making at least a token effort to understand their satire is seriously offensive in the context of their deaths, and I'm quite shocked by those who have done so on a community such as metafilter, which purports to hold itself to a high standard of intellectual rigour.
posted by walrus at 2:02 PM on January 8, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by walrus at 2:02 PM on January 8, 2015 [21 favorites]
enamon,
Is there a debunking of the Michael Jackson cartoon?
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:03 PM on January 8, 2015
Is there a debunking of the Michael Jackson cartoon?
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:03 PM on January 8, 2015
Artw: I don't want to jump on these peoples graves,Then.
Stop.
Jumping.
Artw: but I still see pretending there's nothing troubling about a lot if their work is entering the land of wishful thinking and delusion.Troubling, in what way, exactly? Troubling, as in it might make someone angry? Big fucking deal. Troubling, as in it might provoke terrorists? So, like a girl in a miniskirt provokes rapists?
You know who is racist? Larry Flynt is racist! Deeply, horribly racist. And you know what? That fact doesn't matter when you're discussing the asshole who shot Larry Flynt. So why does it matter now?
Artw: Entering the land of delusion in response to terrorism has served us very badly in the past.Yet another statement about how we're bringing this on to ourselves.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:12 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think rushing to accuse these cartoonists of bigotry without making at least a token effort to understand their satire is seriously offensive in the context of their deaths, and I'm quite shocked by those who have done so on a community such as metafilter, which holds itself to a high standard of intellectual rigour.
And I think that's fascist "with us or against us" Bush era neocon bullshit.
posted by Artw at 2:13 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
And I think that's fascist "with us or against us" Bush era neocon bullshit.
posted by Artw at 2:13 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
The second part of GG's tweet doesn't make sense to me. (Not saying this as snark, I'm honestly confused by it; ArtW I'm assuming you're being ironic about the agreeing part, and that like many of us Mefites you usually do agree with him? In this fraught thread irony is especially slippery...) Also worth noting that the CNN Money article mostly talks about someone not Greenwald and mentions his tweet at the end in a seeming afterthough.
posted by aught at 2:14 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by aught at 2:14 PM on January 8, 2015
Discussing their target and their reasons is not a "pointless distraction".
Sure it is. It may be intellectually satisfying, though myself I don't find psychopathy at all interesting. Or possibly practical because it's a heads for those who might say things that these guys find exceptional ; but that way lies cowardice, and cowardice in the face of intimidation is not to be encouraged. Outside of that, it can only suggest that they might possibly have even a possible sliver of justification for murder. I reject that, so, again, as a practical matter - pointless.
You claim these particular victims matter because they were eminent cartoonists whose talents are not "ten a centime". Do their lives matter more than the random non-cartooning victims of a subway bombing, or the pedestrians struck by cars last month the killers' co-religionists?
posted by IndigoJones at 2:15 PM on January 8, 2015
Sure it is. It may be intellectually satisfying, though myself I don't find psychopathy at all interesting. Or possibly practical because it's a heads for those who might say things that these guys find exceptional ; but that way lies cowardice, and cowardice in the face of intimidation is not to be encouraged. Outside of that, it can only suggest that they might possibly have even a possible sliver of justification for murder. I reject that, so, again, as a practical matter - pointless.
You claim these particular victims matter because they were eminent cartoonists whose talents are not "ten a centime". Do their lives matter more than the random non-cartooning victims of a subway bombing, or the pedestrians struck by cars last month the killers' co-religionists?
posted by IndigoJones at 2:15 PM on January 8, 2015
And I think that's fascist "with us or against us" Bush era neocon bullshit.
Just to be clear, what you're arguing is that "making a token effort to understand their satire" is NOT useful, and it's better to make wild surmises about things you don't quite understand?
posted by neroli at 2:18 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Just to be clear, what you're arguing is that "making a token effort to understand their satire" is NOT useful, and it's better to make wild surmises about things you don't quite understand?
posted by neroli at 2:18 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
"When did it become true that to defend someone's free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas?" Greenwald said on Twitter. "That apply in all cases?"
Seems pretty clear FWIW.
posted by Artw at 2:23 PM on January 8, 2015
Seems pretty clear FWIW.
posted by Artw at 2:23 PM on January 8, 2015
Artw, and people talking to him. You are in a situation where you are not communicating well. Take some time and re-read what you are looking at for the more generous reading.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:25 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 2:25 PM on January 8, 2015
What is the generous side of accusing someone of being a fascist neo-con bullshitter?
posted by walrus at 2:26 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by walrus at 2:26 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
GG's tweet, as quoted in this CNN Money article ("When did it become true that to defend someone's free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas?" - "That apply in all cases?") reads a bit like a strawman set up within a rephrasing of Voltaire's adage.
Defending free speech quite obviously does not oblige you to embrace speech contrary to your own convictions - just to defend its right to exist. That right for the speech to exist is tantamount to the right to publish it. Nowhere is there an obligation to do so, and even less to republish speech contrary to your own convictions. What is crucial is that despite your not embracing it, you uphold the right for those whose conviction it is, to do so if they choose.
Not a particularly incisive quote from GG.
posted by progosk at 2:28 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Defending free speech quite obviously does not oblige you to embrace speech contrary to your own convictions - just to defend its right to exist. That right for the speech to exist is tantamount to the right to publish it. Nowhere is there an obligation to do so, and even less to republish speech contrary to your own convictions. What is crucial is that despite your not embracing it, you uphold the right for those whose conviction it is, to do so if they choose.
Not a particularly incisive quote from GG.
posted by progosk at 2:28 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm done here. Neocon chest thumping and allegiance tests make for a shit memorial thread.
posted by Artw at 2:30 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 2:30 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Crikey.
posted by walrus at 2:31 PM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by walrus at 2:31 PM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Artw: What are you arguing? I don't understand.
No one is saying that you have to agree with one's speech to defend it. On the other hand, calling Charlie Hebdo's covers xenophobic and racist is downright incorrect and that's what is being repeatedly pointed out.
posted by enamon at 2:33 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
No one is saying that you have to agree with one's speech to defend it. On the other hand, calling Charlie Hebdo's covers xenophobic and racist is downright incorrect and that's what is being repeatedly pointed out.
posted by enamon at 2:33 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
I have the opportunity to work (part-time) with an organization that includes many Muslims living around the world. Here's an article that is being discussed today:
Juan Cole:
"Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.
[... ]This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes instead of faltering.
[... ]"Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader.
[...]We have a model for response to terrorist provocation and attempts at sharpening the contradictions. It is Norway after Anders Behring Breivik committed mass murder of Norwegian leftists for being soft on Islam. The Norwegian government launched no war on terror. They tried Breivik in court as a common criminal. They remained committed to their admirable modern Norwegian values."
posted by Nevin at 2:33 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Juan Cole:
"Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.
[... ]This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes instead of faltering.
[... ]"Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader.
[...]We have a model for response to terrorist provocation and attempts at sharpening the contradictions. It is Norway after Anders Behring Breivik committed mass murder of Norwegian leftists for being soft on Islam. The Norwegian government launched no war on terror. They tried Breivik in court as a common criminal. They remained committed to their admirable modern Norwegian values."
posted by Nevin at 2:33 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think I can translate Artw for you. The cartoons are extremist, they are almost certainly part of the problem, and they shouldn't be re-published. Solidarity on this issue is basically code for ultranationalism, which will only leads to further problems, as history has shown. The rest is hyperbole, but you're basically a fascist if you disagree with him or give him a hard time over it, so he's done talking about it.
posted by phaedon at 2:35 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by phaedon at 2:35 PM on January 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
But they're not extremist. In no sense of the word. That's what's being repeatedly pointed out. They are satire that poke fun of both Muslim extremists and far right politicians.
posted by enamon at 2:37 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by enamon at 2:37 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm not convinced that phaedon is arguing that they are.
posted by walrus at 2:39 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by walrus at 2:39 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Thank you elgili and progosk for the explanation. The Pope cartoon makes much more sense now then just a straight reading of the words. Unfortunately I think it is lost to social media superficial interpretations that it's racist and not actually satirizing colonial style racism which is most unfortunate.
posted by Jalliah at 2:40 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Jalliah at 2:40 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh I understand that he's not. Heh. Sorry if I made it seem like I thought he was.
posted by enamon at 2:41 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by enamon at 2:41 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
But they're not extremist. In no sense of the word. That's what's being repeatedly pointed out. They are satire that poke fun of both Muslim extremists and far right politicians.
I know, but he just doesn't agree with you. And he thinks the political symbolism of the moment prevents him from holding that opinion, which I don't know if that rises to the level of fascism, but I guess it might if you'd had a couple of drinks. I think that's the position Greenwald is implying as well. That the cartoons might just be horrendously awful even though that might get lost in the whole solidarity thing.
And if they serve as a pretext to awful immigration policies or military excursions abroad, well then, that's fucked. That's where the "Bush neocon" part comes in.
posted by phaedon at 2:42 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I know, but he just doesn't agree with you. And he thinks the political symbolism of the moment prevents him from holding that opinion, which I don't know if that rises to the level of fascism, but I guess it might if you'd had a couple of drinks. I think that's the position Greenwald is implying as well. That the cartoons might just be horrendously awful even though that might get lost in the whole solidarity thing.
And if they serve as a pretext to awful immigration policies or military excursions abroad, well then, that's fucked. That's where the "Bush neocon" part comes in.
posted by phaedon at 2:42 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Artw: Neocon chest thumping
I can only interpret that as a willful misreading of events.
posted by dhens at 2:44 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I can only interpret that as a willful misreading of events.
posted by dhens at 2:44 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I read it more as a personal, ad hominem attack dhens, but I support Artw's right to make one.
posted by walrus at 2:46 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by walrus at 2:46 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Some fine translation work by phaedon though. I was totally perplexed too.
posted by neroli at 2:47 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by neroli at 2:47 PM on January 8, 2015
Well the cartoons definitely won't be used as a pretext. Killing 12 people over them might. As for Artw, I understand disagreeing but he didn't seem to address any of the explanations. As for Glenn Greenwald's quote - I pretty much agree with it 100%. He never actually states his opinion of the paper's cover in the one tweet I've read (but perhaps there are other tweets I've missed).
posted by enamon at 2:47 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by enamon at 2:47 PM on January 8, 2015
Much obliged, Jalilah. It's fascinating how much is getting lost to "social media superficial interpretations". (In this thread, but plenty elsewhere, too.)
Maybe some contrarians would prefer to try #JeSuisAhmed instead, to see if it fits better?
posted by progosk at 2:50 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Maybe some contrarians would prefer to try #JeSuisAhmed instead, to see if it fits better?
posted by progosk at 2:50 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
As for Glenn Greenwald's quote - I pretty much agree with it 100%
Given that it simply restates an almost universally accepted precept of liberal democracy, best known in the form of the variously attributed quote "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death etc." it's hard to disagree, really.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:51 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Given that it simply restates an almost universally accepted precept of liberal democracy, best known in the form of the variously attributed quote "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death etc." it's hard to disagree, really.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:51 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Here's an article about the trending tags, including #killallmuslims.
In short, most people using #killallmuslims were condemning the sentiment, not using it in hate.
posted by Thing at 2:59 PM on January 8, 2015
In short, most people using #killallmuslims were condemning the sentiment, not using it in hate.
posted by Thing at 2:59 PM on January 8, 2015
Do you honestly think that had Charlie Hebdo done nothing that these two would not have found some other French target?
posted by IndigoJones
I would actually posit that the Hebdo attack is part of a recent pattern - the Toulouse and Montauban shootings in France and the Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting.
posted by rosswald at 3:06 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by IndigoJones
I would actually posit that the Hebdo attack is part of a recent pattern - the Toulouse and Montauban shootings in France and the Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting.
posted by rosswald at 3:06 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo victim was 'a friend of Islam, Turkey'
The man who was killed in Paris was a person who spoke in favor of Turkey’s EU membership and drew cartoons to support it.posted by Golden Eternity at 3:10 PM on January 8, 2015 [20 favorites]
He was a human who loved Turkey very much. He was never the enemy of any Muslim. On the contrary, he was one of the loudest voices supporting Muslim immigrants in France.
Another victim was Jean Cabut, "Cabu"...
Both were friends of the late Oğuz Aral, a legendary Turkish cartoonist.
Do you know what this massacre means? I can't give an example using the names of living cartoonists, so let me give the names of deceased ones: Imagine Oğuz Aral, Turhan Selçuk and Ali Ulvi being killed at the same place in the same day.
Both Wolinski and Cabu were children of May 1968.
They were leftists and never xenophobic or Islamophobic. Both were champions of immigrants in France.
And what do I think about them?
I say with complete sincerity: I now fear voicing my opinion.
I fear for my country, for good Muslims, for good Christians, and for the world...
This fear is mine, but this shame is not.
To paraphrase something the mods have said in the past: the people who are not-victim-blaming need to try harder to look like they're not blaming the victims.
posted by um at 3:10 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by um at 3:10 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
"When did it become true that to defend someone's free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas?"
It doesn't of course, as progosk observes above. But speaking only for myself It does seem clear that a certain kind of front-line cannon-fodder terrorist fears mockery more than death. Which suggests to me that redoubling the mockery is entirely called for here.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:14 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
It doesn't of course, as progosk observes above. But speaking only for myself It does seem clear that a certain kind of front-line cannon-fodder terrorist fears mockery more than death. Which suggests to me that redoubling the mockery is entirely called for here.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:14 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I had a friend share Artw's "fuck these cartoons" post HoodedUtilitarian link on Facebook and saw a few things suspect about it. I'm glad to get context on a few of the others from here.
HoodedUtilitarian and a few other places seem to have taken Google Image Searches for Charlie Hebdo cartoons, picked the worst at first glance and screamed "RACISTS!" into the night.
Never mind an explanation of the cover, or even a translation. Never mind a brief bit of context on what was happening in France's news cycles at the time, or an explanation about what certain elements mean (I've heard elsewhere that the one of Muhammad being filmed naked is a touchstone on Goddard's Contempt). Never mind context as to how the cartoonists drew other people, because there's plenty of non Jewish or Islamic people drawn the same way. No context as to the hundreds of other covers between the 2006 one with Muhammed breaking down in tears at his arsehole followers and today.
It's people who have no idea about the situation or the implications of the cartoons picking the ones which they think look racist through their cultural spectrum, and then insisting the newspaper MUST have been racist. All while ignoring the input from people IN France who's response has been generally along the lines of "are you serious....?"
There is victim blaming in this thread. It happens every time someone posts something about how we need to take the cartoons into account, or how maybe they should have been a bit more selective with their publishing.
Any of those rather than saying the causing factor is that three psychotics decided that it was a perfectly good thing to shoot 12 people because they didn't like their sense of humour.
Je Suis Charlie.
posted by MattWPBS at 3:20 PM on January 8, 2015 [29 favorites]
HoodedUtilitarian and a few other places seem to have taken Google Image Searches for Charlie Hebdo cartoons, picked the worst at first glance and screamed "RACISTS!" into the night.
Never mind an explanation of the cover, or even a translation. Never mind a brief bit of context on what was happening in France's news cycles at the time, or an explanation about what certain elements mean (I've heard elsewhere that the one of Muhammad being filmed naked is a touchstone on Goddard's Contempt). Never mind context as to how the cartoonists drew other people, because there's plenty of non Jewish or Islamic people drawn the same way. No context as to the hundreds of other covers between the 2006 one with Muhammed breaking down in tears at his arsehole followers and today.
It's people who have no idea about the situation or the implications of the cartoons picking the ones which they think look racist through their cultural spectrum, and then insisting the newspaper MUST have been racist. All while ignoring the input from people IN France who's response has been generally along the lines of "are you serious....?"
There is victim blaming in this thread. It happens every time someone posts something about how we need to take the cartoons into account, or how maybe they should have been a bit more selective with their publishing.
Any of those rather than saying the causing factor is that three psychotics decided that it was a perfectly good thing to shoot 12 people because they didn't like their sense of humour.
Je Suis Charlie.
posted by MattWPBS at 3:20 PM on January 8, 2015 [29 favorites]
.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:29 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:29 PM on January 8, 2015
This thread illustrates what is perhaps an American / European difference. Because there is really only one Left in the US, out of political necessity, it groups liberals, activist Marxists, Greens, anarchists, and so on. And, out of political necessity, there is an authoritarian push by activists to keep all voices exactly in tune, silence dissent, and affirm ideological theory in order to look united. In Europe, the granularity is finer.
Maybe I am completely wrong, I don't know, all I know about it I know from Mefi. I just hope it is that way; the less nice explanations involve Charlie Hebdo covers waiting to be drawn.
posted by Spanner Nic at 3:43 PM on January 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
Maybe I am completely wrong, I don't know, all I know about it I know from Mefi. I just hope it is that way; the less nice explanations involve Charlie Hebdo covers waiting to be drawn.
posted by Spanner Nic at 3:43 PM on January 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
I have to disagree with those who say that this event isn't meaningful. This particular MeFi thread may not be one of our finest moments, but the execution of the cartoonists and bystanders in Paris is kind of a watershed because it's a direct attack on one of our core (Western) Enlightenment values. And it comes right after the whole Sony-hack Interview fiasco, which was another attempt to limit freedom of expression. And it comes within the wider context of recent terrorist attacks carried out in different countries by citizens of those lands. So it's at the nexus of several awful trends.
I think it's a consequence of globalism, ultimately. Whether we like it or not, all nations are becoming more intertwined and the opinions of supranational groups like Islamists (expressed with bullets) are becoming a part of the cultural conversation here in the West. So perhaps it really is harder to express oneself now than it was in 1970. Back then the editors of Hara-Kiri Hebdo could sidestep a government ban by renaming their magazine. Now the survivors of Charlie Hebdo and their colleagues around the world have to contend with the reality that gunmen might kill them.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:44 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think it's a consequence of globalism, ultimately. Whether we like it or not, all nations are becoming more intertwined and the opinions of supranational groups like Islamists (expressed with bullets) are becoming a part of the cultural conversation here in the West. So perhaps it really is harder to express oneself now than it was in 1970. Back then the editors of Hara-Kiri Hebdo could sidestep a government ban by renaming their magazine. Now the survivors of Charlie Hebdo and their colleagues around the world have to contend with the reality that gunmen might kill them.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:44 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
One thing before I sleep, there was a cartoonist on Radio Five in the UK last night talking about how he'd dealt with the massacre. I can't remember what his published work was, but what stuck in the mind was the work that no newspaper world publish - a picture of Muhammed wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with "Not In My Name".
posted by MattWPBS at 3:47 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by MattWPBS at 3:47 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Worst journalist ever, Don Lemon, is at it again: After a Muslim civil rights attorney condemns the attack and supports the CH cartoons, Lemon asks if he supports ISIS.
Not to be outdone, A Fox host asked how we can tell who the bad guys are if we can't see their skin color. This was in a segment using the Paris attack as a justification for militarized police.
posted by dirigibleman at 3:48 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not to be outdone, A Fox host asked how we can tell who the bad guys are if we can't see their skin color. This was in a segment using the Paris attack as a justification for militarized police.
posted by dirigibleman at 3:48 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm amazed to learn that CNN and Fox aren't providing insightful, intelligent and sensitive analysis of this event.
posted by sobarel at 3:53 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by sobarel at 3:53 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
One day it will be revealed that cable news was a Situationist prank all along.
posted by Grangousier at 3:55 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Grangousier at 3:55 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Under the paving stones, the bullshit.
posted by sobarel at 3:59 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by sobarel at 3:59 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
But speaking only for myself It does seem clear that a certain kind of front-line cannon-fodder terrorist fears mockery more than death. Which suggests to me that redoubling the mockery is entirely called for here.
I have no idea how these terrorists or their friends react to mockery, but a lot of religious people (e.g., many varieties of Christian) are inculcated with the idea that being mocked by "ungodly" people is a sign of virtue. Also, I don't think Charlie Hebdo published cartoons directed at these terrorists specifically. They published cartoons that many Moslems generally found offensive, but I think it's pretty clear that the terrorists weren't scared of them, in any meaningful way.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:59 PM on January 8, 2015
I have no idea how these terrorists or their friends react to mockery, but a lot of religious people (e.g., many varieties of Christian) are inculcated with the idea that being mocked by "ungodly" people is a sign of virtue. Also, I don't think Charlie Hebdo published cartoons directed at these terrorists specifically. They published cartoons that many Moslems generally found offensive, but I think it's pretty clear that the terrorists weren't scared of them, in any meaningful way.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:59 PM on January 8, 2015
it's a direct attack on one of our core (Western) Enlightenment values. And it comes right after the whole Sony-hack Interview fiasco, which was another attempt to limit freedom of expression
Sorry, I still think News Corp and the police are greater threats to freedom of speech. When mosques are being attacked, I'm not even interested in the politics of CH anymore. I'm more concerned in how the state and media are taking advantage of this.
Few wish to be associated with far-right violence, but this is more complicated than "the extremists versus the sane" considering The West has a history of funding fundamentalism in the name of realpolitik. If you say "enlightenment values" without at least a slight cringe at the contradictions inherent to the term, you scare the hell out of me.
posted by gorbweaver at 4:08 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Sorry, I still think News Corp and the police are greater threats to freedom of speech. When mosques are being attacked, I'm not even interested in the politics of CH anymore. I'm more concerned in how the state and media are taking advantage of this.
Few wish to be associated with far-right violence, but this is more complicated than "the extremists versus the sane" considering The West has a history of funding fundamentalism in the name of realpolitik. If you say "enlightenment values" without at least a slight cringe at the contradictions inherent to the term, you scare the hell out of me.
posted by gorbweaver at 4:08 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Kevin - that's fair. The point I was trying to make though (poorly, it appears), was that the conflict in this thread might be a symptom of trying to make sense of a senseless act. And IMO, there's no possible moral to this story that won't be bad for the enlightenment values you're talking about, and which I share. Worst of all, I suspect that this is part of the reason for the attack. How to deal with it then? Mourn the loss of those who were murdered, prosecute the crime, and otherwise don't let insane people determine what you believe.
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 4:16 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 4:16 PM on January 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
"I have no idea how these terrorists or their friends react to mockery, but a lot of religious people (e.g., many varieties of Christian) are inculcated with the idea that being mocked by "ungodly" people is a sign of virtue. Also, I don't think Charlie Hebdo published cartoons directed at these terrorists specifically. They published cartoons that many Moslems generally found offensive, but I think it's pretty clear that the terrorists weren't scared of them, in any meaningful way."
But there is something about mockery that seems to inspire an extra level of hatred in fanatics. Nobody (that I'm aware of, anyway) ever gets death threats over broadcasting reruns of "24," even though that series frequently showed Kiefer Sutherland dispatching hordes of Islamic terrorists. There are countless depictions of white western heroes defeating middle eastern villains in our popular culture that don't rate a mention from the Inspire magazine crowd. But draw a few squiggly lines and say it's Mohammed, and they'll still be trying to kill you ten years later.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:19 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
But there is something about mockery that seems to inspire an extra level of hatred in fanatics. Nobody (that I'm aware of, anyway) ever gets death threats over broadcasting reruns of "24," even though that series frequently showed Kiefer Sutherland dispatching hordes of Islamic terrorists. There are countless depictions of white western heroes defeating middle eastern villains in our popular culture that don't rate a mention from the Inspire magazine crowd. But draw a few squiggly lines and say it's Mohammed, and they'll still be trying to kill you ten years later.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:19 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
You claim these particular victims matter because they were eminent cartoonists whose talents are not "ten a centime". Do their lives matter more than the random non-cartooning victims of a subway bombing, or the pedestrians struck by cars last month the killers' co-religionists?
I only claim that their plight is of particular interest and concern to fellow cartoonists/satirists and fans of both, like me - elsewhere above I commented on fellow cartoonists' responses. Talking about the implications of this event for those pursuits is not a "pointless distraction" for colleagues and fans.
I don't claim that their lives "matter more" in an absolute sense than anyone else's.
It may be intellectually satisfying, though myself I don't find psychopathy at all interesting.
I'm not interested in the killers' psychopathy, I'm interested in their target, not as victims but in their own right; the killers' reasons are relevant in that they made these people targets, that's all. These events have made me pay more attention to Charlie Hebdo and try to learn what it was really about, having only seen copies of it in passing on visits to French-speaking countries. I'm a fan of a lot of bande-desinees, and subscribed to Private Eye for many years, so learning more about CH has been worthwhile, even though the prompt has been a tragic one.
Or possibly practical because it's a heads for those who might say things that these guys find exceptional ; but that way lies cowardice, and cowardice in the face of intimidation is not to be encouraged.
Above in the thread I defended Francisco Oleo's "to arms!" cartoon for its "call to fellow cartoonists to pick up their pens and pencils in response" - the opposite of encouraging cowardice in the face of intimidation.
Outside of that, it can only suggest that they might possibly have even a possible sliver of justification for murder. I reject that, so, again, as a practical matter - pointless.
I reject that, too.
You missed out the most important things of all, which naturally follow if you reject that the killers had any possible sliver of justification for murder: that knowing that the killers targeted them directly, and not randomly, underlines how inspiringly brave the CH team were to stand up to the threats they knew they faced; and how important it is to defend fundamental human rights, in big and small ways. Not pointless.
posted by rory at 4:30 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I only claim that their plight is of particular interest and concern to fellow cartoonists/satirists and fans of both, like me - elsewhere above I commented on fellow cartoonists' responses. Talking about the implications of this event for those pursuits is not a "pointless distraction" for colleagues and fans.
I don't claim that their lives "matter more" in an absolute sense than anyone else's.
It may be intellectually satisfying, though myself I don't find psychopathy at all interesting.
I'm not interested in the killers' psychopathy, I'm interested in their target, not as victims but in their own right; the killers' reasons are relevant in that they made these people targets, that's all. These events have made me pay more attention to Charlie Hebdo and try to learn what it was really about, having only seen copies of it in passing on visits to French-speaking countries. I'm a fan of a lot of bande-desinees, and subscribed to Private Eye for many years, so learning more about CH has been worthwhile, even though the prompt has been a tragic one.
Or possibly practical because it's a heads for those who might say things that these guys find exceptional ; but that way lies cowardice, and cowardice in the face of intimidation is not to be encouraged.
Above in the thread I defended Francisco Oleo's "to arms!" cartoon for its "call to fellow cartoonists to pick up their pens and pencils in response" - the opposite of encouraging cowardice in the face of intimidation.
Outside of that, it can only suggest that they might possibly have even a possible sliver of justification for murder. I reject that, so, again, as a practical matter - pointless.
I reject that, too.
You missed out the most important things of all, which naturally follow if you reject that the killers had any possible sliver of justification for murder: that knowing that the killers targeted them directly, and not randomly, underlines how inspiringly brave the CH team were to stand up to the threats they knew they faced; and how important it is to defend fundamental human rights, in big and small ways. Not pointless.
posted by rory at 4:30 PM on January 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Good thing nobody's lighting a match in here, I'd hate to see all these straw-men burning.
posted by symbioid at 4:42 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by symbioid at 4:42 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Never mind context as to how the cartoonists drew other people, because there's plenty of non Jewish or Islamic people drawn the same way.
When people point out the big noses, I wonder if they've ever seen any Asterix.
posted by rory at 4:45 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
When people point out the big noses, I wonder if they've ever seen any Asterix.
posted by rory at 4:45 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Noted Catholic and right wing homophobic bigot Bill Donohue weighs in on the killings:
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 4:57 PM on January 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.It's eerie how closely his remarks resemble the "I condemn the killings, but..." comments coming from liberals in this thread. Satire is ok as long as you don't go "too far" etc. It all sounds so reasonable framed in the language of tolerance and understanding doesn't it?
Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.
While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.
Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.
Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence. This, however, does not empty the issue. Madison was right when he said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 4:57 PM on January 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
When you find yourself in lockstep with Bill Donohue you need to rethink your position. Or possibly your life.
posted by Justinian at 5:02 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:02 PM on January 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Je Suis Charlie - from Aleppo. In Syria.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:04 PM on January 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:04 PM on January 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
L.P. Hatecraft: "It's eerie how closely his remarks resemble the "I condemn the killings, but..." comments coming from liberals in this thread. Satire is ok as long as you don't go "too far" etc. It all sounds so reasonable framed in the language of tolerance and understanding doesn't it?"
So, just hypothetically, if some theoretical publishers, cartoonists, writers or whatever were horrendously murdered by people they'd previously written hateful screeds against, there's no level of hateful screed written by the victims that would merit mention in the context of the murders, no matter what it contained? None at all?
Because I'm totally comfortable with condemning the murders and the murderers and the attitudes and ideology that lead them to murder while also being open to the possibility that the victims were not perfect saints, and might even have been abrasive assholes, or racists, or whatever.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 6:57 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, just hypothetically, if some theoretical publishers, cartoonists, writers or whatever were horrendously murdered by people they'd previously written hateful screeds against, there's no level of hateful screed written by the victims that would merit mention in the context of the murders, no matter what it contained? None at all?
Because I'm totally comfortable with condemning the murders and the murderers and the attitudes and ideology that lead them to murder while also being open to the possibility that the victims were not perfect saints, and might even have been abrasive assholes, or racists, or whatever.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 6:57 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
abrasive assholes, or racists, or whatever.
I think what a lot of people are pointing out is that there is a huge difference, conceptually and ethically, between "abrasive asshole" and "racist." And that saying "or whatever" essentially means: "I don't want to bother thinking critically about this difference before I render my absolute judgment."
posted by neroli at 7:04 PM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think what a lot of people are pointing out is that there is a huge difference, conceptually and ethically, between "abrasive asshole" and "racist." And that saying "or whatever" essentially means: "I don't want to bother thinking critically about this difference before I render my absolute judgment."
posted by neroli at 7:04 PM on January 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
Joakim Ziegler: So, just hypothetically,
Why use a hypothetical when we have an actual thing that actually happened to discuss?
The loudest, most insistent voices making sure that they know they don't condone the killings but it's important to remember the dead as racists have been demonstrated, time and again in this thread, to not know what they're talking about and having only seen things through their own myopic viewpoint rather than acknowledging that there is a context outside of their own.
If you find yourself insisting that the victims are racist after consistently being shown how your version of the facts is missing some vital details, you are showing that it is more important to you to not appear racist than it is to be, you know, accurate.
It's a damning lack of empathy for the crime that has been committed and its actual victims, replaced by a sanctimonious concern based solely on your inability to believe the world can be different from how you see it.
Maybe if someone is telling you your interpretation is incorrect, especially when they are providing translations and context you have clearly not bothered to discover yourself, you should shut up and listen.
This is a common refrain here. You might actually learn something if you do.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:16 PM on January 8, 2015 [28 favorites]
Why use a hypothetical when we have an actual thing that actually happened to discuss?
The loudest, most insistent voices making sure that they know they don't condone the killings but it's important to remember the dead as racists have been demonstrated, time and again in this thread, to not know what they're talking about and having only seen things through their own myopic viewpoint rather than acknowledging that there is a context outside of their own.
If you find yourself insisting that the victims are racist after consistently being shown how your version of the facts is missing some vital details, you are showing that it is more important to you to not appear racist than it is to be, you know, accurate.
It's a damning lack of empathy for the crime that has been committed and its actual victims, replaced by a sanctimonious concern based solely on your inability to believe the world can be different from how you see it.
Maybe if someone is telling you your interpretation is incorrect, especially when they are providing translations and context you have clearly not bothered to discover yourself, you should shut up and listen.
This is a common refrain here. You might actually learn something if you do.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:16 PM on January 8, 2015 [28 favorites]
So, just hypothetically, if some theoretical publishers, cartoonists, writers or whatever were horrendously murdered by people they'd previously written hateful screeds against, there's no level of hateful screed written by the victims that would merit mention in the context of the murders, no matter what it contained? None at all?
Joakim, I would argue that one does not have to concede the premise that these cartoonists were killed because of their hateful screed, and therefore, discussing the "hatefulness level" of the cartoons essentially constitutes a massive fool's errand. In other words, they were simply killed, at best for making the mistake of offending members of a radical ideology far more hateful than it. End of discussion.
So about things that appear to merit mention. I strongly doubt that the three perpetrators of this mass killing were "the three individuals most affected by this cartoon," that they were effectively driven into violent retribution. You are of course in no position to tell us what is in the hearts and minds of the killers as they put this plan into effect, or those who created this political hit-list in the first place. Perhaps you are still in shock. Because the most relevant question that stems from this recent event, no matter what your ideology might be, is, "Why did these people have to be killed?" What is the logic behind that? What overall purpose has been served? And of course, should we be talking about the cartoons to figure this out?
How do we sort out the fact that out of all the targets CH has focused on, it is the representatives of radical Islam that have charged themselves with finding a way to wipe the entire staff of this newspaper off the face of the planet? Should we be talking about the cartoons to figure this out?
Was the retribution proportional to the perceived crime? Is this relevant? Should we be talking about the cartoons to figure this out?
Let me also remind you that other Western institutions have been attacked by radical Islamists for far less, and I wonder how and why you might think the details of one other offense in particular might "merit mention," and how important that might be to the overall conversation. So let me point out that it is commonly known that Minoru Yamasaki was commissioned to build the World Trade Center shortly after finishing the Dhahran Airport, his first project with the Saudi family, and that the WTC, a repeated target, was heavily influenced by Arabic architectural stylings and theology, what with pointed arches extending from the ground floor and an outdoor area that Yamasaki himself described as "a mecca, a great relief from the narrow streets and sidewalks of the surrounding Wall Street area." What kind of an offense is this? Does it intersect with what you find offensive? What kind of mention do these facts deserve?
So. Let me go so far as to say that the key to understanding this entire ordeal in France, in actuality, has nothing to do with satire and the question of how biting it is.
posted by phaedon at 8:45 PM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Joakim, I would argue that one does not have to concede the premise that these cartoonists were killed because of their hateful screed, and therefore, discussing the "hatefulness level" of the cartoons essentially constitutes a massive fool's errand. In other words, they were simply killed, at best for making the mistake of offending members of a radical ideology far more hateful than it. End of discussion.
So about things that appear to merit mention. I strongly doubt that the three perpetrators of this mass killing were "the three individuals most affected by this cartoon," that they were effectively driven into violent retribution. You are of course in no position to tell us what is in the hearts and minds of the killers as they put this plan into effect, or those who created this political hit-list in the first place. Perhaps you are still in shock. Because the most relevant question that stems from this recent event, no matter what your ideology might be, is, "Why did these people have to be killed?" What is the logic behind that? What overall purpose has been served? And of course, should we be talking about the cartoons to figure this out?
How do we sort out the fact that out of all the targets CH has focused on, it is the representatives of radical Islam that have charged themselves with finding a way to wipe the entire staff of this newspaper off the face of the planet? Should we be talking about the cartoons to figure this out?
Was the retribution proportional to the perceived crime? Is this relevant? Should we be talking about the cartoons to figure this out?
Let me also remind you that other Western institutions have been attacked by radical Islamists for far less, and I wonder how and why you might think the details of one other offense in particular might "merit mention," and how important that might be to the overall conversation. So let me point out that it is commonly known that Minoru Yamasaki was commissioned to build the World Trade Center shortly after finishing the Dhahran Airport, his first project with the Saudi family, and that the WTC, a repeated target, was heavily influenced by Arabic architectural stylings and theology, what with pointed arches extending from the ground floor and an outdoor area that Yamasaki himself described as "a mecca, a great relief from the narrow streets and sidewalks of the surrounding Wall Street area." What kind of an offense is this? Does it intersect with what you find offensive? What kind of mention do these facts deserve?
So. Let me go so far as to say that the key to understanding this entire ordeal in France, in actuality, has nothing to do with satire and the question of how biting it is.
posted by phaedon at 8:45 PM on January 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
phaedon: "So. Let me go so far as to say that the key to understanding this entire ordeal in France, in actuality, has nothing to do with satire and the question of how biting it is."
I actually agree with that. However, it's important to understanding the larger context of what's going on and people's reaction to it. When it's become practically obligatory and kneejerk on Twitter to use the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie at least once, a hashtag that says, literally, not "these people should not have been killed", or "I condemn these killings", or "I sympathize with the victims", but literally "I am the same as these victims, I am them", then it's important to me to know whether or not the victims I'm being asked to literally say I'm the same as, are, in fact, racists, assholes, xenophobes, or something else I don't actually identify with.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:42 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I actually agree with that. However, it's important to understanding the larger context of what's going on and people's reaction to it. When it's become practically obligatory and kneejerk on Twitter to use the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie at least once, a hashtag that says, literally, not "these people should not have been killed", or "I condemn these killings", or "I sympathize with the victims", but literally "I am the same as these victims, I am them", then it's important to me to know whether or not the victims I'm being asked to literally say I'm the same as, are, in fact, racists, assholes, xenophobes, or something else I don't actually identify with.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:42 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Because I'm totally comfortable with condemning the murders and the murderers and the attitudes and ideology that lead them to murder while also being open to the possibility that the victims were not perfect saints, and might even have been abrasive assholes, or racists, or whatever.
The hypothetical you posed was answered better by other posters than I possibly could, so I won't add anything, but "so-and-so was no saint" is classic victim-blaming language, think of what other contexts it has been used in. It's also an easy thing to say. Who among us is a saint? Let alone a perfect one, with no opening of a possibility of it not being so?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 10:09 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
The hypothetical you posed was answered better by other posters than I possibly could, so I won't add anything, but "so-and-so was no saint" is classic victim-blaming language, think of what other contexts it has been used in. It's also an easy thing to say. Who among us is a saint? Let alone a perfect one, with no opening of a possibility of it not being so?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 10:09 PM on January 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on How to Answer the Paris Terror Attack:
After the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam.Our Duty is to Keep Charlie Hebdo Alive:
This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman. This was not an “un-Islamic” attack by a bunch of thugs—the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. Nor was it spontaneous. It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.
The West is duly terrified. But it should not be surprised.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter. This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe.
God, I thought yesterday, how could this possibly happen? Charlie Hebdo is not new to this. They had reprinted the cartoons of Muhammad from 2006. They were under police protection for a good long time. They moved from their offices to new offices. So my first thought was, how could this even happen? How could the entire staff of Charlie Hebdo be gone—murdered in cold blood?posted by shivohum at 10:41 PM on January 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
And then came the memories. In Holland, when my friend Theo Van Gogh was killed just over 10 years ago, what followed—after the initial shock—was that a lot of people started saying that he was a provocateur, and that he had offended Muslims.
For me, it was morally very clear. You were morally very confused if you thought that somebody who uses speech, who uses words, who uses the pen, should be killed for that; if you thought that the only way to have a dialogue is for one side to use words while the other side uses violence to make their point. Everyone out there who says, “Charlie Hebdo provoked,” is making the same fundamental error.
We do need to wake up to the fact that there is a movement—a very lethal movement, very cruel—that has a political vision about how the world should be organized and how society should live. And in order for them to realize their vision, they are willing to use any means. They are willing to use violence. They are willing to use terror.
Is this some kind of cult? Or are the principles of this cult embedded in Islam? I happen to think they are embedded in Islam. The only way peace-loving Muslims can get rid of this is by reforming their religion so that, for example, it can no longer provide justifications for murdering people deemed to be blasphemers. And while they go about reforming their religion, which will take some time, we who do not adhere to that religion need to defend our own values. Freedom of speech. Freedom of publication. And the rule of law.
Joakim Ziegler: When it's become practically obligatory and kneejerk on Twitter to use the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie at least once, a hashtag that says, literally, not "these people should not have been killed", or "I condemn these killings", or "I sympathize with the victims", but literally "I am the same as these victims, I am them", then it's important to me to know ...
The hashtag means "I am not afraid". The point is to defeat terrorism: terrorism wants to create fear, kill a dozen to make a million shut up. The hashtag and the "Je suis Charlie" signs that people have carried in the streets mean: "We are not afraid, we will continue saying what we think."
posted by Termite at 10:45 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The hashtag means "I am not afraid". The point is to defeat terrorism: terrorism wants to create fear, kill a dozen to make a million shut up. The hashtag and the "Je suis Charlie" signs that people have carried in the streets mean: "We are not afraid, we will continue saying what we think."
posted by Termite at 10:45 PM on January 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I haven't read the full articles linked by shivohum (the first is behind a paywall), but these excerpts caught my eye:
"...legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam."
If anything, radical, extremist Islamism is usually defined by its apology of violence. Which other "legion of tropes" is being referred to here?
"This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman."
Erm, that's pretty much what it's currently looking like - whence this opposite certainty?
"This was not an “un-Islamic” attack..."
No one has disputed the (explicitly stated) Islamist inspiration of the attackers. What's "un-Islamic" intended to mean here?
Or are the principles of this cult embedded in Islam?
Are the principles of Crusades/Holy Inquisition embedded in Christianity?
There is subtle, dangerous language at play here. The implication of a continuum, rather than an abyss, between Islam and Islamism has always been tempting for anyone not inclined to gain better knowledge - now is the time for an enlightened world to be more wary than ever.
posted by progosk at 12:30 AM on January 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
"...legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam."
If anything, radical, extremist Islamism is usually defined by its apology of violence. Which other "legion of tropes" is being referred to here?
"This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman."
Erm, that's pretty much what it's currently looking like - whence this opposite certainty?
"This was not an “un-Islamic” attack..."
No one has disputed the (explicitly stated) Islamist inspiration of the attackers. What's "un-Islamic" intended to mean here?
Or are the principles of this cult embedded in Islam?
Are the principles of Crusades/Holy Inquisition embedded in Christianity?
There is subtle, dangerous language at play here. The implication of a continuum, rather than an abyss, between Islam and Islamism has always been tempting for anyone not inclined to gain better knowledge - now is the time for an enlightened world to be more wary than ever.
posted by progosk at 12:30 AM on January 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
Mohammed El-leissy: This is a war on all of us, Muslims included:
[I]n the West, commentary in the media continues to accuse the world's Muslims of not condemning or doing enough to stop the terror and thus being complicit in violent jihad. This misinformed worldview simplistically pits this as Islam v the West, ignoring the despotic nature of this enemy and the fact that these extremists first and foremost wish to tyrannise and control their fellow Muslims.posted by valetta at 1:08 AM on January 9, 2015 [21 favorites]
For many Muslims, the Western media treats Muslim lives as somewhat less significant. The attacks in France received rolling coverage, but the attack in Yemen that killed many Muslim would-be policemen was relegated to the "World News" section. The Muslim victims are rarely given a face.
Similarly, the participation of Muslim majority nations in the coalition fighting Islamic State doesn't receive as much coverage as the efforts of the West. It's hard for the media to frame that war as a fight between "good and evil" when both sides are Muslim.
When non-Muslims are killed by radical Islamists, we talk about a clash of civilisations and ask "are Islam and the West compatible?" When Muslims are killed, we rationalise it as just stereotypical violence taking place in the third world.
This is not a war between Islamic and Western values - it's a war against a puritanical worldview that enforces itself with violence on the rest of us.
Shots fired in manhunt for Charlie Hebdo shooters.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:15 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by MartinWisse at 1:15 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've had my fair share of things to say here, and I openly admit Ayaan Hirsi Ali can be a little tricky to talk about, but having said that I wanted to address a few minor points.
"This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman."
"Erm, that's pretty much what it's currently looking like..."
There is a previously mentioned wanted poster circulating with the line "A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away / Defend Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him" that includes a picture of Stephane Charbonnie, the director of Charlie Hebdo, who was killed, as well as the name of the person whose comments you are responding to, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
I also googled the phrase "Inspire Magazine," and the first hit takes me to a PDF of the Spring 2014 edition which includes a story entitled "Car Bombs Inside America" that begins with the following paragraph:
"Inspire Magazine's goal is to empower Muslim youth. And what is empowerment without being strong, powerful and intelligent? In this section, we give you strength, power and intelligence. Believe me, using car bombs gives you all that."
With the existence of these materials out in the public, I don't think it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the attackers were "deranged" or "acting alone." Quite the opposite. As the idiots on CNN pointed out incessantly shortly after the attack, the attackers were very methodical during the massacre and seemed to have received prior training. I believe the French police later said that they already knew these suspects were active terrorists.
"Or are the principles of this cult embedded in Islam?"
"Are the principles of Crusades/Holy Inquisition embedded in Christianity?"
Now when she talks about her friend Theo Van Gogh being murdered. Van Gogh was shot eight times, he was decapitated, and a five-page note was stabbed into his chest, threatening to among other things murder kill Hirsi Ali. Was this too the act of a deranged, lone gunman? The connection here is that Van Gogh directed a movie called "Submission" which she in turn wrote. The movie depicts women born into Muslim families being abused in various ways; according to Wiki, Hirsi Ali has said, "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film."
These are not comfortable things to talk about when we talk about "embedded values" but they do exist. There are in a sense many points of disagreement between Islam and the West. I believe what Hirsi Ali is advocating is "enlightened Islam," and in that sense, she would say what distinguishes Christianity in its present form and Islam in its present form are social movements such as The Enlightenment. That these two religions are not the same in their current state despite, I dunno, historical similarities, and furthermore that currently, one is desperately in need of reform, and not so much "understanding" on the part of the West.
She is making the argument that these "senseless acts of violence" are in fact part of a political vision. Like I said, very tricky stuff.
Update: New York Times reporting, "One of the two brothers suspected of killing 12 people at a satirical newspaper in Paris traveled to Yemen in 2011 and received terrorist training from Al Qaeda’s affiliate there before returning to France, a senior American official said Thursday."
posted by phaedon at 1:47 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
"This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman."
"Erm, that's pretty much what it's currently looking like..."
There is a previously mentioned wanted poster circulating with the line "A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away / Defend Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him" that includes a picture of Stephane Charbonnie, the director of Charlie Hebdo, who was killed, as well as the name of the person whose comments you are responding to, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
I also googled the phrase "Inspire Magazine," and the first hit takes me to a PDF of the Spring 2014 edition which includes a story entitled "Car Bombs Inside America" that begins with the following paragraph:
"Inspire Magazine's goal is to empower Muslim youth. And what is empowerment without being strong, powerful and intelligent? In this section, we give you strength, power and intelligence. Believe me, using car bombs gives you all that."
With the existence of these materials out in the public, I don't think it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the attackers were "deranged" or "acting alone." Quite the opposite. As the idiots on CNN pointed out incessantly shortly after the attack, the attackers were very methodical during the massacre and seemed to have received prior training. I believe the French police later said that they already knew these suspects were active terrorists.
"Or are the principles of this cult embedded in Islam?"
"Are the principles of Crusades/Holy Inquisition embedded in Christianity?"
Now when she talks about her friend Theo Van Gogh being murdered. Van Gogh was shot eight times, he was decapitated, and a five-page note was stabbed into his chest, threatening to among other things murder kill Hirsi Ali. Was this too the act of a deranged, lone gunman? The connection here is that Van Gogh directed a movie called "Submission" which she in turn wrote. The movie depicts women born into Muslim families being abused in various ways; according to Wiki, Hirsi Ali has said, "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film."
These are not comfortable things to talk about when we talk about "embedded values" but they do exist. There are in a sense many points of disagreement between Islam and the West. I believe what Hirsi Ali is advocating is "enlightened Islam," and in that sense, she would say what distinguishes Christianity in its present form and Islam in its present form are social movements such as The Enlightenment. That these two religions are not the same in their current state despite, I dunno, historical similarities, and furthermore that currently, one is desperately in need of reform, and not so much "understanding" on the part of the West.
She is making the argument that these "senseless acts of violence" are in fact part of a political vision. Like I said, very tricky stuff.
Update: New York Times reporting, "One of the two brothers suspected of killing 12 people at a satirical newspaper in Paris traveled to Yemen in 2011 and received terrorist training from Al Qaeda’s affiliate there before returning to France, a senior American official said Thursday."
posted by phaedon at 1:47 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Oh my, the thread has moved on and on. Still,
I can't really follow this, but what leftists here would naturally promote Islamic Fundamentalists?
Sorry if that was a bit of a run-on sentence. What I mean is, a lot of the apologists on here are looking at this as Muslims/brown people (both groups who experience oppression so are low down the ordering) vs white racists (obviously high up the ordering), with the murderers as part of the Muslims/brown people group.
As an example of the sort of moral corruption this leads to: "I don’t think that shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it’s understandable", "Fuck those Charlie Hebdo dudes to be honest, good riddance." (same author, the latter quoting someone else with approval, apparently because of the special ethical insight the someone else has as a POC). Things are much worse outside Mefi, as usual.
posted by pw201 at 1:48 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
I can't really follow this, but what leftists here would naturally promote Islamic Fundamentalists?
Sorry if that was a bit of a run-on sentence. What I mean is, a lot of the apologists on here are looking at this as Muslims/brown people (both groups who experience oppression so are low down the ordering) vs white racists (obviously high up the ordering), with the murderers as part of the Muslims/brown people group.
As an example of the sort of moral corruption this leads to: "I don’t think that shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it’s understandable", "Fuck those Charlie Hebdo dudes to be honest, good riddance." (same author, the latter quoting someone else with approval, apparently because of the special ethical insight the someone else has as a POC). Things are much worse outside Mefi, as usual.
posted by pw201 at 1:48 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
"When I’m stupid enough to switch on cable news here in New York, the optics are different but I hear much that is familiar. Big hair and bright teeth instead of black flags and balaclavas, but the same parochialism, the same arrogance, the same atavistic lust for violence, the same pathetic need for good guys and bad guys, to be on the winning team.
If I have anything hopeful or uplifting to contribute, this is it – that anyone who tries to fit the world into binaries is necessarily fragile. The slightest hint of complexity, and their brittle self-identity may shatter. To refuse the jihadi’s logic of escalation without becoming mired in grubby pleading, we have to say – and keep on saying, keep on writing with our pens that are supposedly so much mightier than their swords – that life is not so simple, that our many problems do not have single, total solutions, that utopia is a dead place, without life or change, without air."
Writing in the Grauniad... Hari Kunzru
posted by Mister Bijou at 2:00 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
If I have anything hopeful or uplifting to contribute, this is it – that anyone who tries to fit the world into binaries is necessarily fragile. The slightest hint of complexity, and their brittle self-identity may shatter. To refuse the jihadi’s logic of escalation without becoming mired in grubby pleading, we have to say – and keep on saying, keep on writing with our pens that are supposedly so much mightier than their swords – that life is not so simple, that our many problems do not have single, total solutions, that utopia is a dead place, without life or change, without air."
Writing in the Grauniad... Hari Kunzru
posted by Mister Bijou at 2:00 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
phaedon: it wouldn't surprise me that the assailants could have had training for their attacks. The situation still strikes me as closer to the Tsarnaevs Boston attack, than to something headed by an international terrorist organisation.
There are new forms of terrorism taking hold in the world, to be sure. But there does seem to be a personal, individual agenda at work here. (I'm surprised their verbatim during the attack, as reported by the NYT, hasn't received more comment.)
posted by progosk at 2:01 AM on January 9, 2015
There are new forms of terrorism taking hold in the world, to be sure. But there does seem to be a personal, individual agenda at work here. (I'm surprised their verbatim during the attack, as reported by the NYT, hasn't received more comment.)
posted by progosk at 2:01 AM on January 9, 2015
Joakim,
"But if their stuff is racist, it is problematic to say that "We are all Charlie",... "
"...while also being open to the possibility that the victims were not perfect saints, and might even have been abrasive assholes, or racists, or whatever."
"... it's important to me to know whether or not the victims I'm being asked to literally say I'm the same as, are, in fact, racists, assholes, xenophobes, or something else I don't actually identify with."
There have been many thoughtful posts about CH not being racists. Maybe you could address them and make up your mind, otherwise just repeating "if they are racists" just makes you look like you want to cling to your first impression of them upthread with no evidence left.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 2:04 AM on January 9, 2015 [19 favorites]
"But if their stuff is racist, it is problematic to say that "We are all Charlie",... "
"...while also being open to the possibility that the victims were not perfect saints, and might even have been abrasive assholes, or racists, or whatever."
"... it's important to me to know whether or not the victims I'm being asked to literally say I'm the same as, are, in fact, racists, assholes, xenophobes, or something else I don't actually identify with."
There have been many thoughtful posts about CH not being racists. Maybe you could address them and make up your mind, otherwise just repeating "if they are racists" just makes you look like you want to cling to your first impression of them upthread with no evidence left.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 2:04 AM on January 9, 2015 [19 favorites]
Wow, I'd missed Charlie Hebdo victim was 'a friend of Islam, Turkey', thanks Golden Eternity.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:06 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 3:06 AM on January 9, 2015
@Artw / @Joakim: I would be interested to know what your judgements on both Jonathan Swifts - A modest proposal and on the TV series South Park are (if you have read/seen them).
Would you judge them the same way you judge Charlie Hebdo's publications? That would clarify for me a bit more if you disapprove in general of satire (or of satire that can be misunderstood), or if you are misunderstanding the intents of the Charlie Hebdo editors.
posted by Berend at 3:27 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Would you judge them the same way you judge Charlie Hebdo's publications? That would clarify for me a bit more if you disapprove in general of satire (or of satire that can be misunderstood), or if you are misunderstanding the intents of the Charlie Hebdo editors.
posted by Berend at 3:27 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yup, they're basically arguing that Stephen Colbert is a right-wing racist. He does look the part, that's the act after all.
Ce pourrait être drôle, si personne ne étaient morts.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:56 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Ce pourrait être drôle, si personne ne étaient morts.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:56 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
I found this interesting link on Bernard Maris, one of the writers killed in the attack - He was critical of globalization, skeptical of the E.U., an opponent of austerity and once ran as a candidate for the French Green Party.
posted by Flitcraft at 4:00 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Flitcraft at 4:00 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Despite some opinions to the contrary, I think the discussion in this thread has been very good. It's important to have a forum where people can express all points of view to be subject to analysis. People may say things which are demonstrably problematic, but then the point of a discussion is to learn, not to agree.
For me I definitely came into things with a view that some people here might have characterized as "victim-blaming". Someone else claimed that in order to avoid this label, one cannot simply state that this is not the case, but one must explain why. Let me try.
So firstly, not that ignorance is a defence as such, but unless one is rather familiar with Charlie Hebdo, it'd be easy to confuse them as part of the xenophobic press that feels entitled to publish inciteful images. Although they apparently did republish those Danish comics, the comics that they've published themselves seemed to me pretty clever, actually. If people say that these guys are actually on the vanguard of the French left, I can see that.
However, this question is independent of the more important question of whether one can discuss the reasons for this attack without assigning blame for it. This I think is the core question, and people have strong, implicit feelings about this. For me, I am very much of the opinion that one must seperate causes from morality. I don't care who the guilty party is - that's for the courts to decide, and since murder is categorically wrong, the shooters will hopefully be brought to justice.
However, it's still worth asking why the killers did what they did, and why they chose the targets they did. Because if one doesn't, then it becomes quite possible to uncritically arrive at events like, Stephen Harper stating that laws will be passed to fight the global jihadic war being waged against the West. Which, in case it isn't clear, I think is horrible bullshit. Without the ability to question why these things have happened independent of blame, people quickly pick idealogical tentpoles (Islam, Islamism, Free Press, Xenophobia, Capitalized Nouns) within which to frame the issue. Why these tentpoles have been picked is quickly banished from discussion. Not only do I think it's unnecessary to wait a period of time before discussing these things, I think it's essential to address them while they are topical, before things settle beyond further debate.
Why did the killers do what they did? Were they trained? To some extent yes. Does that mean they're part of same large organization? Not necessarily. Though they certainly could be. Can one declare war on an ideology? Is any part of Europe actually in danger of being taken over by Islam?
Why did they target Charlie Hebdo? Well, ostensibly because of the comics. But why did they kill the specific people they killed? Did they mean to? Was it simply who was there? Was Charlie Hebdo simply convenient? Were some of the members of Charlie Hebdo members of the xenophobic left, or were they right minded satirists?
Were they a sensible target given the apparent motivations of the killers? Could the killers be said to have accomplished what they wanted? What were the motivations of the killers? Did they have it strongly in mind that they were Muslim freedom fighters, or were they simply hopeless, disenfranchised, Algerian-frenchmen? Could it be both, or neither?
Questions! Questions! Endless questions! I could generate a hundred more. But why should we ask them? Because otherwise we will continue to be manipulated politically, and this cycle of violence will continue. One asks these questions not because one is callous, but because one cares.
I want to understand why the killers did what they did. I want to understand why Charlie Hebdo was target. I want to understand the causal relationship between the comics of Charlie Hebdo and the motivations of the killers. I want to understand all of this so as to understand how to prevent this from happening again. In my mind, ideology only acts to shut down these questions.
And all of this is completely independent of the fact that these Algerian-frenchman are guilty of murdering a number of people, and that they should be brought to justice.
posted by Alex404 at 4:19 AM on January 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
For me I definitely came into things with a view that some people here might have characterized as "victim-blaming". Someone else claimed that in order to avoid this label, one cannot simply state that this is not the case, but one must explain why. Let me try.
So firstly, not that ignorance is a defence as such, but unless one is rather familiar with Charlie Hebdo, it'd be easy to confuse them as part of the xenophobic press that feels entitled to publish inciteful images. Although they apparently did republish those Danish comics, the comics that they've published themselves seemed to me pretty clever, actually. If people say that these guys are actually on the vanguard of the French left, I can see that.
However, this question is independent of the more important question of whether one can discuss the reasons for this attack without assigning blame for it. This I think is the core question, and people have strong, implicit feelings about this. For me, I am very much of the opinion that one must seperate causes from morality. I don't care who the guilty party is - that's for the courts to decide, and since murder is categorically wrong, the shooters will hopefully be brought to justice.
However, it's still worth asking why the killers did what they did, and why they chose the targets they did. Because if one doesn't, then it becomes quite possible to uncritically arrive at events like, Stephen Harper stating that laws will be passed to fight the global jihadic war being waged against the West. Which, in case it isn't clear, I think is horrible bullshit. Without the ability to question why these things have happened independent of blame, people quickly pick idealogical tentpoles (Islam, Islamism, Free Press, Xenophobia, Capitalized Nouns) within which to frame the issue. Why these tentpoles have been picked is quickly banished from discussion. Not only do I think it's unnecessary to wait a period of time before discussing these things, I think it's essential to address them while they are topical, before things settle beyond further debate.
Why did the killers do what they did? Were they trained? To some extent yes. Does that mean they're part of same large organization? Not necessarily. Though they certainly could be. Can one declare war on an ideology? Is any part of Europe actually in danger of being taken over by Islam?
Why did they target Charlie Hebdo? Well, ostensibly because of the comics. But why did they kill the specific people they killed? Did they mean to? Was it simply who was there? Was Charlie Hebdo simply convenient? Were some of the members of Charlie Hebdo members of the xenophobic left, or were they right minded satirists?
Were they a sensible target given the apparent motivations of the killers? Could the killers be said to have accomplished what they wanted? What were the motivations of the killers? Did they have it strongly in mind that they were Muslim freedom fighters, or were they simply hopeless, disenfranchised, Algerian-frenchmen? Could it be both, or neither?
Questions! Questions! Endless questions! I could generate a hundred more. But why should we ask them? Because otherwise we will continue to be manipulated politically, and this cycle of violence will continue. One asks these questions not because one is callous, but because one cares.
I want to understand why the killers did what they did. I want to understand why Charlie Hebdo was target. I want to understand the causal relationship between the comics of Charlie Hebdo and the motivations of the killers. I want to understand all of this so as to understand how to prevent this from happening again. In my mind, ideology only acts to shut down these questions.
And all of this is completely independent of the fact that these Algerian-frenchman are guilty of murdering a number of people, and that they should be brought to justice.
posted by Alex404 at 4:19 AM on January 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
Gunman Takes Hostage In [Kosher] Paris Shop - Report
Again, people seem to be missing that the Hebdo attack is part of a larger pattern of terrorist attacks in Europe - the content of Hebdo is irrelevant. Like European Jewry, they were marked as 'the enemy,' and killed.
posted by rosswald at 4:57 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Again, people seem to be missing that the Hebdo attack is part of a larger pattern of terrorist attacks in Europe - the content of Hebdo is irrelevant. Like European Jewry, they were marked as 'the enemy,' and killed.
posted by rosswald at 4:57 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo killers seize hostage and are holed up in business premises near Paris airport as they tell police: 'We are ready to die as martyrs'
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:01 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:01 AM on January 9, 2015
Hear hear, Alex404. I've been following this conversation with great interest, and while the issues arouse strong feelings and some people may have overstated their cases based on misunderstandings, I'm very glad that people have been putting forward, and explaining opinions in many different directions without being cowed by accusations (between posters) of racism, ignorance, sympathising with murder, censorship, etc. I'm sure the cartoonists who were killed would approve of that.
posted by Drexen at 5:09 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drexen at 5:09 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
But why did they kill the specific people they killed? Did they mean to? Was it simply who was there? Was Charlie Hebdo simply convenient?
They specifically targeted Charlie Hebdo, specifically asked for Charb by name, shot him, and then began shooting everyone else in the room.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:11 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
They specifically targeted Charlie Hebdo, specifically asked for Charb by name, shot him, and then began shooting everyone else in the room.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:11 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
This isn't 'about' Islamophobia, or, god help us, white French racism, and my views on political Islam are probably some way out of the norm for this site. That's to give some context to the following: the simultaneous attacks, dramatic situations and florid statements are intended to create the appearance of power and of a large number of 'potential' jihadists in France/Europe. It would be a great shame to credit those boasts, considering that we're still talking about a handful of people with guns and maybe an RPG.
posted by topynate at 5:11 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by topynate at 5:11 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
And as mentioned by Alex404, New anti-terror laws coming as jihadis ‘declare war,’ Harper says. Harper clearly wants to use these events to legitimize his government's introduction of laws that attack due process and help the government spy on Canadians, and maybe score a few points in the upcoming federal election while he's at it.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:22 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:22 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Not only do I think it's unnecessary to wait a period of time before discussing these things, I think it's essential to address them while they are topical, before things settle beyond further debate.
I can understand that sentiment, and at the same time I feel that for some of us, for whom the loss may be closer to home and more personal in nature, a bit of a pause might feel kinder.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:35 AM on January 9, 2015
I can understand that sentiment, and at the same time I feel that for some of us, for whom the loss may be closer to home and more personal in nature, a bit of a pause might feel kinder.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:35 AM on January 9, 2015
Very confusing. AFP is reporting 'at least" two dead in the grocery shooting, but no other details right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 AM on January 9, 2015
Can I just say that if I hear one more time about how "trained" these amateurs were I'm going to pop a blood vessel? It takes years and millions of dollars to turn highly motivated, perfectly suited people into Green Berets or Navy SEALs. Do any of the idiots on TV really think that a couple of months on monkey bars in a Yemeni desert actually turns someone into the equivalent? How about we don't turn disaffected, fuck-up murderers into supermen?
posted by ob1quixote at 5:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 5:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Very confusing. AFP is reporting 'at least" two dead in the grocery shooting, but no other details right now
Maybe no one knows who they are? Maybe the police have already established the identities of the victims but, you know, as a courtesy, are in the process of contacting the next-of-kin first before they tell you?
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Maybe no one knows who they are? Maybe the police have already established the identities of the victims but, you know, as a courtesy, are in the process of contacting the next-of-kin first before they tell you?
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
sio42: "Charlie Hebdo attack: new hostage situation at Paris shopAccording to French police, it's the same guy who shot and killed a female cop yesterday morning, and he is connected to the brothers who attacked CH.
http://gu.com/p/44m45"
posted by brokkr at 6:10 AM on January 9, 2015
In addition to room317's links, official police twitters:
Préfecture de police
Police Nationale
GendarmerieNationale
Ministère Intérieur
And for updates by transport line for how to get home tonight as the line 1 is disrupted because of the hostage situation at Vincennes, along with 3 tramway lines.
posted by ellieBOA at 6:17 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Préfecture de police
Police Nationale
GendarmerieNationale
Ministère Intérieur
And for updates by transport line for how to get home tonight as the line 1 is disrupted because of the hostage situation at Vincennes, along with 3 tramway lines.
posted by ellieBOA at 6:17 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
According to French police, it's the same guy who shot and killed a female cop yesterday morning, and he is connected to the brothers who attacked CH.
Le Monde has a good graphic for this.
posted by ellieBOA at 6:18 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Le Monde has a good graphic for this.
posted by ellieBOA at 6:18 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
It takes years and millions of dollars to turn highly motivated, perfectly suited people into Green Berets or Navy SEALs
American boot camp is 8-12 weeks, and I think most people would call most american soldiers 'highly trained'.
posted by empath at 6:35 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
American boot camp is 8-12 weeks, and I think most people would call most american soldiers 'highly trained'.
posted by empath at 6:35 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
AP: Police order all shops closed in famed Jewish neighborhood in central Paris
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
American boot camp is 8-12 weeks, and I think most people would call most american soldiers 'highly trained'.
Not after boot camp. At best, they know how to dress, follow orders, and not kill themselves with a weapon. The USMC is the exception, you will be a marksman (at least) with a rifle after basic, but the USMC also has the longest course.
After basic, you go to a further camp for advanced training, then often another camp for your possible rate/MOS. To get an MOS 11B, which is basic infantry, takes 16 weeks. The Army and USMC have the longest basic training camps, but the USN/USAF/USCG have additional schools. Everyone in those attends an A school, some will have a B school as well.
In fact, most recruits would then go join a unit stateside and work up. Basically, it takes at least six months, often more than a year, for a US military recruit to go from Day 1 in basic to combat ready and in combat.
Not 8-12 weeks.
posted by eriko at 6:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Not after boot camp. At best, they know how to dress, follow orders, and not kill themselves with a weapon. The USMC is the exception, you will be a marksman (at least) with a rifle after basic, but the USMC also has the longest course.
After basic, you go to a further camp for advanced training, then often another camp for your possible rate/MOS. To get an MOS 11B, which is basic infantry, takes 16 weeks. The Army and USMC have the longest basic training camps, but the USN/USAF/USCG have additional schools. Everyone in those attends an A school, some will have a B school as well.
In fact, most recruits would then go join a unit stateside and work up. Basically, it takes at least six months, often more than a year, for a US military recruit to go from Day 1 in basic to combat ready and in combat.
Not 8-12 weeks.
posted by eriko at 6:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Trained" doesn't mean superhuman, or even GIGN/SEAL/etc., it just means trained. Contrast with, say, the dingdong from the Sydney Lindt attack, who was truly untrained.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
More details are emerging about Amedy Coulibaly, who is believed to be holding up to six people hostage at a kosher supermarket in eastern Paris, after being named as a suspect in the killing of a policewoman on Thursday.
He is 33 and from Juvisy-sur-Orge in Ile-de-France. According to Le Monde, Coulibaly and Chérif Kouachi – one of the suspects in the Charlie Hebdo attack – were two of the most committed followers of convicted terrorist Djamel Beghal. Telephone conversations reveal that the pair visited Beghal’s home in Murat in the south of France.
26-year-old Hayat Boumeddiene – named by police as the second suspect in the killing of the policewoman – has been Coulibaly’s partner since 2010 and lived in his home while he was serving a prison sentence, Le Monde reported.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
He is 33 and from Juvisy-sur-Orge in Ile-de-France. According to Le Monde, Coulibaly and Chérif Kouachi – one of the suspects in the Charlie Hebdo attack – were two of the most committed followers of convicted terrorist Djamel Beghal. Telephone conversations reveal that the pair visited Beghal’s home in Murat in the south of France.
26-year-old Hayat Boumeddiene – named by police as the second suspect in the killing of the policewoman – has been Coulibaly’s partner since 2010 and lived in his home while he was serving a prison sentence, Le Monde reported.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Joakim Ziegler: I'm being asked to literally say I'm the same as, are, in fact, racists, assholes, xenophobes,
You keep bringing this up, and you keep refusing to reckon with the fact that you have been wrong about the judgements you have made about them.
posted by spaltavian at 6:50 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
You keep bringing this up, and you keep refusing to reckon with the fact that you have been wrong about the judgements you have made about them.
posted by spaltavian at 6:50 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Plus you're not in fact being asked to do anything.
posted by Too-Ticky at 6:52 AM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Too-Ticky at 6:52 AM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Put another way, regarding training: their alleged training does not imply amazing abilities, but rather realistic aspirations towards basic competence and the wherewithal to seek out and follow through with such training, as well as some level of social connectedness with others in that same training scene. Contrast that with lone wolves who run amok on impulse, or who "learn" how to fight by watching YouTube videos or reading books from Paladin Press. There's no reason to construct straw men about supermen or Green Berets.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:52 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:52 AM on January 9, 2015
I'd like to apologize for the earlier "I don't care about your 'context'" comment I left. I've grown jaded from having "context" thrown at me as an excuse for people's racist bullshit for 20+ years, and misguidedly bulked Charlie Hebdo's work into that -- er -- context on a bad knee-jerk instinct.
I'm actually EN/FR bilingual and wish I'd taken more time to read and reflect before jumping in with my ham fists flailing. There was a chunk of stuff happening under the surface that I wasn't seeing.
There's still a lot there I find problematic, but it was an unfair lumping-in on my part and I apologize for it.
posted by Shepherd at 6:56 AM on January 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
I'm actually EN/FR bilingual and wish I'd taken more time to read and reflect before jumping in with my ham fists flailing. There was a chunk of stuff happening under the surface that I wasn't seeing.
There's still a lot there I find problematic, but it was an unfair lumping-in on my part and I apologize for it.
posted by Shepherd at 6:56 AM on January 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
"This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman."
"Erm, that's pretty much what it's currently looking like..."
Not in this case. These two brothers were earlier part of a cell helping to conduct fighters to Iraq, for which they were sent to prison. Now we are hearing reports that the supermarket hostage-takers are also linked to them. They are part of a network, whatever it might stand for or represent, and we cannot write them off as standalone killers.
posted by Thing at 7:01 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
"Erm, that's pretty much what it's currently looking like..."
Not in this case. These two brothers were earlier part of a cell helping to conduct fighters to Iraq, for which they were sent to prison. Now we are hearing reports that the supermarket hostage-takers are also linked to them. They are part of a network, whatever it might stand for or represent, and we cannot write them off as standalone killers.
posted by Thing at 7:01 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's going to get real complicated if Porte de Vincennes alleged Montrouge shooter and current Paris hostage taker demands the Brothers Kourachi (currently holed up in Picardie) be given free passage.
Also, for English-language France 24 (streaming online)...
posted by Mister Bijou at 7:03 AM on January 9, 2015
Also, for English-language France 24 (streaming online)...
posted by Mister Bijou at 7:03 AM on January 9, 2015
I'm grimly amused by the fact that nobody is surprised at the fact that Islamist terrorists would attack (what appears to be) some random kosher supermarket and kill random Jews. We're not getting any debate over their motives in this instance.
Tablet Magazine reports
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:36 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Tablet Magazine reports
Kosher supermarkets in Paris have become something of a symbol in recent years. A kosher supermarket in Sarcelles, a heavily Jewish suburb of Paris, was targeted with explosive device in 2012 in the wake of Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. This summer, as anti-Israel—and anti-Semitic—sentiment flared in France during the Israeli operation in Gaza, a kosher grocery was set on fire during a riot in Sarcelles.Because of course.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:36 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
I await the comments speculating whether the deli hostages were provoking Islamist terrorists by shopping at a kosher market.
posted by desjardins at 7:39 AM on January 9, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 7:39 AM on January 9, 2015 [31 favorites]
It's going to get real complicated if Porte de Vincennes alleged Montrouge shooter and current Paris hostage taker demands the Brothers Kourachi (currently holed up in Picardie) be given free passage.
This is exactly what is now being reported in the Guardian.
posted by Thing at 7:42 AM on January 9, 2015
This is exactly what is now being reported in the Guardian.
posted by Thing at 7:42 AM on January 9, 2015
Clearly they were "punching down"
posted by rosswald at 7:42 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rosswald at 7:42 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
RT: French municipal-websites hacked, replaced with ISIS flag
@Zohra_K: From ISIS with love: French nationals who joined ISIS send messages to Muslims in France, "If you are unable to come to Sham or Iraq, then pledge allegiance in your place - pledge allegiance in France. ... There are weapons and cars available and targets ready to be hit. ... Even poison is available,so poison the water & food of at least one of the enemies of Allah."
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:42 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
@Zohra_K: From ISIS with love: French nationals who joined ISIS send messages to Muslims in France, "If you are unable to come to Sham or Iraq, then pledge allegiance in your place - pledge allegiance in France. ... There are weapons and cars available and targets ready to be hit. ... Even poison is available,so poison the water & food of at least one of the enemies of Allah."
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:42 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Danish newspaper says won't print Prophet cartoons
Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which angered Muslims by publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad 10 years ago, will not republish Charlie Hebdo's cartoons due to security concerns, the only major Danish newspaper not to do so.posted by Joe in Australia at 7:43 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
"It shows that violence works," the newspaper stated in its editorial on Friday.
Denmark's other major newspapers have all republished cartoons from the French satirical weekly as part of the coverage of the attack which killed 12 people in Paris on Wednesday.
Many other European newspapers also republished Charlie Hebdo cartoons to protest against the killings.
When Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons by various artists in September 2005, most of which depict the Prophet Mohammad, it sparked a wave of protests across the Muslim world in which at least 50 people died.
"We have lived with the fear of a terrorist attack for nine years, and yes, that is the explanation why we do not reprint the cartoons, whether it be our own or Charlie Hebdo’s," Jyllands-Posten said. "We are also aware that we therefore bow to violence and intimidation."
Jyllands-Posten decided to tighten its security level in the wake of the Paris attack.
"The concern for our employees’ safety is paramount," it said in Friday's editorial.
At least they're honest about why they're doing it.
posted by desjardins at 7:45 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 7:45 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Sticherbeast: “"Trained" doesn't mean superhuman, or even GIGN/SEAL/etc., it just means trained. Contrast with, say, the dingdong from the Sydney Lindt attack, who was truly untrained.”Indeed, among people who understand the meaning of the word. I lasted less then five minutes this morning listening to supposition about how these two idiots were highly disciplined, precision killers with the kinds of knowledge and training usually attributed to elite commando units.
Sticherbeast: “There's no reason to construct straw men about supermen or Green Berets.”Tell that to the people on the news.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:46 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Cartoonists from the muslim world respond.
posted by empath at 7:54 AM on January 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by empath at 7:54 AM on January 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
We don't know anything at this point, so **any** argument about their training or lack of it is a straw man argument.
That said, the attack on Charlie Hebdo reminds me of David Headley, who helped plan the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008. In 2009 he performed a similar mission in Copenhagen to help plan a potential attack against the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which had published cartoons of Muhammad.
So it is not inconceivable that the two alleged attackers did receive training and support, especially in light of the fact that there seems to be a connection between the second shooting of the day - that shooter has apparently taken hostages in support of the two alleged assailants.
posted by Nevin at 7:55 AM on January 9, 2015
That said, the attack on Charlie Hebdo reminds me of David Headley, who helped plan the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008. In 2009 he performed a similar mission in Copenhagen to help plan a potential attack against the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which had published cartoons of Muhammad.
So it is not inconceivable that the two alleged attackers did receive training and support, especially in light of the fact that there seems to be a connection between the second shooting of the day - that shooter has apparently taken hostages in support of the two alleged assailants.
posted by Nevin at 7:55 AM on January 9, 2015
More than 80,000 personnels are
Ahh, Grauniad, don't ever change.
posted by eriko at 7:57 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ahh, Grauniad, don't ever change.
posted by eriko at 7:57 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Neighbour says suspects in Paris shooting had ‘cache of arms’
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:13 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:13 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
France 24 is reporting the 6 hostages at the supermarket are dead...
posted by just another scurvy brother at 8:20 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by just another scurvy brother at 8:20 AM on January 9, 2015
France 24 just reported (unconfirmed) that the six hostages at the kosher supermarket are dead. Hoping it's not true.
posted by theodolite at 8:21 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by theodolite at 8:21 AM on January 9, 2015
Neighbour says suspects in Paris shooting had ‘cache of arms’
That is a seriously disturbing article. It suggests a total rupture in relations between the gunmen's community and the state, with considerable stress on those with the wider secular community.
posted by topynate at 8:21 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
That is a seriously disturbing article. It suggests a total rupture in relations between the gunmen's community and the state, with considerable stress on those with the wider secular community.
posted by topynate at 8:21 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh, god. I think I need a break from following this.
posted by topynate at 8:22 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by topynate at 8:22 AM on January 9, 2015
Some other press suggesting that the CH shooters are dead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:22 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:22 AM on January 9, 2015
Agence France-Press is reporting several hostages freed, CH shooters dead.
posted by malocchio at 8:24 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by malocchio at 8:24 AM on January 9, 2015
Le Monde is reporting the supermarket hostage taker is dead.
Edit - it looks like the hostages are alive, although one looks injured.
posted by bh at 8:26 AM on January 9, 2015
Edit - it looks like the hostages are alive, although one looks injured.
posted by bh at 8:26 AM on January 9, 2015
AFP: Several hostages freed at Jewish supermarket in Paris. Photo Thomas Samson #AFP
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:28 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:28 AM on January 9, 2015
Good job, French police!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:34 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:34 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
France 24 reporting confirmed reports from police that all hostages are alive at both scenes, and all hostage-takers are dead.
posted by rollbiz at 8:34 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by rollbiz at 8:34 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wow. That's a wonderful outcome. Praise to the French .
posted by Thing at 8:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Thing at 8:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
À la prochaine fois.
posted by Flashman at 8:40 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Flashman at 8:40 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Teach me to believe the first reports. That's top work by the French in an extremely difficult situation.
posted by topynate at 8:41 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by topynate at 8:41 AM on January 9, 2015
magnifique!
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:44 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:44 AM on January 9, 2015
On France 2 online (in French) they just said that (a) one of the hostages at the Porte-de-Vincennes site (the kosher market) was in touch with the police by phone and (b) the police were able to use the market's security cameras to assist in determining the location of the hostage-takers.
posted by faux ami at 8:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by faux ami at 8:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
À la prochaine fois.
Yeah, this is never truly going to end, is it.
posted by malocchio at 8:46 AM on January 9, 2015
Yeah, this is never truly going to end, is it.
posted by malocchio at 8:46 AM on January 9, 2015
I wonder if there is any working relationship between the printing press in Dammartin-en-Goele and Charlie Hebdo. Seems a little too coincidental for my taste.
posted by malocchio at 8:54 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by malocchio at 8:54 AM on January 9, 2015
I wonder if there is any working relationship between the printing press
The "printing press" makes signs and exhibition stands.
posted by Mister Bijou at 8:59 AM on January 9, 2015
The "printing press" makes signs and exhibition stands.
posted by Mister Bijou at 8:59 AM on January 9, 2015
Le Monde, cautious as ever, relays that the (now deceased) aggressor at Porte de Vincennes has not yet been formally identified.
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:02 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:02 AM on January 9, 2015
Reuters, citing a "police source," now reports that at least four hostages at the Paris grocer have been killed.
. . . .
posted by dogurthr at 9:05 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
. . . .
posted by dogurthr at 9:05 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
France 24 (in French) is now reporting at least 4 dead hostages in Porte de Vincennes and Le Monde is saying that there were several deaths among the hostages there according to police sources but they don't say how many.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 9:05 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 9:05 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Heh:
@Kgthetweet: "After the death of two jihadi terrorists in Paris, all flags were halved in Turkey's AKP headquarters."
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:06 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
@Kgthetweet: "After the death of two jihadi terrorists in Paris, all flags were halved in Turkey's AKP headquarters."
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:06 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
France 24 now reporting 4 hostages dead. Le Monde reports there are deaths but is not yet in a position to announce number.
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:07 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:07 AM on January 9, 2015
. . . .
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:08 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:08 AM on January 9, 2015
LeMonde.fr: François Hollande interviendra à la télévision à 20 heures, annonce l'Elysée.
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:09 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:09 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
(FWIW, it's 6:10 currently in Paris, so about 2 hours from now)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:10 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:10 AM on January 9, 2015
Apologies for my erroneous post above. I only posted it because France 24 said they had confirmed reports.
posted by rollbiz at 9:11 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by rollbiz at 9:11 AM on January 9, 2015
Not your fault, rollbiz. The message changed.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 9:13 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 9:13 AM on January 9, 2015
The article by Hari Kunzru that Mister Bijou linked to above is amazingly good. You should read it. Everyone in this thread should read it, and maybe think about it a bit.
I'd like to quote another chunk of it:
I'd like to quote another chunk of it:
Multiculturalism, drones, Guantánamo, the inherent viciousness of Islam, the inherent viciousness of religion more generally. Take your pick, whichever one suits your politics, whatever tin drum you want to bang on.posted by nangar at 9:14 AM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Just don’t bang it near me. I don’t want to read about how “we’re all” anything, because wishing away complexity is inadequate and juvenile. I want to hear no talk about cracking down on anyone or tightening anything up. We have cracked and tightened for a decade and a half and all we have to show for it is a bloated, unaccountable security state that is eroding the cherished freedoms we claim to be so eager to protect.
... The caricature of the jihadi as a medieval throwback, animated by ancient passions, may be comforting to those who would like to wrap themselves in the mantle of civilisation and pose as heirs of Voltaire, but as a way of actually understanding anything, it’s feeble. Understanding is the very least we owe the dead.
In 2014, the second largest source of Jewish emigrees to Israel was Ukraine - a country mired in war. Can you guess what the largest source of emigrants was: 2014 also marked the first year ever in which France topped the list of countries of origin for immigrants to Israel, with nearly 7,000 new immigrants in 2014, double the 3,400 who came in 2013.
Something tells me this trend will accelerate further.
posted by rosswald at 9:16 AM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Something tells me this trend will accelerate further.
posted by rosswald at 9:16 AM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
"How we fit in each others world" -
Joe Sacco: "On Satire – a response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The acclaimed graphic artist and journalist Joe Sacco on the limits of satire – and what it means if Muslims don’t find it funny. "
posted by Rumple at 9:22 AM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Joe Sacco: "On Satire – a response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The acclaimed graphic artist and journalist Joe Sacco on the limits of satire – and what it means if Muslims don’t find it funny. "
posted by Rumple at 9:22 AM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Geez. Now there seems to be a hostage situation down in Montpellier though it appears to be a jewelry heist gone awry and not connected to the events of this week.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 9:24 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 9:24 AM on January 9, 2015
While I enjoyed Joe Sacco's artwork, it does not seem that he understands that CH is not a racist magazine. That they would not harbour an anti-semite is not a double standard, which he appears to suggest.
posted by bouvin at 9:34 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by bouvin at 9:34 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Something tells me this trend will accelerate further.
Yes, Jews in France have been feeling threatened for years. Synagogues and Jewish schools have multiple levels of security, community members are trained in anti-terrorism techniques (not that it helped them this time), visitors are warned against wearing identifiably Jewish clothes. But you can't disguise every Jewish business or institution; you can't always hide from your neighbours; and - despite official pronouncements - France is not sympathetic to Jews as a community. This is probably because of the whole secularism business, but the reason isn't really important: the anti-Semites aren't secular.
So I totally understand why French Jews are leaving. It's like Berlin in the 1920s: lots of official expressions of concern, but things just keep getting worse.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:35 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yes, Jews in France have been feeling threatened for years. Synagogues and Jewish schools have multiple levels of security, community members are trained in anti-terrorism techniques (not that it helped them this time), visitors are warned against wearing identifiably Jewish clothes. But you can't disguise every Jewish business or institution; you can't always hide from your neighbours; and - despite official pronouncements - France is not sympathetic to Jews as a community. This is probably because of the whole secularism business, but the reason isn't really important: the anti-Semites aren't secular.
So I totally understand why French Jews are leaving. It's like Berlin in the 1920s: lots of official expressions of concern, but things just keep getting worse.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:35 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
While I enjoyed Joe Sacco's artwork, it does not seem that he understands that CH is not a racist magazine. That they would not harbour an anti-semite is not a double standard, which he appears to suggest.
Yeah, I didn't quite understand Sacco's response here. He also seems to be embracing the "clash of civilizations" narrative.
posted by Nevin at 9:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I didn't quite understand Sacco's response here. He also seems to be embracing the "clash of civilizations" narrative.
posted by Nevin at 9:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Guardian reports that the Charlie Hebdo suspects have been killed.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:39 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:39 AM on January 9, 2015
Head of Hezbollah says that extremists do more damage to islam than cartoonists
posted by empath at 9:40 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by empath at 9:40 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm kind of expecting his racist caricatures to be clipped out from the rest of the strip and then reposted somewhere with his name on them.
posted by ODiV at 9:41 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by ODiV at 9:41 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Despite its nicely problematic ending, I'm not comfortable with the language in Sacco's second to last panel ("What is it about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image").
Interestingly, though also sadly, it seems to be mirrored by a phrase (that makes me similarly uneasy) in the must-read report from the Kouachi's neighborhood: “I want Charlie Hebdo to continue to work,” [Mr. Ali] said. “Charlie Hebdo doesn’t worry me. But I hope they will change a little the way they present Islam, and that they can understand that we can’t laugh at everything. That there are limits to humour.”
Truly, there is a chasm of understanding that needs to be bridged/filled/crossed...
posted by progosk at 9:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Interestingly, though also sadly, it seems to be mirrored by a phrase (that makes me similarly uneasy) in the must-read report from the Kouachi's neighborhood: “I want Charlie Hebdo to continue to work,” [Mr. Ali] said. “Charlie Hebdo doesn’t worry me. But I hope they will change a little the way they present Islam, and that they can understand that we can’t laugh at everything. That there are limits to humour.”
Truly, there is a chasm of understanding that needs to be bridged/filled/crossed...
posted by progosk at 9:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
visitors are warned against wearing identifiably Jewish clothes.
Uggggghhhhhhhhh. Once again, you have the freedom to do stuff, but you know, you could be attacked for it so why don't you not do it, 'kay? Yikes.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:52 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Uggggghhhhhhhhh. Once again, you have the freedom to do stuff, but you know, you could be attacked for it so why don't you not do it, 'kay? Yikes.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:52 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's sensible advice. Not giving it would be inexcusable. My brother wore a baseball cap in Paris for an entire year. It's just the smart thing to do in some situations.
posted by topynate at 9:56 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by topynate at 9:56 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's sensible advice.
Well, there's:
1) How should people behave if they, as individuals, want to be safe in a dangerous place.
2) How people should be able to behave, in a just society.
The problem is when people think that the behavior described in the first case is how people ought to behave, and that they've done something wrong if they don't.
posted by empath at 10:05 AM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Well, there's:
1) How should people behave if they, as individuals, want to be safe in a dangerous place.
2) How people should be able to behave, in a just society.
The problem is when people think that the behavior described in the first case is how people ought to behave, and that they've done something wrong if they don't.
posted by empath at 10:05 AM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Joe Sacco is basically repeating Wikileak's slur from a couple of days ago:
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:07 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Jan 8 How the Jewish pro-censorship lobby legitimized attacks on Carlie Hebdo for "offensive" speech http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html … #CharlieHebdoI don't think the facts support the allegation that "the Jewish lobby" (or even "Jews") got Sinet fired, but that's not really the point. There's this whole undertone of "it's OK to attack Muslims and the Jews are behind it". That's reprehensible, and actually rather frightening.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:07 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
AFP: It was not immediately clear if the casualties occurred during the assault or earlier in the siege, nor whether a second hostage-taker was among the dead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:08 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:08 AM on January 9, 2015
That there are limits to humour.
Too soon! Bah to that. Boo.
posted by raysmj at 10:09 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Too soon! Bah to that. Boo.
posted by raysmj at 10:09 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
@b_judah: "Today I am wearing my kippah outside for Paris where Jews no longer feel it safe to do so."
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:12 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:12 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Joe Sacco is basically repeating Wikileak's slur from a couple of days ago:
That's not at all how I read it. I read it as a simple affirmation that CH was not a racist or anti-Semitic organization and that they had no tolerance for actual, vs. satirical, anti-Semitism. Your information is interesting context though, thanks.
posted by Rumple at 10:12 AM on January 9, 2015
I'm not comfortable with the language in Sacco's second to last panel ("What is it about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image").
Not to defend a piece which I strongly disagree with overall, but the image he accompanies that with is one which is very hard to laugh off, particularly, one supposes, if you're a Muslim.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:15 AM on January 9, 2015
Not to defend a piece which I strongly disagree with overall, but the image he accompanies that with is one which is very hard to laugh off, particularly, one supposes, if you're a Muslim.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:15 AM on January 9, 2015
Well that's the point... he's sarcastically saying "huh, I wonder what they could possibly be upset about?" As I've said before, I don't draw a line between images-offensive-to-Muslims and terrorism, but I certainly do understand why they're offended in the first place.
posted by desjardins at 10:20 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 10:20 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
i would just like to thank everyone participating in this thread, from an anglophone muslim.
posted by cendawanita at 10:26 AM on January 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 10:26 AM on January 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yeah, desjardins, I made that comment because progosk referred to the language without the image but you're right, that doesn't make it better. It's a messy, vaguely manipulative confusion of issues that really doesn't shed any light.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:28 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:28 AM on January 9, 2015
I'm not comfortable with the language in Sacco's second to last panel ("What is it about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image").
Did Charlie Hebdo ever make light of Abu Graib (referenced in the second-to-last panel of Sacco's strip)? I recall that the alleged shooters were motivated by Abu Graib to begin their extremist activities.
posted by Nevin at 10:29 AM on January 9, 2015
Did Charlie Hebdo ever make light of Abu Graib (referenced in the second-to-last panel of Sacco's strip)? I recall that the alleged shooters were motivated by Abu Graib to begin their extremist activities.
posted by Nevin at 10:29 AM on January 9, 2015
Every time this happens, there are calls for Muslim organizations to denounce the actions (usually accompanied by a lot of complaining about the fact that they are asked to do so). Every time some do. And yet, there must exist a significant number of Muslims who seem to believe that this action is somehow warranted as evidenced by the fact of their occurring.
I wonder where they're getting the encouragement?
posted by rr at 10:29 AM on January 9, 2015
I wonder where they're getting the encouragement?
posted by rr at 10:29 AM on January 9, 2015
Thanks for the thanks cendawanita, and here's a random hug from an internet stranger if you want it. We could all use one, I think.
posted by kelborel at 10:31 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by kelborel at 10:31 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Are we really Charlie Hebdo? - We do not value our freedom to express ourselves enough
Understanding Politics in the Arab World through Naji Al-Ali’s Cartoons
Naji Al-Ali, an influential Palestinian political cartoonist, was assassinated by a double agent for the PLO and Mossad.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Understanding Politics in the Arab World through Naji Al-Ali’s Cartoons
Naji Al-Ali, an influential Palestinian political cartoonist, was assassinated by a double agent for the PLO and Mossad.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'm not comfortable with the language in Sacco's second to last panel ("What is it about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image").
Not to defend a piece which I strongly disagree with overall, but the image he accompanies that with is one which is very hard to laugh off, particularly, one supposes, if you're a Muslim.
All concentrated on the text, I actually missed the visual double-entendre (so-to-speak): the image that "muslims are unable to laugh off" I thought was referred to the cartoons at the origin of the CH attack - while the image of the panel, the Abu Ghraib picture, is 1. part of a series of images that had reportedly pushed one of the Kouachi's to extremism, and 2. is about as far from a laughing matter for anyone of Muslim or any other faith or mores as is imaginable. So, nicely played, image-wise, Joe; still uneasy about his take on CH's motives, though...
posted by progosk at 10:42 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not to defend a piece which I strongly disagree with overall, but the image he accompanies that with is one which is very hard to laugh off, particularly, one supposes, if you're a Muslim.
All concentrated on the text, I actually missed the visual double-entendre (so-to-speak): the image that "muslims are unable to laugh off" I thought was referred to the cartoons at the origin of the CH attack - while the image of the panel, the Abu Ghraib picture, is 1. part of a series of images that had reportedly pushed one of the Kouachi's to extremism, and 2. is about as far from a laughing matter for anyone of Muslim or any other faith or mores as is imaginable. So, nicely played, image-wise, Joe; still uneasy about his take on CH's motives, though...
posted by progosk at 10:42 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Every time this happens, there are calls for Muslim organizations to denounce the actions (usually accompanied by a lot of complaining about the fact that they are asked to do so).
Quite honestly, I haven't come across these calls in the media I consume (centrist stuff like the Globe and Mail and the Guardian) or in my social media feed (populated by Marxists, libertarians, social conservatives, D&D geeks, computer engineers, librarians, lawyers, journalists, people from Pakistan, the US, Britain, Malaysia, Australia, Brazil, etc). I really haven't.
I am hard-pressed to find it in this thread.
The main talking point seems to be the "clash of civilizations", a monolithic Islamic culture vs. an equally monolithic Enlightenment/post-colonial culture.
Joe Sacco himself is using this dichotomy, as if the shooters seemed to represent Muslim rage.
posted by Nevin at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Quite honestly, I haven't come across these calls in the media I consume (centrist stuff like the Globe and Mail and the Guardian) or in my social media feed (populated by Marxists, libertarians, social conservatives, D&D geeks, computer engineers, librarians, lawyers, journalists, people from Pakistan, the US, Britain, Malaysia, Australia, Brazil, etc). I really haven't.
I am hard-pressed to find it in this thread.
The main talking point seems to be the "clash of civilizations", a monolithic Islamic culture vs. an equally monolithic Enlightenment/post-colonial culture.
Joe Sacco himself is using this dichotomy, as if the shooters seemed to represent Muslim rage.
posted by Nevin at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
And yet, there must exist a significant number of Muslims who seem to believe that this action is somehow warranted as evidenced by the fact of their occurring.
"Must"? Based on what? Why would you need a "significant" number? The fact that they are occurring only tells you that some Muslims are willing do carry out attacks such as that.
Like any group of people, I suspect that a significant number of Muslims are really just focused on their own lives and families.
posted by spaltavian at 10:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Must"? Based on what? Why would you need a "significant" number? The fact that they are occurring only tells you that some Muslims are willing do carry out attacks such as that.
Like any group of people, I suspect that a significant number of Muslims are really just focused on their own lives and families.
posted by spaltavian at 10:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
shivohum: "We do need to wake up to the fact that there is a movement—a very lethal movement, very cruel—that has a political vision about how the world should be organized and how society should live. And in order for them to realize their vision, they are willing to use any means. They are willing to use violence. They are willing to use terror."
How beautifully vague and what a lovely wide net it casts.
posted by symbioid at 10:52 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
How beautifully vague and what a lovely wide net it casts.
posted by symbioid at 10:52 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nevin: "Quite honestly, I haven't come across these calls in the media I consume (centrist stuff like the Globe and Mail and the Guardian)"
I reported upthread a couple days ago how I heard this as the opening question on the "respectable" BBC as the opener to a Muslim spokesdude. So - yes it happens, and on "centrist"/corporate, etc... media. I sure would hope it's not coming from leftist publications, but from the center? Yes, it happens all the time. And it's tiring.
posted by symbioid at 10:54 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I reported upthread a couple days ago how I heard this as the opening question on the "respectable" BBC as the opener to a Muslim spokesdude. So - yes it happens, and on "centrist"/corporate, etc... media. I sure would hope it's not coming from leftist publications, but from the center? Yes, it happens all the time. And it's tiring.
posted by symbioid at 10:54 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
That is a seriously disturbing article. It suggests a total rupture in relations between the gunmen's community and the state, with considerable stress on those with the wider secular community.
That seems like the crucial issue to me. It takes a profound degree of alienation to go out and commit a mass murder. We need to understand that alienation and figure out how to undo it.
posted by twirlip at 10:55 AM on January 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
That seems like the crucial issue to me. It takes a profound degree of alienation to go out and commit a mass murder. We need to understand that alienation and figure out how to undo it.
The two lead suspects, we are told, are second-generation French Algerians. They were both raised as wards of the French state after they were orphaned, both ended up poor and unemployed. That much is an old story: the way in which France has imported labour from the former colonies and then dumped them on the unemployment rolls and in the banlieues when they were no longer required. They both went to the same mosque in the Stalingrad quarter when they turned 20, in around 2003: the same year in which the Woolwich killers began to have contact with a British Islamist sect. Here, a familiar logic of proselytism seems to have played out, as their acquaintance with Benyettou - only a year older than them - provided them with a sense of comradeship, worth and moral purpose. They gave up drugs and tobacco, soon began fitness and armaments training, and by 2005 were being trained in Salafi schools before crossing the border to join the Iraqi insurgency.Those are the sort of questions we should be asking, but they get buried in the rush to frame these killings in simplistic us-against-them, clash-of-values terms.
So, here are some obvious questions to start with. What is it about the lived experience of being a working class second-generation French Algerian Muslim at the margins of society that might lead to Salafist ideology making some degree of sense? What is it about the structures of global politics that the jihadi mentality can make some sense of? What is it about the nature of French politics, and particularly working class politics in the suburbs, which means that this section of the working class is somewhere that religious reactionaries can recruit? What is it about this strain of Islamist politics, its history, its patterns of organising that would appeal to detached, marginal, racially oppressed French Muslims? What is it about fighting a guerilla war against an occupying force in Iraq that may have killed around a million people, both directly and through General Petraeus's trained death squads, that would consolidate and 'radicalise' the jihadi politics of those involved? And what kind of strategic impasse would lead to them brutally lashing out at two, what I must imagine are utterly peripheral targets from their perspective: a satirical publication ... and a kosher supermarket? (source)
posted by twirlip at 10:55 AM on January 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
"it's OK to attack Muslims and the Jews are behind it".
The Interational Business Times published an Op-Ed yesterday: Charlie Hebdo Attack and Mossad Link: Is Israel Venting Its Fury For France's Recognition of Palestine State? (archived version)
At least they took it down and apologized, but still.
posted by rosswald at 10:55 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
The Interational Business Times published an Op-Ed yesterday: Charlie Hebdo Attack and Mossad Link: Is Israel Venting Its Fury For France's Recognition of Palestine State? (archived version)
At least they took it down and apologized, but still.
posted by rosswald at 10:55 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
French TV station BFM spoke with suspects Cherif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly earlier today during the sieges in Vincennes and Dammartin, Jon Henley reports from Paris.
During the conversation, Kouachi said he was “sent by al-Qaida in Yemen” – as was Coulibaly the hostage taker at the grocery shop in Vincennes, who was also contacted by BFM.
Coulibaly said that he had 16 hostages and had killed four.
He also confirmed he had targeted the kosher grocery shop because “it was Jewish”.
posted by feste at 10:56 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
During the conversation, Kouachi said he was “sent by al-Qaida in Yemen” – as was Coulibaly the hostage taker at the grocery shop in Vincennes, who was also contacted by BFM.
Coulibaly said that he had 16 hostages and had killed four.
He also confirmed he had targeted the kosher grocery shop because “it was Jewish”.
posted by feste at 10:56 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not that I'm opposed to IBT taking down the op-ed, but, I find it ironic, that in a discussion about "free speech" and "fear of offending people" that we have an instance here of a (shitty) "news" outlet publishing a bunch of tripe, pulling something for fear of offending someone.
posted by symbioid at 11:02 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by symbioid at 11:02 AM on January 9, 2015
Hollande: Was an anti-semitic attack. But these fanatics have nothing to do with Islam or religion
posted by Nevin at 11:02 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by Nevin at 11:02 AM on January 9, 2015
We do need to wake up to the fact that there is a movement—a very lethal movement, very cruel—that has a political vision about how the world should be organized and how society should live. And in order for them to realize their vision, they are willing to use any means. They are willing to use violence. They are willing to use terror.
I honestly can't tell if this is satire and later in the thread you're going to pop in and say "The Republican Party" or "pro-lifers" or "the NY police department" or some other appropriate gotcha.
posted by maxsparber at 11:03 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
I honestly can't tell if this is satire and later in the thread you're going to pop in and say "The Republican Party" or "pro-lifers" or "the NY police department" or some other appropriate gotcha.
posted by maxsparber at 11:03 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Republicans aren't killing Jewish primary-school children or beheading soldiers in the street.
posted by rosswald at 11:05 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by rosswald at 11:05 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Two pieces I enjoyed reading today that I think haven't been posted yet:
On Debating Dead Moral Questions
"That’s what’s happening today in regards to the terrorist attacks in France. We are having a series of loud, impassioned, righteous conversations about questions like 'Should people murder?' and 'Should we have the right to publish cartoons?' We’re debating, in other words, dead moral questions, and for the same reason we always do: because that debate allows us to ignore the ones that might lead us to a different place than the celebration of our own liberal righteousness. To read the people writing about this attack, this is the fundamental question at hand: were these killings OK? If that were actually a moral question worth asking, then it would provoke disagreement. And yet I see no disagreement. None at all."
Why I Am Not Charlie
"To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them. This is true on the simplest level: I cannot occupy someone else’s selfhood, share someone else’s death. This is also true on a moral level: I cannot appropriate the dangers they faced or the suffering they underwent, I cannot colonize their experience, and it is arrogant to make out that I can. It wouldn’t be necessary to say this, except the flood of hashtags and avatars and social-media posturing proclaiming #JeSuisCharlie overwhelms distinctions and elides the point...In real life, solidarity takes many forms, almost all of them hard. This kind of low-cost, risk-free, E-Z solidarity is only possible in a social-media age, where you can strike a pose and somebody sees it on their timeline for 15 seconds and then they move on and it’s forgotten except for the feeling of accomplishment it gave you. Solidarity is hard because it isn’t about imaginary identifications, it’s about struggling across the canyon of not being someone else: it’s about recognizing, for instance, that somebody died because they were different from you, in what they did or believed or were or wore, not because they were the same...I am offended when those already oppressed in a society are deliberately insulted. I don’t want to participate. This crime in Paris does not suspend my political or ethical judgment, or persuade me that scatologically smearing a marginal minority’s identity and beliefs is a reasonable thing to do. Yet this means rejecting the only authorized reaction to the atrocity."
posted by naoko at 11:06 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
On Debating Dead Moral Questions
"That’s what’s happening today in regards to the terrorist attacks in France. We are having a series of loud, impassioned, righteous conversations about questions like 'Should people murder?' and 'Should we have the right to publish cartoons?' We’re debating, in other words, dead moral questions, and for the same reason we always do: because that debate allows us to ignore the ones that might lead us to a different place than the celebration of our own liberal righteousness. To read the people writing about this attack, this is the fundamental question at hand: were these killings OK? If that were actually a moral question worth asking, then it would provoke disagreement. And yet I see no disagreement. None at all."
Why I Am Not Charlie
"To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them. This is true on the simplest level: I cannot occupy someone else’s selfhood, share someone else’s death. This is also true on a moral level: I cannot appropriate the dangers they faced or the suffering they underwent, I cannot colonize their experience, and it is arrogant to make out that I can. It wouldn’t be necessary to say this, except the flood of hashtags and avatars and social-media posturing proclaiming #JeSuisCharlie overwhelms distinctions and elides the point...In real life, solidarity takes many forms, almost all of them hard. This kind of low-cost, risk-free, E-Z solidarity is only possible in a social-media age, where you can strike a pose and somebody sees it on their timeline for 15 seconds and then they move on and it’s forgotten except for the feeling of accomplishment it gave you. Solidarity is hard because it isn’t about imaginary identifications, it’s about struggling across the canyon of not being someone else: it’s about recognizing, for instance, that somebody died because they were different from you, in what they did or believed or were or wore, not because they were the same...I am offended when those already oppressed in a society are deliberately insulted. I don’t want to participate. This crime in Paris does not suspend my political or ethical judgment, or persuade me that scatologically smearing a marginal minority’s identity and beliefs is a reasonable thing to do. Yet this means rejecting the only authorized reaction to the atrocity."
posted by naoko at 11:06 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I honestly can't tell if this is satire and later in the thread you're going to pop in
If Ayaan Hirsi Ali shows up on MetaFilter to reveal that her whole political position is a long-running satiric gag, well, I'm all for it.
posted by RogerB at 11:08 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
If Ayaan Hirsi Ali shows up on MetaFilter to reveal that her whole political position is a long-running satiric gag, well, I'm all for it.
posted by RogerB at 11:08 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Republicans aren't killing Jewish primary-school children or beheading soldiers in the street.
No. Just making war.
posted by maxsparber at 11:13 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
No. Just making war.
posted by maxsparber at 11:13 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Forgive the pedantry and to some extent it's beside the point, but I can't stick it any longer: damn near every article linked perpetuates the same missatribution.
It wasn't Voltaire who said it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:15 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
It wasn't Voltaire who said it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:15 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Quite honestly, I haven't come across these calls in the media I consume (centrist stuff like the Globe and Mail and the Guardian)
Surprisingly, I heard an instance of this just this morning on NPR. Renee Montagne asked Madjid Messaoudene (city council member from a Paris suburb) -- "What has been said among the Muslim community in terms of condemning these attacks?"
Messaoudene to his credit immediately responded, "I'm not comfortable with the idea that we have to ask the Muslim people to prove that they are condemning what happened, to prove that they are against violence, to prove that they are for democracy."
(Also noting that Montagne stumbled over Messaoudene's name when introducing the piece, which is a pretty unprofessional start to the whole thing. You can do better, NPR.)
posted by aught at 11:16 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Surprisingly, I heard an instance of this just this morning on NPR. Renee Montagne asked Madjid Messaoudene (city council member from a Paris suburb) -- "What has been said among the Muslim community in terms of condemning these attacks?"
Messaoudene to his credit immediately responded, "I'm not comfortable with the idea that we have to ask the Muslim people to prove that they are condemning what happened, to prove that they are against violence, to prove that they are for democracy."
(Also noting that Montagne stumbled over Messaoudene's name when introducing the piece, which is a pretty unprofessional start to the whole thing. You can do better, NPR.)
posted by aught at 11:16 AM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
>Republicans aren't killing Jewish primary-school children or beheading soldiers in the street.
No. Just making war.
To be fair, it's American Democratic President Obama's administration that has had its finger on the drone trigger etc for the past 6 years, not a Republican Congress.
posted by Nevin at 11:16 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
No. Just making war.
To be fair, it's American Democratic President Obama's administration that has had its finger on the drone trigger etc for the past 6 years, not a Republican Congress.
posted by Nevin at 11:16 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
persuade me that scatologically smearing a marginal minority’s identity and beliefs is a reasonable thing to do.
Does that apply to the religious right in the US?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:17 AM on January 9, 2015
Does that apply to the religious right in the US?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:17 AM on January 9, 2015
Sure. Obama could have been one of the gotchas as well. They all work.
posted by maxsparber at 11:17 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 11:17 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Art Is Free: Responses to Charlie Hebdo (Atlantic)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:19 AM on January 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:19 AM on January 9, 2015
On Debating Dead Moral Questions
I'm struggling to understand what the point of this article is. It seems as though the writer is saying, "When people transgress our values and priciples, why do we feel the need to restate our values and principles?" Well, duh.
posted by Thing at 11:24 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm struggling to understand what the point of this article is. It seems as though the writer is saying, "When people transgress our values and priciples, why do we feel the need to restate our values and principles?" Well, duh.
posted by Thing at 11:24 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
BFM TV managed to get an interview with Cherif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly this afternoon, so disturbing. (In french)
posted by ellieBOA at 11:28 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by ellieBOA at 11:28 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm struggling to understand what the point of this article is. It seems as though the writer is saying, "When people transgress our values and priciples, why do we feel the need to restate our values and principles?" Well, duh.
The other problem I had with that article is he insists it's self-evident that world will not hesitate to go to war to prevent another holocaust; and from the context he doesn't seem to limit that to a Jewish one, but a holocaust more generally. To which I say, tell it to the Rwandans, among others.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:28 AM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
The other problem I had with that article is he insists it's self-evident that world will not hesitate to go to war to prevent another holocaust; and from the context he doesn't seem to limit that to a Jewish one, but a holocaust more generally. To which I say, tell it to the Rwandans, among others.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:28 AM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Someone explain to me what that kosher supermarket and its patrons could have done to be less offensive.
posted by monospace at 11:29 AM on January 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by monospace at 11:29 AM on January 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
It seems as though the writer is saying, "When people transgress our values and priciples, why do we feel the need to restate our values and principles?"
I think the point is not that we shouldn't restate our values and principles, but that insisting that this be the only thing we say prevents us from having some really important conversations about more difficult stuff.
The other problem I had with that article is he insists it's self-evident that world will not hesitate to go to war to prevent another holocaust; and from the context he doesn't seem to limit that to a Jewish one, but a holocaust more generally. To which I say, tell it to the Rwandans, among others.
I disagreed with him on that point also.
posted by naoko at 11:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the point is not that we shouldn't restate our values and principles, but that insisting that this be the only thing we say prevents us from having some really important conversations about more difficult stuff.
The other problem I had with that article is he insists it's self-evident that world will not hesitate to go to war to prevent another holocaust; and from the context he doesn't seem to limit that to a Jewish one, but a holocaust more generally. To which I say, tell it to the Rwandans, among others.
I disagreed with him on that point also.
posted by naoko at 11:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
46 Examples Of Muslim Outrage About Paris Shootings The FOX news Can't Seem to Find
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:00 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:00 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
The other problem I had with that article is he insists it's self-evident that world will not hesitate to go to war to prevent another holocaust; and from the context he doesn't seem to limit that to a Jewish one, but a holocaust more generally. To which I say, tell it to the Rwandans, among others.
"Never again" basically means: "Never again will Nazis kill Jews in 1940's europe." People are always going to find a reason why some new genocide or fascist regime isn't worth going to war over. I'm fairly convinced in any case that by the time that it gets to the point that war is the only to stop it, that it's already too late -- the atrocity is going to unfold, and we'll be there to photograph the aftermath after the war is over.
posted by empath at 12:02 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Never again" basically means: "Never again will Nazis kill Jews in 1940's europe." People are always going to find a reason why some new genocide or fascist regime isn't worth going to war over. I'm fairly convinced in any case that by the time that it gets to the point that war is the only to stop it, that it's already too late -- the atrocity is going to unfold, and we'll be there to photograph the aftermath after the war is over.
posted by empath at 12:02 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
“So far as we feel sympathy, we feel we are not accomplices to what caused the suffering. Our sympathy proclaims our innocence as well as our impotence. To that extent, it can be (for all our good intentions) an impertinent- if not inappropriate- response. To set aside the sympathy we extend to others beset by war and murderous politics for a reflection on how our privileges are located on the same map as their suffering, and may- in ways we might prefer not to imagine- be linked to their suffering, as the wealth as some may imply the destitution of others, is a task for which the painful, stirring images supply only an initial spark.”― Susan Sontag, Regarding the Pain of Others
posted by Fizz at 12:03 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm hesitant to wade in again, for obvious reasons. My 2 cents anyway. What I think Sacco might be saying is that an effect of the kind of satire under discussion, regardless of its intent, is that it loses its focus on the target (extremists, ideology) and gets used by those who don't "get it" to fuel clash of civilizations discourse, given a world where Abu Ghraib is a thing that happened. It might spill over from anti-Islamist intentions to anti-Moslem, anti-Algerian, anti-immigrant effects, given the schisms between the people in the banlieues and the white French working class. It might have the effect of sharpening the wrong contradictions, where there is already division. There's even been evidence of some of that upthread. Perhaps, I think Sacco is saying, that is a reason to be cautious.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:05 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:05 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
As always the biggest danger in the wake of a tragedy like this, is in the measures taken that purport to prevent or ameliorate such events in the future. That's why it's important to try to reach a thorough and contextualized understanding, instead of reaching for simplistic solutions based on nothing much more than naked political calculus. The roots of the situation reach far and span a lot of time - I am guessing that as always, no politician is going to tackle the long term and deep seated problems, and instead it'll be all about expanding the security apparatus. It takes not only money, but commitment to social and economic policy on a grand scale, and who cares about that, when your term in office, and indeed your ability to hold onto that office is predicated on responding to only to the immediate perceptions.
Unfortunately, the security response is never going to address the root issues, and therefore will be a perpetual chasing of a moving target always one or more steps behind. Meanwhile, it will be used to limit civil rights and further marginalize those already marginalized. The end result is a destructive cycle that only makes social integration more difficult and problems will fester instead of being resolved. It is my fervent hope that the French will find a political response that's wise and generous, and they can do a lot better than we have done in response to 9/11 - because, frankly, we have failed almost completely.
In the near term I can see a movement in Europe to re-define the limits to citizenship. In Britain and in Norway, proposals have been floated, at the highest levels, of stripping away citizenship from the people who join extremist causes abroad. The counter-terrorism agencies in France were aware of the history of some of these folks, including journeys abroad, and they missed the denouement. I would not be surprised if similar proposals don't get a hearing in France too. It would however be tragic if the response is only limited to narrow security issues without taking a broader look at the issues. For those who suggest that it is too early to discuss such things while the bodies are still warm, I say it is the exact opposite - we need to address these issues now, because now is the time when impressions and narratives are formed, often wrong or incomplete and it is then very difficult to change policies based on such firmly formed early impressions and narratives. That is why I support discussing all these seeming peripheral issues, and don't think it means any disrespect to the victims here. They are already tragically slain. And now, the future is at stake.
posted by VikingSword at 12:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
Unfortunately, the security response is never going to address the root issues, and therefore will be a perpetual chasing of a moving target always one or more steps behind. Meanwhile, it will be used to limit civil rights and further marginalize those already marginalized. The end result is a destructive cycle that only makes social integration more difficult and problems will fester instead of being resolved. It is my fervent hope that the French will find a political response that's wise and generous, and they can do a lot better than we have done in response to 9/11 - because, frankly, we have failed almost completely.
In the near term I can see a movement in Europe to re-define the limits to citizenship. In Britain and in Norway, proposals have been floated, at the highest levels, of stripping away citizenship from the people who join extremist causes abroad. The counter-terrorism agencies in France were aware of the history of some of these folks, including journeys abroad, and they missed the denouement. I would not be surprised if similar proposals don't get a hearing in France too. It would however be tragic if the response is only limited to narrow security issues without taking a broader look at the issues. For those who suggest that it is too early to discuss such things while the bodies are still warm, I say it is the exact opposite - we need to address these issues now, because now is the time when impressions and narratives are formed, often wrong or incomplete and it is then very difficult to change policies based on such firmly formed early impressions and narratives. That is why I support discussing all these seeming peripheral issues, and don't think it means any disrespect to the victims here. They are already tragically slain. And now, the future is at stake.
posted by VikingSword at 12:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
>To which I say, tell it to the Rwandans, among others.
"Never again" basically means: "Never again will Nazis kill Jews in 1940's europe."
Given the difficulty of preventing ethnic and racial liquidation that's probably a more realistic statement to make for sure. And of course Jewish people were largely exterminated across Europe, so what's left to protect?
With Rwanda as well, France and Belgium to some extent facilitated the efforts of the Génocidaires. So it's not exactly an issue of looking the other way or mouthing meaningless platitudes in regards to Rwanda.
posted by Nevin at 12:08 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Never again" basically means: "Never again will Nazis kill Jews in 1940's europe."
Given the difficulty of preventing ethnic and racial liquidation that's probably a more realistic statement to make for sure. And of course Jewish people were largely exterminated across Europe, so what's left to protect?
With Rwanda as well, France and Belgium to some extent facilitated the efforts of the Génocidaires. So it's not exactly an issue of looking the other way or mouthing meaningless platitudes in regards to Rwanda.
posted by Nevin at 12:08 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ultimately, though, the terrorists wanted to terrorize. They did not only target those who drew pictures of Muhammad. They killed random police and security guards, and people shopping for Shabbat dinner.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:08 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:08 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
rosswald: "Republicans aren't killing Jewish primary-school children or beheading soldiers in the street."
I wonder what the ratio is between abortion doctor killers and republicans and jihadists to muslims as a whole, and whether whatever difference between the two are would be... "significant"
posted by symbioid at 12:14 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I wonder what the ratio is between abortion doctor killers and republicans and jihadists to muslims as a whole, and whether whatever difference between the two are would be... "significant"
posted by symbioid at 12:14 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Partial list of right-wing terror attacks
posted by empath at 12:19 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by empath at 12:19 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's why it's important to try to reach a thorough and contextualized understanding, instead of reaching for simplistic solutions based on nothing much more than naked political calculus. The roots of the situation reach far and span a lot of time - I am guessing that as always, no politician is going to tackle the long term and deep seated problems, and instead it'll be all about expanding the security apparatus.
I don't disagree, exactly, but I'm somewhat skeptical about any effort to understand the root cause that focuses primarily on the political, social, and economic isolation of Muslims in France (I'm not saying that's your exact position, as you seem to advocating something broader, both geographically and historically, but it is an explanation I've heard a lot of in the last couple days). I'm not saying that isn't a factor, but we've also seen that this particular type of extremist Islam is also appealing to people with a variety of other social and economic statuses including converts and those born into relatively privileged Muslim families.
posted by Area Man at 12:20 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't disagree, exactly, but I'm somewhat skeptical about any effort to understand the root cause that focuses primarily on the political, social, and economic isolation of Muslims in France (I'm not saying that's your exact position, as you seem to advocating something broader, both geographically and historically, but it is an explanation I've heard a lot of in the last couple days). I'm not saying that isn't a factor, but we've also seen that this particular type of extremist Islam is also appealing to people with a variety of other social and economic statuses including converts and those born into relatively privileged Muslim families.
posted by Area Man at 12:20 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
And in fact, a republican (or at least a white conservative) did shoot up the holocaust museum in dc.
posted by empath at 12:22 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by empath at 12:22 PM on January 9, 2015
Why is it important to point out that other people do bad things, too?
posted by feste at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by feste at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2015
[It would be nice to not have this thread descend into a who-is-worse argument about religious extremism. Please maybe let's set that down.]
posted by cortex at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
That is why I support discussing all these seeming peripheral issues, and don't think it means any disrespect to the victims here.
Absolutely correct. I'll add though, that the content of the cartoons is not a relevant peripheral issue, and in my view that has been the main point people in this thread talking about disrespect have been trying to make. Let's talk about the real societal/economic/political/etc issues.
I've seen very little mention of victim blaming or respect for the victims with regards to any issues like that, presumably because bringing up those issues is not victim blaming , while tirelessly pushing the idea that Charlie was a racist publication most assuredly is, whether they were or not.
posted by quadbonus at 12:27 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Absolutely correct. I'll add though, that the content of the cartoons is not a relevant peripheral issue, and in my view that has been the main point people in this thread talking about disrespect have been trying to make. Let's talk about the real societal/economic/political/etc issues.
I've seen very little mention of victim blaming or respect for the victims with regards to any issues like that, presumably because bringing up those issues is not victim blaming , while tirelessly pushing the idea that Charlie was a racist publication most assuredly is, whether they were or not.
posted by quadbonus at 12:27 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
we've also seen that this particular type of extremist Islam is also appealing to people with a variety of other social and economic statuses including converts and those born into relatively privileged Muslim families.
I think honestly that these people's motivations are similar to all the other mass-shootings we've had for the past 2 decades since Columbine. Isolated, angry young men who feel powerless. The fact that muslim mass shooters tend to come up with Islamic motivations for the mayhem, I don't think, says anything in particular about Islam. These guys focus on whichever obsessive ideology is closest to hand.
That said, I think what's fairly unique about the Islamic terror situation is that there are well-funded financial networks dedicated to finding these young men and training them, which is what, I think separates them from 'typical' serial killers and mass murderers. The networks are what's dangerous. Unfortunately, they're funded by wealthy Saudis and we're never going to do anything about that.
posted by empath at 12:27 PM on January 9, 2015 [17 favorites]
I think honestly that these people's motivations are similar to all the other mass-shootings we've had for the past 2 decades since Columbine. Isolated, angry young men who feel powerless. The fact that muslim mass shooters tend to come up with Islamic motivations for the mayhem, I don't think, says anything in particular about Islam. These guys focus on whichever obsessive ideology is closest to hand.
That said, I think what's fairly unique about the Islamic terror situation is that there are well-funded financial networks dedicated to finding these young men and training them, which is what, I think separates them from 'typical' serial killers and mass murderers. The networks are what's dangerous. Unfortunately, they're funded by wealthy Saudis and we're never going to do anything about that.
posted by empath at 12:27 PM on January 9, 2015 [17 favorites]
Why is it important to point out that other people do bad things, too?
Because this seems to get forgotten in the haste to demonize Islam for the behavior of extremist terrorists.
posted by maxsparber at 12:36 PM on January 9, 2015
Because this seems to get forgotten in the haste to demonize Islam for the behavior of extremist terrorists.
posted by maxsparber at 12:36 PM on January 9, 2015
Who is forgetting? I mean, you think someone here thinks that all bad things are done by Islamist extremists?
posted by feste at 12:41 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by feste at 12:41 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
In other news, another al-Qaeda affiliate, Boko Haram, has massacred 2,000 people in NW Nigeria, near the border with Chad.
I recall reading somewhere else that ISIL and al-Qaeda (and I am not suggesting they are representative of "Muslims") are essentially waging a Third World War in slow motion.
It would be nice to think that the decline in oil prices will cut off some of support for these organizations from the various Gulf states.
posted by Nevin at 12:43 PM on January 9, 2015
I recall reading somewhere else that ISIL and al-Qaeda (and I am not suggesting they are representative of "Muslims") are essentially waging a Third World War in slow motion.
It would be nice to think that the decline in oil prices will cut off some of support for these organizations from the various Gulf states.
posted by Nevin at 12:43 PM on January 9, 2015
Who is forgetting?
Anyone who behaves as though Islam is uniquely, corporately responsible for this event, and there have been comments to that effect in this thread.
posted by maxsparber at 12:46 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Anyone who behaves as though Islam is uniquely, corporately responsible for this event, and there have been comments to that effect in this thread.
posted by maxsparber at 12:46 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't disagree, exactly, but I'm somewhat skeptical about any effort to understand the root cause that focuses primarily on the political, social, and economic isolation of Muslims in France (I'm not saying that's your exact position, as you seem to advocating something broader, both geographically and historically, but it is an explanation I've heard a lot of in the last couple days). I'm not saying that isn't a factor, but we've also seen that this particular type of extremist Islam is also appealing to people with a variety of other social and economic statuses including converts and those born into relatively privileged Muslim families.
Well, to illustrate with the example I gave. Narrow security only focus: you can strip the citizenship from someone who goes to join ISIS. Fine. But what have you accomplished apart from hopefully defusing that one individual? And what happens when you miss the next one? Or if they change tactics? You're always one step behind. What about policies that wouldn't push these people into the arms of extremists in the first place? When Cameron discussed how to handle the blowback from these people joining ISIS and then coming back to Britain, why didn't he look further back - why is there a blowback in the first place. The West has interfered in the affairs of other countries, and bombed and murdered with impunity. But now, a significant part of the population in the West (at least in Europe) is Muslim or has roots in the ME - yet their opinions and voices are not taken into account. The political elite is operating as if it was still the middle ages and the time of the crusades and they can just carry on murderous neocolonial interventions whenever they please. They have not taken note of a significant part of their population being in opposition to such depravity - they have not taken note, because the members of this part of society have little representation at the highest levels of decision making. Note, how large parts of Muslim communities are significantly opposed to this kind of foreign policy. And when they are being deliberately marginalized, their opposition doesn't disappear, it gets registered outside of the political process from which they are alienated and not represented. It is time for Europe to take into account all the voices in their societies. You can't base policies on old structures and societies that have changed. Your people won't allow it. And you can't strip citizenship from all of them. They are here to stay. Whether waging war or making social policy it is imperative that the whole society is represented and no one is marginalized.
When I read arrogant and entitled statements from the highest political levels in France or Britain about how they'll bomb ME countries - as in the recent campaign in Syria and Iraq - I think about how the Muslim population feels represented in France and Britain, given that they see the situation with a great deal more nuance. Clearly, the response of some is expressed in destructive rage and the joining of the "enemy" abroad. But this "blowback" starts at home. By the time they're flying abroad to join the enemy, it's already too late. That's why the conversation has to happen a lot earlier.
Every group in the society must feel they have a stake in it. If they don't, they won't value anything in that society, and their actions will reflect it.
Yes, there is a place for a security response - the murderers must be hunted down and exterminated. But if that's the entire extent of the response, we've already lost.
posted by VikingSword at 12:48 PM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Well, to illustrate with the example I gave. Narrow security only focus: you can strip the citizenship from someone who goes to join ISIS. Fine. But what have you accomplished apart from hopefully defusing that one individual? And what happens when you miss the next one? Or if they change tactics? You're always one step behind. What about policies that wouldn't push these people into the arms of extremists in the first place? When Cameron discussed how to handle the blowback from these people joining ISIS and then coming back to Britain, why didn't he look further back - why is there a blowback in the first place. The West has interfered in the affairs of other countries, and bombed and murdered with impunity. But now, a significant part of the population in the West (at least in Europe) is Muslim or has roots in the ME - yet their opinions and voices are not taken into account. The political elite is operating as if it was still the middle ages and the time of the crusades and they can just carry on murderous neocolonial interventions whenever they please. They have not taken note of a significant part of their population being in opposition to such depravity - they have not taken note, because the members of this part of society have little representation at the highest levels of decision making. Note, how large parts of Muslim communities are significantly opposed to this kind of foreign policy. And when they are being deliberately marginalized, their opposition doesn't disappear, it gets registered outside of the political process from which they are alienated and not represented. It is time for Europe to take into account all the voices in their societies. You can't base policies on old structures and societies that have changed. Your people won't allow it. And you can't strip citizenship from all of them. They are here to stay. Whether waging war or making social policy it is imperative that the whole society is represented and no one is marginalized.
When I read arrogant and entitled statements from the highest political levels in France or Britain about how they'll bomb ME countries - as in the recent campaign in Syria and Iraq - I think about how the Muslim population feels represented in France and Britain, given that they see the situation with a great deal more nuance. Clearly, the response of some is expressed in destructive rage and the joining of the "enemy" abroad. But this "blowback" starts at home. By the time they're flying abroad to join the enemy, it's already too late. That's why the conversation has to happen a lot earlier.
Every group in the society must feel they have a stake in it. If they don't, they won't value anything in that society, and their actions will reflect it.
Yes, there is a place for a security response - the murderers must be hunted down and exterminated. But if that's the entire extent of the response, we've already lost.
posted by VikingSword at 12:48 PM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Who is forgetting? I mean, you think someone here thinks that all bad things are done by Islamist extremists?
It's just a friendly reminder that things are complicated and that, essentially, as a human being, you are in no position to be certain about anything and/or unilaterally hold a position on anything. It's an intellectual way of saying shut the fuck up.
posted by phaedon at 12:48 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's just a friendly reminder that things are complicated and that, essentially, as a human being, you are in no position to be certain about anything and/or unilaterally hold a position on anything. It's an intellectual way of saying shut the fuck up.
posted by phaedon at 12:48 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Islamic extremism and Islamic extremist movements exist - as evidenced by the series of attacks in Europe over the past few years.
posted by rosswald at 12:52 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rosswald at 12:52 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Islamic extremism and Islamic extremist movements exist - as evidenced by the series of attacks in Europe over the past few years.
Nobody has said they don't. The point is that they are not unique in having produced murderous extremists.
And it's an important point, because Muslims are still the subject of horrific discrimination and antipathy and still seen by many in Europe as intruding aliens, and when the people as a whole are held as being responsible for the actions of a percent, it can inflame outrage and violence against the people who have done nothing at all but practice a minority religion.
posted by maxsparber at 12:56 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Nobody has said they don't. The point is that they are not unique in having produced murderous extremists.
And it's an important point, because Muslims are still the subject of horrific discrimination and antipathy and still seen by many in Europe as intruding aliens, and when the people as a whole are held as being responsible for the actions of a percent, it can inflame outrage and violence against the people who have done nothing at all but practice a minority religion.
posted by maxsparber at 12:56 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Islamic extremism and Islamic extremist movements exist - as evidenced by the series of attacks in Europe over the past few years.
They obviously exist. There are also plenty of right-wing, dangerous anti-islamic terrorists.
posted by empath at 12:56 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
They obviously exist. There are also plenty of right-wing, dangerous anti-islamic terrorists.
posted by empath at 12:56 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
empath: "I think honestly that these people's motivations are similar to all the other mass-shootings we've had for the past 2 decades since Columbine. Isolated, angry young men who feel powerless."
QFT.
I was talking to my therapist a few months back about ISIS (I think after one of the beheadings that seemed to happen in a row), and my impression of how many of them seemed to be from the west, and in particular, how a lot of them, perhaps, in the 90s or something, may have taken up being in a local gang... That many of these people were "converts" but not because they're converting to Islam as a religion, but to some organization that gives them a physical outlet for violence, to express their disaffection with the modern western ennui and decay. So they find, camaraderie , a "righteous" cause to justify themselves (defense of self/community might have been the sort of thing back in the day)... A feeling of power and strength that they feel they lack in their normal day-to-day lives...
My therapist nodded her head in agreement and said that she thought that certainly played a role for some people.
I thin it would be foolish to attribute it all to that, but amongst a certain population, it definitely does. I think sometimes it's easy to get caught in a narrative of only one type of person being in a particular group... Like - one of the narratives that's been around for years was something along the lines of "young angry oppressed/poor muslim males, with fewer females around, go commit suicide and do it for a noble cause"... And it sure sounds like it makes a lot of sense, but as Area Man said "we've also seen that this particular type of extremist Islam is also appealing to people with a variety of other social and economic statuses including converts and those born into relatively privileged Muslim families."
I think that's a point well worth heeding. Look at someone like bin Laden, for example, his father was no poverty stricken low end of Saudi society. Look at Sayyid Qutb, one of the leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 50s and and his exposure to the west, where it is claimed by at least some that it was this exposure to western life that had turned him from a more secular path towards a more radical path.
I think there are many narratives that are at play and work together, and I think they all contain a strand of truth. My fierce argumentation above was, as I had repeated over and over, not a condemnation of free speech or any way to say people shouldn't have a right to engage in satire (or outright mockery or whatever offensive thing they may do), but rather, an attempt to call for a sort of calmness and understanding of some of these narratives. In the same manner that my initial thought was that Charlie Hebdo was doing some of those racist right-wing things like they were doing in Denmark, it is clear that the context of their work (at least in some pieces) were certainly trying to make the point that Islam wasn't innately violent/extremist religion, but rather that it's been hijacked (OH MY GOSH - I think I have a cartoon idea!) by those extremists who use it to justify their violence, and in the end, go against the prophet (saw) himself.
It's easy to believe in a simple narrative, and it's quite possible that the narrative explains at least a part of a phenomenon, but it certainly cannot contain the whole thing, because, as certain French Philosophers would have reminded us of that Korzybski quote "The map is not the territory." I think that's the most frustrating thing for us, as humans, is that we want the map and the territory to be isomorphic with each other, to correlate cleanly and evenly, and have no terra incognita, but that isn't the case, and it can't be the case.
posted by symbioid at 1:00 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
QFT.
I was talking to my therapist a few months back about ISIS (I think after one of the beheadings that seemed to happen in a row), and my impression of how many of them seemed to be from the west, and in particular, how a lot of them, perhaps, in the 90s or something, may have taken up being in a local gang... That many of these people were "converts" but not because they're converting to Islam as a religion, but to some organization that gives them a physical outlet for violence, to express their disaffection with the modern western ennui and decay. So they find, camaraderie , a "righteous" cause to justify themselves (defense of self/community might have been the sort of thing back in the day)... A feeling of power and strength that they feel they lack in their normal day-to-day lives...
My therapist nodded her head in agreement and said that she thought that certainly played a role for some people.
I thin it would be foolish to attribute it all to that, but amongst a certain population, it definitely does. I think sometimes it's easy to get caught in a narrative of only one type of person being in a particular group... Like - one of the narratives that's been around for years was something along the lines of "young angry oppressed/poor muslim males, with fewer females around, go commit suicide and do it for a noble cause"... And it sure sounds like it makes a lot of sense, but as Area Man said "we've also seen that this particular type of extremist Islam is also appealing to people with a variety of other social and economic statuses including converts and those born into relatively privileged Muslim families."
I think that's a point well worth heeding. Look at someone like bin Laden, for example, his father was no poverty stricken low end of Saudi society. Look at Sayyid Qutb, one of the leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 50s and and his exposure to the west, where it is claimed by at least some that it was this exposure to western life that had turned him from a more secular path towards a more radical path.
I think there are many narratives that are at play and work together, and I think they all contain a strand of truth. My fierce argumentation above was, as I had repeated over and over, not a condemnation of free speech or any way to say people shouldn't have a right to engage in satire (or outright mockery or whatever offensive thing they may do), but rather, an attempt to call for a sort of calmness and understanding of some of these narratives. In the same manner that my initial thought was that Charlie Hebdo was doing some of those racist right-wing things like they were doing in Denmark, it is clear that the context of their work (at least in some pieces) were certainly trying to make the point that Islam wasn't innately violent/extremist religion, but rather that it's been hijacked (OH MY GOSH - I think I have a cartoon idea!) by those extremists who use it to justify their violence, and in the end, go against the prophet (saw) himself.
It's easy to believe in a simple narrative, and it's quite possible that the narrative explains at least a part of a phenomenon, but it certainly cannot contain the whole thing, because, as certain French Philosophers would have reminded us of that Korzybski quote "The map is not the territory." I think that's the most frustrating thing for us, as humans, is that we want the map and the territory to be isomorphic with each other, to correlate cleanly and evenly, and have no terra incognita, but that isn't the case, and it can't be the case.
posted by symbioid at 1:00 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
This incident reaches far and wide, which also includes the literary world.
Related: Scare Tactics: Michel Houellebecq Defends His Controversial New Book
posted by Fizz at 1:02 PM on January 9, 2015
"Even before its official release on Wednesday, “Submission” had already set off intense debates in France — about the line between satire and Islamophobia and between fantasy and realpolitik, about the novelist’s (and Islam’s) treatment of women, and about the political mainstream’s struggles to keep pace with the rise of both Islam and the far right — a debate that the attacks are certain to intensify.via: New York Times
Related: Scare Tactics: Michel Houellebecq Defends His Controversial New Book
posted by Fizz at 1:02 PM on January 9, 2015
and when the people as a whole are held as being responsible for the actions of a percent, it can inflame outrage
Yesterday a group of people were assassinated for their non-violent political and ideological stance, and today an entire community is (again) terrorized. Multiple similar acts perpetuated by people with a shared ideology and motive.
These lectures on the evil of man and 'don't forget Republicans do bad too' seem callous and ignorant.
posted by rosswald at 1:03 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yesterday a group of people were assassinated for their non-violent political and ideological stance, and today an entire community is (again) terrorized. Multiple similar acts perpetuated by people with a shared ideology and motive.
These lectures on the evil of man and 'don't forget Republicans do bad too' seem callous and ignorant.
posted by rosswald at 1:03 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I reported upthread a couple days ago how I heard this as the opening question on the "respectable" BBC as the opener to a Muslim spokesdude.
I think I saw the same report. It was an interview with, I believe, one of France's leading socialist Muslim MPs (or at the very least one of their head spokespeople), and he handled the dumb question with aplomb. Paraphrasing he said that it wasn't enough for the Muslim community to do something about this situation, but for every European, every human.
Stupid BBC.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 1:05 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think I saw the same report. It was an interview with, I believe, one of France's leading socialist Muslim MPs (or at the very least one of their head spokespeople), and he handled the dumb question with aplomb. Paraphrasing he said that it wasn't enough for the Muslim community to do something about this situation, but for every European, every human.
Stupid BBC.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 1:05 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yesterday a group of people were assassinated for their non-violent political and ideological stance, and today an entire community is (again) terrorized. Multiple similar acts perpetuated by people with a shared ideology and motive.
I'm sorry, but if your point is that we should blame Muslims in general for these actions, that's Islamophobia. That's the word for it. And it's shitty and I wish it didn't show up on MetaFilter.
posted by maxsparber at 1:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry, but if your point is that we should blame Muslims in general for these actions, that's Islamophobia. That's the word for it. And it's shitty and I wish it didn't show up on MetaFilter.
posted by maxsparber at 1:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
There will be no Shabbat services at the Paris Grand Shul. First time since Nazis occupied France. If you are a Jew somewhere in the world, perhaps you can say a Mourner's Kaddish for the people lost in Paris this week, on behalf of those who cannot attend their house of prayer tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [21 favorites]
"Our Muslim compatriots are afraid today" - French prime minister Manuel Valls
posted by Nevin at 1:07 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by Nevin at 1:07 PM on January 9, 2015
There will be no Shabbat services at the Paris Grand Shul. First time since Nazis occupied France. If you are a Jew somewhere in the world, perhaps you can say a Mourner's Kaddish for the people lost in Paris this week, on behalf of those who cannot attend their house of prayer tonight.
wow, thanks for mentioning this. Fuck.
posted by So You're Saying These Are Pants? at 1:08 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
wow, thanks for mentioning this. Fuck.
posted by So You're Saying These Are Pants? at 1:08 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry, but if your point is that we should blame Muslims in general for these actions, that's Islamophobia. That's the word for it. And it's shitty and I wish it didn't show up on MetaFilter.
posted by maxsparber
It wasn't my point. I am not sure why you are so intent on identifying Islamphobia in this thread - I don't think Islam is responsible, nor do I think anyone else in the thread said that. STFU.
posted by rosswald at 1:11 PM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by maxsparber
It wasn't my point. I am not sure why you are so intent on identifying Islamphobia in this thread - I don't think Islam is responsible, nor do I think anyone else in the thread said that. STFU.
posted by rosswald at 1:11 PM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
They obviously exist. There are also plenty of right-wing, dangerous anti-islamic terrorists.
I feel like you were asked to drop this.
That said, I think what's fairly unique about the Islamic terror situation is that there are well-funded financial networks dedicated to finding these young men and training them, which is what, I think separates them from 'typical' serial killers and mass murderers.
To speak to this, it is important to point out that an "Islamist" flare-up hits the Western news radar when blood is shed. That is always the news story. There is to this day very little coverage regarding the movement of money and arms that support these actions and what the West is doing to monitor that or how much it is contributing to the problem. That is a much more complicated narrative.
I am literally shitting bricks for Adam Curtis' "Bitter Lake" to come out. You really don't need to bring Republican terrorists into the mix and talk about "Islamophobia" to illustrate your point of how convoluted our judgments are. We are in the Middle East, we are against Syria, but then we are against ISIS, so then we are pro-Syria, and we are basically participating in wars that are neither won nor lost? The world is simply too complicated and we are being exploited by our politicians.
That's why it's important to try to reach a thorough and contextualized understanding, instead of reaching for simplistic solutions based on nothing much more than naked political calculus.
Good luck with that.
posted by phaedon at 1:11 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I feel like you were asked to drop this.
That said, I think what's fairly unique about the Islamic terror situation is that there are well-funded financial networks dedicated to finding these young men and training them, which is what, I think separates them from 'typical' serial killers and mass murderers.
To speak to this, it is important to point out that an "Islamist" flare-up hits the Western news radar when blood is shed. That is always the news story. There is to this day very little coverage regarding the movement of money and arms that support these actions and what the West is doing to monitor that or how much it is contributing to the problem. That is a much more complicated narrative.
I am literally shitting bricks for Adam Curtis' "Bitter Lake" to come out. You really don't need to bring Republican terrorists into the mix and talk about "Islamophobia" to illustrate your point of how convoluted our judgments are. We are in the Middle East, we are against Syria, but then we are against ISIS, so then we are pro-Syria, and we are basically participating in wars that are neither won nor lost? The world is simply too complicated and we are being exploited by our politicians.
That's why it's important to try to reach a thorough and contextualized understanding, instead of reaching for simplistic solutions based on nothing much more than naked political calculus.
Good luck with that.
posted by phaedon at 1:11 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
It wasn't my point. I am not sure why you are so intent on identifying Islamphobia - I don't think Islam is responsible, nor do I think anyone else in the thread did. STFU.
Then I'm really not clear on your point, and would appreciate it if you restated it.
posted by maxsparber at 1:12 PM on January 9, 2015
Then I'm really not clear on your point, and would appreciate it if you restated it.
posted by maxsparber at 1:12 PM on January 9, 2015
Excellent NYT op-doc depicting Charlie Hebdo creating a Mohammed cartoon.
And a reader comment says it well:
I guess I just can't get past what a nerdy, good-natured, benign group of people they are. They died for being snarky? For drawing pictures? It's so sad and absurd.
posted by shivohum at 1:14 PM on January 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
And a reader comment says it well:
I guess I just can't get past what a nerdy, good-natured, benign group of people they are. They died for being snarky? For drawing pictures? It's so sad and absurd.
posted by shivohum at 1:14 PM on January 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
Then I'm really not clear on your point, and would appreciate it if you restated it.
Really not sure what's unclear. Try re-reading maybe?
posted by Behemoth at 1:18 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Really not sure what's unclear. Try re-reading maybe?
posted by Behemoth at 1:18 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Then I'm really not clear on your point, and would appreciate it if you restated it.
Respectfully, you've been making the same point for two days now. It feels like you're preventing other users from talking about what they want to talk about because you have already characterized it as demonization to do so. I think you should allow people to look for patterns, even if said patterns have to do with Islam, so long as that pattern does not seek to establish that "all Muslims are bad." There is a difference.
posted by phaedon at 1:19 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Respectfully, you've been making the same point for two days now. It feels like you're preventing other users from talking about what they want to talk about because you have already characterized it as demonization to do so. I think you should allow people to look for patterns, even if said patterns have to do with Islam, so long as that pattern does not seek to establish that "all Muslims are bad." There is a difference.
posted by phaedon at 1:19 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Maxsparber - what I said was clear, and in no way impugned Islam as whole. I will restate my point though just so we're clear - the Hebdo assassinations, the Kosher grocery hostage taking, and many recent attacks in Europe over the past 3-5 years (from Toulouse to Woolwich), are the result of Islamic extremism.
I am really not sure what you (and others) are trying to lecture people on, or why.
posted by rosswald at 1:19 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am really not sure what you (and others) are trying to lecture people on, or why.
posted by rosswald at 1:19 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I see. So the point that there is some nebulous group corporately responsible for this can be made endlessly, but if I make the point that there is a risk of demonizing Islam as a result I am somehow stifling discussion.
Listen, you might want to double check when you're engaging in silencing behavior, because counting my comments and behaving as though they are all the same and I should shut up is exactly that.
I am really not sure what you (and others) are trying to lecture people on, or why.
I have been clear. Maybe try rereading?
posted by maxsparber at 1:23 PM on January 9, 2015
Listen, you might want to double check when you're engaging in silencing behavior, because counting my comments and behaving as though they are all the same and I should shut up is exactly that.
I am really not sure what you (and others) are trying to lecture people on, or why.
I have been clear. Maybe try rereading?
posted by maxsparber at 1:23 PM on January 9, 2015
Mod note: Guys, maybe head to your separate corners at this point and we can let the thread stop being about this particular exchange.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:27 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:27 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's a danger of some people wrongly assigning mass group responsibility any time one points out that a particular ideology is responsible for something. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to point out when a particular ideology is responsible, it only means one has to be careful not to assign responsibility wrongly.
posted by Justinian at 1:27 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:27 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
There's a difference between responding to a "risk," and applying an uncharitable read to a user's contribution, labeling him an Islamophobe, and wishing out loud that such a thing did not show up on MetaFilter.
posted by phaedon at 1:31 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by phaedon at 1:31 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I often think that ISIL and al Qaeda resemble the mafia, and the mafia, while often extremely efficient, is not working to achieve a particular political end besides amassing wealth and power. Just spitballing here, but the equivalent of Buttes Chaumont in Vancouver for example would be the UN Gang, the Red Scorpions, or the Hell's Angels.
posted by Nevin at 1:32 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by Nevin at 1:32 PM on January 9, 2015
The Kosher Grocery Shooting Follows a String of Anti-Semitic Attacks in France
posted by Nevin at 1:38 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 1:38 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
They were motivated by religion. They said so. They stated in an interview during the standoff, who they worked for and what their point was. The killers shouted it in their battle cry and told passers-by they worked for Al Qaeda. Stephane Charbonnier was on an Al Qaeda hit list, and the killers asked for him by name. Their motives are known.
posted by feste at 1:44 PM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by feste at 1:44 PM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Grauniad:
"Dramatic new footage has emerged of police firing into and storming the Vincennes supermarket has been posted to YouTube [sic].
The dramatic video, shot from a nearby building, shows the metal guard-door slowing rising as police hover in a swarm around its edges, and then the officers firing shots into the clearly lit aisles lined with produce. A body is visible on the ground inside.
Then police throw a grenade into the building, and after an explosion a hostage runs through the doors holding a coat over his head. The police move inside in a cluster of shields and close formation, and more hostages come racing out between them. At one point the camera pans to watch two men dragging a third person clear of the scene, as that person weakly pushes themselves along the sidewalk with them."
Here
posted by Mister Bijou at 1:44 PM on January 9, 2015
"Dramatic new footage has emerged of police firing into and storming the Vincennes supermarket has been posted to YouTube [sic].
The dramatic video, shot from a nearby building, shows the metal guard-door slowing rising as police hover in a swarm around its edges, and then the officers firing shots into the clearly lit aisles lined with produce. A body is visible on the ground inside.
Then police throw a grenade into the building, and after an explosion a hostage runs through the doors holding a coat over his head. The police move inside in a cluster of shields and close formation, and more hostages come racing out between them. At one point the camera pans to watch two men dragging a third person clear of the scene, as that person weakly pushes themselves along the sidewalk with them."
Here
posted by Mister Bijou at 1:44 PM on January 9, 2015
Already, anyone who dares to examine the causes of the massacre, the reasons the Kouachi brothers drifted into jihadist violence, is being warned that to do so is to excuse the real culprit, radical Islam: ‘an ideology that has sought to achieve power through terror for decades’, as George Packer wrote on the New Yorker blog. Packer says this is no time to talk about the problem of integration in France, or about the wars the West has waged in the Middle East for the last two decades. Radical Islam, and only radical Islam, is to blame for the atrocities. We are in what the New Yorker critic George Trow called the ‘context of no context’, where jihadi atrocities can be safely laid at the door of an evil ideology, and any talk of pre-emptive war, torture and racism amounts to apologia for atrocities.Adam Shatz: Moral Clarity
We have been here before: the 11 September attacks led many liberal intellectuals to become laptop bombardiers, and to smear those, such as Susan Sontag, who reminded readers that American policies in the Middle East had not won us many friends. […] To demonstrate ‘moral clarity’ is to be on the right side, and to show the courage of a fighting faith, rather than the timorous, context-seeking analysis of those soft on what Christopher Hitchens called ‘Islamofascism’. Packer’s New Yorker article is a declaration of this faith, a faith he confuses with liberalism.
posted by RogerB at 2:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [16 favorites]
.
. . . .
I'm glad they stopped the gunmen, but the cost was so high.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:45 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
. . . .
I'm glad they stopped the gunmen, but the cost was so high.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:45 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
the killers asked for him by name
Laurent Léger, (audio, 12min, question at 2min30sec) who was in the room at the time of the shooting (managed to hide behind a table and escape their notice) and witnessed it, was asked directly about this point and refutes it with an "absolutement pas". He says that they entered shouting and immediately open fire on the assembled group. He says "they mentioned Charbs name as they were shooting, as they were obviously looking for him but he was there at the table and because the room was fairly narrow everyone fell quickly". He mentions them telling one lady at the end that they didn't kill women while one lay dead at their feet. Doesn't really matter as it is just all kinds of fucked up.
Anyway here is a musical reaction #JeSuisCharlie - JB Bullet (3min10sec)
posted by phoque at 2:56 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Laurent Léger, (audio, 12min, question at 2min30sec) who was in the room at the time of the shooting (managed to hide behind a table and escape their notice) and witnessed it, was asked directly about this point and refutes it with an "absolutement pas". He says that they entered shouting and immediately open fire on the assembled group. He says "they mentioned Charbs name as they were shooting, as they were obviously looking for him but he was there at the table and because the room was fairly narrow everyone fell quickly". He mentions them telling one lady at the end that they didn't kill women while one lay dead at their feet. Doesn't really matter as it is just all kinds of fucked up.
Anyway here is a musical reaction #JeSuisCharlie - JB Bullet (3min10sec)
posted by phoque at 2:56 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think it's worth noting that as contentious as this thread's discussion of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons has been (and as reluctant as I've been to jump into it), that conversation has largely kept the focus on the lives and work of Wednesday's victims—and away from the motivations or desires of the abhorrent perpetrators.
It's a small blessing, but I'll take it.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 2:59 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a small blessing, but I'll take it.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 2:59 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah uh what does America's fucked up policy in the middle east have to do with the handful of people who assassinated journalists in france?
To all who say this isn't a problem of radical islam:
How do you explain all the right-wing terrorist attacks launched in the US by white, right-wing, racist, Christian men? Is that a problem of a radical ideology or not?
Hint: it is.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:13 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
To all who say this isn't a problem of radical islam:
How do you explain all the right-wing terrorist attacks launched in the US by white, right-wing, racist, Christian men? Is that a problem of a radical ideology or not?
Hint: it is.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:13 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
To all who say this isn't a problem of radical islam
Radical Islam did not emerge from a vacuum.
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 4:59 PM on January 9, 2015
Radical Islam did not emerge from a vacuum.
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 4:59 PM on January 9, 2015
Nothing emerges from a vacuum. That doesn't make radical Islam less responsible.
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Radical Islam did not emerge from a vacuum.
Neither did radical right-wing American style terroristic christianity. What's your larger point?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:04 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Neither did radical right-wing American style terroristic christianity. What's your larger point?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:04 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I feel like this isn't all that complicated. There are important conversations to be had about the alienation of young Muslim youth and the origins of radical Islam. The thread about a massacre carried out by radical Islamists generally isn't that time or place because it implies a shared responsibility. In any other context people don't have a problem with this. I mean, there are also important conversations to be had about responsible drinking and how to avoid unsafe situations. But we don't tend to look favorably on those in a thread about campus assaults because, analogously, it implies a shared responsibility where there is none.
It's important to have these conversations. It's also important to have them in the proper context. This is not the proper context.
posted by Justinian at 5:13 PM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's important to have these conversations. It's also important to have them in the proper context. This is not the proper context.
posted by Justinian at 5:13 PM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah uh what does America's fucked up policy in the middle east have to do with the handful of people who assassinated journalists in france?
Al Qaeda in Yemen.
posted by FJT at 5:18 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Al Qaeda in Yemen.
posted by FJT at 5:18 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh, I don't know. Seems to me that acknowledging that radical Islam is a *thing* with its own causes and effects is more appropriate than debating whether Charlie Hebdo was too provocative for its own good.
posted by monospace at 5:21 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by monospace at 5:21 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Why not compare Marat.
With who? He was a politician as well as a theorist and part of a government that killed many, many people. Hardly seems an appropriate comparison to anyone in this horror show, unless you're suggesting the cartoonists were secretly directing French policies and military engagements overseas. And were also planning on executing a whole range of French dissidents.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 5:28 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
With who? He was a politician as well as a theorist and part of a government that killed many, many people. Hardly seems an appropriate comparison to anyone in this horror show, unless you're suggesting the cartoonists were secretly directing French policies and military engagements overseas. And were also planning on executing a whole range of French dissidents.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 5:28 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm glad they stopped the gunmen, but the cost was so high.
The four dead at the supermarket were already so when he called BFM TV (a French news station) to declare his intentions. They were not killed in the police assault, if it makes you feel any better. [source][interviews are linked above]
posted by dhartung at 5:31 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
The four dead at the supermarket were already so when he called BFM TV (a French news station) to declare his intentions. They were not killed in the police assault, if it makes you feel any better. [source][interviews are linked above]
posted by dhartung at 5:31 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Also these murderers were born and raised in France. This is entirely a domestic issue and was not caused by the US' actions.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:39 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:39 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Jean-Paul Marat (French: [ʒɑ̃pɔl maʁa]; 24 May 1743 – 13 July 1793) was a physician, political theorist and scientist best known for his career in France as a radical journalist and politician during the French Revolution. His journalism became renowned for its fierce tone, uncompromising stance toward the new leaders and institutions of the revolution, and advocacy of basic human rights for the poorest members of society.
Marat was one of the most radical voices of the French Revolution. He became a vigorous defender of the sans-culottes, publishing his views in pamphlets, placards and newspapers, notably his "L'Ami du peuple", which helped make him their unofficial link with the radical, republican Jacobin group that came to power after June 1793. (Wiki)
No, a French historical comparison, Marat is an extreme example. I would actually contrast him.
I have others examples of French violence and satire. Would those work?
posted by clavdivs at 5:40 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Marat was one of the most radical voices of the French Revolution. He became a vigorous defender of the sans-culottes, publishing his views in pamphlets, placards and newspapers, notably his "L'Ami du peuple", which helped make him their unofficial link with the radical, republican Jacobin group that came to power after June 1793. (Wiki)
No, a French historical comparison, Marat is an extreme example. I would actually contrast him.
I have others examples of French violence and satire. Would those work?
posted by clavdivs at 5:40 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
What you're not mentioning is that he was killed shortly after drawing up a list of deputies he wanted beheaded and was in the position to make that happen. He was far more than a journalist.
Again, I just don't see the point of comparison. Of course, he went too far! He wanted people's heads chopped off for disagreeing with him and had the power to make that happen. It's pretty much a dictionary definition of going too far.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 5:45 PM on January 9, 2015
Again, I just don't see the point of comparison. Of course, he went too far! He wanted people's heads chopped off for disagreeing with him and had the power to make that happen. It's pretty much a dictionary definition of going too far.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 5:45 PM on January 9, 2015
Russian Orthodox Activists Say Charlie Hebdo Shooting Was 'Just Punishment'
Russian Orthodox activists rallied outside the French Embassy in Moscow with signs blaming this week's massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo on the newspaper's own practice of lampooning various religions — and on the French government for tolerating its satire.posted by Golden Eternity at 5:49 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
[...]
"Although we do not approve of Islamism, we testify that the true terrorists are caricaturists [such as the Charlie Hebdo journalists]," one of the rally's organizers wrote on social media site Vkontakte.
".. not mentioning is that he was killed shortly after drawing up a list of deputies he wanted..."
Marat had no such power,as stated in wiki, in the time frame you give. He was "retired".
My larger point is little historical analysis can be done in this thread.
posted by clavdivs at 6:00 PM on January 9, 2015
Marat had no such power,as stated in wiki, in the time frame you give. He was "retired".
My larger point is little historical analysis can be done in this thread.
posted by clavdivs at 6:00 PM on January 9, 2015
Russian Orthodox Activists Say Charlie Hebdo Shooting Was 'Just Punishment'
Extremists gotta extreme, no matter what their religion. Presumably, the next time there's a Russian Orthodox representative on FOX, the first question won't be "why does your religion support terrorism."
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:02 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Extremists gotta extreme, no matter what their religion. Presumably, the next time there's a Russian Orthodox representative on FOX, the first question won't be "why does your religion support terrorism."
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:02 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
The Time of the Assassins (Hisham Melhem)
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:07 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:07 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Among my acquaintances, those who do not condemn the attack against the magazine are pretty much the same people with whom we have always argued about Putin, Crimea, Donbass and so on," Varfolomeyev, a critic of the Kremlin's policies, said in his blog on the Ekho Moskvy website Thursday.
From GEs' Moscow-times link
posted by clavdivs at 6:07 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
From GEs' Moscow-times link
posted by clavdivs at 6:07 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
"The four dead at the supermarket were already so when he called BFM TV (a French news station) to declare his intentions."
Yeah, they never had a chance. Four people in France, thousands in Nigeria. It's hard to feel anything but numb right now, because it never seems to stop.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:20 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, they never had a chance. Four people in France, thousands in Nigeria. It's hard to feel anything but numb right now, because it never seems to stop.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:20 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
From Melhelm:
Just think of this surreal scene; Iran the only Shiite theocracy in the region is fighting the Islamic State, the radical claimant of an ephemeral Sunni Caliphate. In 2014 many Arab lands, from Yemen to Libya, oscillated between despair and disintegration. There is no room for moderation or reform or tolerance in theses societies. The weak nation-states are getting weaker and falling apart at the seams. Without reconstituted nation-states there can be no serious societal, political or religious reform.posted by Golden Eternity at 6:32 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Extremists gotta extreme, no matter what their religion. Presumably, the next time there's a Russian Orthodox representative on FOX, the first question won't be "why does your religion support terrorism.
Is it perhaps because this question has been asked and answered, historically, for reasons beyond the equivalency you are trying to establish? For example, every time a Catholic is interviewed, they are not asked to explain whether or not they support the Crusades.
On the other hand, different groups do go through different ups and downs. I don't think it's crazy for example to hold all Catholic priests accountable for - to at least ask them questions about - the rampant pedophilia within their ranks, even though ultimately these are the actions of a few "bad apples" and is no way supported by Scripture. This is a problem that I think most people would argue fervently has to be addressed on an organizational level, even though, at the end of the day, not all Catholics are pedophiles.
I just question how much this falls under a completely irrational victimization of Islam, and how much of this is say, normal processing. On the one hand, here in the United States, in the context of racism, you have the rise of the concept of "systemic racism," that I strongly believe in, and which lends itself to the idea that you can analyze a group or a phenomenon and characterize it as being something, or having a particular effect, even if the parties involved are not themselves directly racist.
So it follows that there is a certain intellectual dissonance that bubbles up when people are not allowed to lump other people together and talk about social phenomena they either create or represent, and furthermore whether said people have an obligation to do anything about it, to hold themselves accountable to certain spectacularly poor results, even though they may not be directly connected to them, or to moderate their views or practices for the sake of some greater good. Like other groups seemingly are expected to do.
Perhaps at the end of the day the answer to that question comes down to power politics. I don't want to present myself as being obtuse to the unique struggles that Muslims face. But at the same time, almost all symbolism aside, terrorist attacks are like brief moments where the power dynamic changes sharply, and when violent lunacy prevails, the question of who is in power is momentarily suspended. It is in such a moment that we are trying to find some clarity, to talk about making some improvements, and it is very, very difficult.
posted by phaedon at 6:33 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Is it perhaps because this question has been asked and answered, historically, for reasons beyond the equivalency you are trying to establish? For example, every time a Catholic is interviewed, they are not asked to explain whether or not they support the Crusades.
On the other hand, different groups do go through different ups and downs. I don't think it's crazy for example to hold all Catholic priests accountable for - to at least ask them questions about - the rampant pedophilia within their ranks, even though ultimately these are the actions of a few "bad apples" and is no way supported by Scripture. This is a problem that I think most people would argue fervently has to be addressed on an organizational level, even though, at the end of the day, not all Catholics are pedophiles.
I just question how much this falls under a completely irrational victimization of Islam, and how much of this is say, normal processing. On the one hand, here in the United States, in the context of racism, you have the rise of the concept of "systemic racism," that I strongly believe in, and which lends itself to the idea that you can analyze a group or a phenomenon and characterize it as being something, or having a particular effect, even if the parties involved are not themselves directly racist.
So it follows that there is a certain intellectual dissonance that bubbles up when people are not allowed to lump other people together and talk about social phenomena they either create or represent, and furthermore whether said people have an obligation to do anything about it, to hold themselves accountable to certain spectacularly poor results, even though they may not be directly connected to them, or to moderate their views or practices for the sake of some greater good. Like other groups seemingly are expected to do.
Perhaps at the end of the day the answer to that question comes down to power politics. I don't want to present myself as being obtuse to the unique struggles that Muslims face. But at the same time, almost all symbolism aside, terrorist attacks are like brief moments where the power dynamic changes sharply, and when violent lunacy prevails, the question of who is in power is momentarily suspended. It is in such a moment that we are trying to find some clarity, to talk about making some improvements, and it is very, very difficult.
posted by phaedon at 6:33 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Mexican journalists who live under threat from drug cartels take Paris attack personally
posted by Nevin at 6:41 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 6:41 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't think its a question of terrorist attacks per se. The IRA, the PLO, the
Stern Gang all were terrorists. But they had pretty specific goals and it were all robust organizations.
This attack was not like that. These were homegrown, domestic terrorists who didn't have a realizable political goals and weren't fighting against an occupation. These people are much more like homegrown right wing domestic terrorists in the US.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:41 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Stern Gang all were terrorists. But they had pretty specific goals and it were all robust organizations.
This attack was not like that. These were homegrown, domestic terrorists who didn't have a realizable political goals and weren't fighting against an occupation. These people are much more like homegrown right wing domestic terrorists in the US.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:41 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't know if this has been linked: No, Charlie Hebdo isn't racist.
posted by Thing at 6:44 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Thing at 6:44 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Koran Does Not Forbid Images of the Prophet
Muhammad Image archive.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:50 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Muhammad Image archive.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:50 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
This attack was not like that. These were homegrown, domestic terrorists who didn't have a realizable political goals and weren't fighting against an occupation. These people are much more like homegrown right wing domestic terrorists in the US.
But organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS have stepped in to provide a unifying vision for these homegrown terrorists--the vision of a Caliphate. They tell them, in online forums and magazines, that they can be part of this new and powerful movement, that their small acts of terror are part of a larger and greater whole. If, as reported, one of the brothers actually traveled to Yemen, then they do have recognizable goals.
posted by feste at 7:02 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
But organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS have stepped in to provide a unifying vision for these homegrown terrorists--the vision of a Caliphate. They tell them, in online forums and magazines, that they can be part of this new and powerful movement, that their small acts of terror are part of a larger and greater whole. If, as reported, one of the brothers actually traveled to Yemen, then they do have recognizable goals.
posted by feste at 7:02 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Are there any blogs, twitters, etc. that cover every attack on Jews in France?
posted by jeffburdges at 7:03 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 7:03 PM on January 9, 2015
Jeff - I was looking at this Wikipedia page earlier: Antisemitism in 21st-century France
posted by rosswald at 7:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by rosswald at 7:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Again, I just don't see the point of comparison. Of course, he went too far! He wanted people's heads chopped off for disagreeing with him
This is the crux isn't it. Your argument is sound, he was more then just a roux. He had a heart. He cared, was impassioned and even wanted to have the king still be a king. But that was 1789. To go through that historical wormhole is not justice. He is not the definition of going to far. The events that propelled him to turn murderous perhaps are. Now, Marat did read names of those to be killed after his release if that was your referent I still disagree as he did not order this. He was the revolutions voice to some extent, it's guttural howl. He was supposedly writing names from Cordays list, then she stabbed him in his heart.
Then the real madness began especially concerning religion (it's near destruction) and its virtual re-construction.
posted by clavdivs at 7:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is the crux isn't it. Your argument is sound, he was more then just a roux. He had a heart. He cared, was impassioned and even wanted to have the king still be a king. But that was 1789. To go through that historical wormhole is not justice. He is not the definition of going to far. The events that propelled him to turn murderous perhaps are. Now, Marat did read names of those to be killed after his release if that was your referent I still disagree as he did not order this. He was the revolutions voice to some extent, it's guttural howl. He was supposedly writing names from Cordays list, then she stabbed him in his heart.
Then the real madness began especially concerning religion (it's near destruction) and its virtual re-construction.
posted by clavdivs at 7:06 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Tablet Magazine - The Frightening Reality For the Jews of France: A year of anti-Semitism, violence, and incitement in France
posted by rosswald at 7:08 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by rosswald at 7:08 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Paris hostages survived hidden in fridges and beneath sinks
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:09 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:09 PM on January 9, 2015
Al Qaeda source: AQAP directed paris attack
"A source within al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has provided The Intercept with a full statement claiming responsibility for the attack against the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris"
@wikileaks' #iamcharlie tweets : 1 2 3 4? Did wikileaks retract something?
Also : How the Jewish pro-censorship lobby legitimized attacks on Carlie Hebdo for "offensive" speech
About the Christians : Russian Orthodox Activists Say Charlie Hebdo Shooting Was 'Just Punishment'
posted by jeffburdges at 8:15 PM on January 9, 2015
"A source within al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has provided The Intercept with a full statement claiming responsibility for the attack against the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris"
@wikileaks' #iamcharlie tweets : 1 2 3 4? Did wikileaks retract something?
Also : How the Jewish pro-censorship lobby legitimized attacks on Carlie Hebdo for "offensive" speech
About the Christians : Russian Orthodox Activists Say Charlie Hebdo Shooting Was 'Just Punishment'
posted by jeffburdges at 8:15 PM on January 9, 2015
How the Jewish pro-censorship lobby legitimized attacks on Carlie Hebdo for "offensive" speech
What? That's an article from 2009 about some people's accusations that an article in Charlie Hebdo had been anti-Semitic. The plaintiff in the relevant case was LICRA, not a Jewish lobbying group.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:35 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
What? That's an article from 2009 about some people's accusations that an article in Charlie Hebdo had been anti-Semitic. The plaintiff in the relevant case was LICRA, not a Jewish lobbying group.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:35 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, that's absurd. He got sued. Years ago. And that legitimizes mass murder? Is wikileaks insane?
posted by Justinian at 8:38 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 8:38 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Marat hated satire, wiki leaks uses satire to counter hate.
By a tweet to re-tweet?
Maybe it was the incessant political repetition.
posted by clavdivs at 9:05 PM on January 9, 2015
By a tweet to re-tweet?
Maybe it was the incessant political repetition.
posted by clavdivs at 9:05 PM on January 9, 2015
The Tablet Magazine timeline is depressing. What the hell is going on in France?
posted by Nevin at 9:10 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by Nevin at 9:10 PM on January 9, 2015
I read "legitimizes" as a gradient there, Justinian. It's merely claiming that legal assaults on speech indirectly help justify violent assaults on speech by virtue of legitimizing the idea that speech should be controlled at all.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:23 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 9:23 PM on January 9, 2015
NYTimes piece from last September: Europe’s Anti-Semitism Comes Out of the Shadows
posted by homunculus at 9:23 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 9:23 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Marat hated satire, wiki leaks uses satire to counter hate."
I didn't know that. I'm not really familiar with him — only his work with David and de Sade.
posted by klangklangston at 9:53 PM on January 9, 2015
I didn't know that. I'm not really familiar with him — only his work with David and de Sade.
posted by klangklangston at 9:53 PM on January 9, 2015
Marat/Sade
Hard read...whoOps.
But you see Marat...and he posted wiki leaks and...that court thing so... Yeah.
True that. Marat did not employ satire, his Rosseau was good.
It was "Mr. Equality" and co. from Oleans that fuddled his bath salts.
So a tiny break from madness with with
Continue bashing another, adieu.
posted by clavdivs at 10:07 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hard read...whoOps.
But you see Marat...and he posted wiki leaks and...that court thing so... Yeah.
True that. Marat did not employ satire, his Rosseau was good.
It was "Mr. Equality" and co. from Oleans that fuddled his bath salts.
So a tiny break from madness with with
Continue bashing another, adieu.
posted by clavdivs at 10:07 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Thing: "I don't know if this has been linked: No, Charlie Hebdo isn't racist."
Ah, the old "Islam isn't a race, so Islamophobia can't be racist, and by the way, Islamophobia itself is a 'newspeak' term" saw.
For a nice and balanced take by someone who really knows comics and the French comics tradition, but who doesn't shy away from some of the more unpleasant sides of it, I like this article by Jeet Heer.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:24 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Ah, the old "Islam isn't a race, so Islamophobia can't be racist, and by the way, Islamophobia itself is a 'newspeak' term" saw.
For a nice and balanced take by someone who really knows comics and the French comics tradition, but who doesn't shy away from some of the more unpleasant sides of it, I like this article by Jeet Heer.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:24 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also, this cartoon by Joe Sacco dovetails nicely with my thoughts.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:31 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:31 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
this cartoon by Joe Sacco dovetails nicely with my thoughts.
I can't tell if he's a moron or if he's being deliberately disingenuous. Charlie Hebdo was lampooning extremist Islamists, people who behead and rape and mutilate, not just drawing random racist cartoons.
posted by shivohum at 10:54 PM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
I can't tell if he's a moron or if he's being deliberately disingenuous. Charlie Hebdo was lampooning extremist Islamists, people who behead and rape and mutilate, not just drawing random racist cartoons.
posted by shivohum at 10:54 PM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
This thread seems to be spiralling back; a lot of great input upthread; a big thanks to everyone who's kept it from becoming an echo chamber so far.
posted by progosk at 11:05 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by progosk at 11:05 PM on January 9, 2015
The J Heer article on France's tradition of anti-establishment cartooning is very relevant context. I'm not sure I get this point that it posits, though: "But this type of no-holds-barred irreverence can be blind to its own role in maintaining atavistic prejudices." How so?
posted by progosk at 11:15 PM on January 9, 2015
posted by progosk at 11:15 PM on January 9, 2015
I think honestly that these people's motivations are similar to all the other mass-shootings we've had for the past 2 decades since Columbine. Isolated, angry young men who feel powerless.
I often clash with empath on other things, but I think this is the most insightful thing I've read on this thread so far.
I think modern day political Islam (the one known to us through its loudest adherents) is a dangerous enabling ideology. I think it has a coercive effect greater than a standard Affleckian liberal would acknowledge, partially for fear of being considered a bigot. The combination of that alienation and a worth-dying-for-cause that validates your identity seems to persuade. I'm a sympathizer of the all-relgions-are-silly faction, but just like communism, this is a war of ideas, and there's a sickness at the core of western society that makes it so simple to turn outsiders against it.
I'm not claiming that western society was net better back in the sixties/seventies/eighties when the ideological war against communism occurred than it is today. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying that the critical talking points we had back then (man on the moon! girls can wear short skirts! So can men! Rock n' roll!) shine in comparison to the narrative we have to offer today. And, smart people said it at the time, but this whole Abu Ghraib / torture / Cheney thing is going to come back and haunt not just the USA, but western civilization, for a long time.
posted by amorphatist at 11:16 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I often clash with empath on other things, but I think this is the most insightful thing I've read on this thread so far.
I think modern day political Islam (the one known to us through its loudest adherents) is a dangerous enabling ideology. I think it has a coercive effect greater than a standard Affleckian liberal would acknowledge, partially for fear of being considered a bigot. The combination of that alienation and a worth-dying-for-cause that validates your identity seems to persuade. I'm a sympathizer of the all-relgions-are-silly faction, but just like communism, this is a war of ideas, and there's a sickness at the core of western society that makes it so simple to turn outsiders against it.
I'm not claiming that western society was net better back in the sixties/seventies/eighties when the ideological war against communism occurred than it is today. I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying that the critical talking points we had back then (man on the moon! girls can wear short skirts! So can men! Rock n' roll!) shine in comparison to the narrative we have to offer today. And, smart people said it at the time, but this whole Abu Ghraib / torture / Cheney thing is going to come back and haunt not just the USA, but western civilization, for a long time.
posted by amorphatist at 11:16 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think honestly that these people's motivations are similar to all the other mass-shootings we've had for the past 2 decades since Columbine. Isolated, angry young men who feel powerless.
I often clash with empath on other things, but I think this is the most insightful thing I've read on this thread so far.
Reminds me of one of the more chilling things I heard post-9/11 ... c/o a broker type that I didn't even know that well (brother of a friend).
"We've got way too many young men out there with nothing to lose."
I wonder what Marx would say.
posted by philip-random at 11:20 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I often clash with empath on other things, but I think this is the most insightful thing I've read on this thread so far.
Reminds me of one of the more chilling things I heard post-9/11 ... c/o a broker type that I didn't even know that well (brother of a friend).
"We've got way too many young men out there with nothing to lose."
I wonder what Marx would say.
posted by philip-random at 11:20 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think modern day political Islam (the one known to us through its loudest adherents) is a dangerous enabling ideology.
This is, sorry, utter horseshit. What you're talking about doesn't exist or make sense. You shouldn't shoot your mouth off about things you are clearly very ignorant about.
"Modern day political Islam" has a thousand flavours and practices, ranging from African American practice in the US, liberal Shia activists in Iran, the Saudi regime and the more liberal Arabian flavour with its traditions coming from the Hejaz, to the persecuted South Indian population, Uighurs fighting for independence in Xin Jiang, the Rohingyas being killed by Burmese and Thai's to the insurgencies in the Phillippines, and beyond.
The naked racism of attempting to define a loose religion with several billion adherents - and the ease in which you do so - is truly disappointing.
posted by smoke at 11:23 PM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is, sorry, utter horseshit. What you're talking about doesn't exist or make sense. You shouldn't shoot your mouth off about things you are clearly very ignorant about.
"Modern day political Islam" has a thousand flavours and practices, ranging from African American practice in the US, liberal Shia activists in Iran, the Saudi regime and the more liberal Arabian flavour with its traditions coming from the Hejaz, to the persecuted South Indian population, Uighurs fighting for independence in Xin Jiang, the Rohingyas being killed by Burmese and Thai's to the insurgencies in the Phillippines, and beyond.
The naked racism of attempting to define a loose religion with several billion adherents - and the ease in which you do so - is truly disappointing.
posted by smoke at 11:23 PM on January 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
To all who say this isn't a problem of radical islam:
No one has said this. And: notice how easy it is to slip from Islamism, the radical ideology that justifies violence, to Islam? This a a trope/slope that needs to be kept in focus, and debunked at every occasion. Islamism is the worst enemy of Islam, and Muslims are its first victims. There are great articles linked upthread on this question.
modern day political Islam (the one known to us through its loudest adherents) is a dangerous enabling ideology
See what I mean? That's not Islam you are talking about, and calling it political Islam is playing precisely into the extremist fanatic's lexical demagogy.
posted by progosk at 11:28 PM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
No one has said this. And: notice how easy it is to slip from Islamism, the radical ideology that justifies violence, to Islam? This a a trope/slope that needs to be kept in focus, and debunked at every occasion. Islamism is the worst enemy of Islam, and Muslims are its first victims. There are great articles linked upthread on this question.
modern day political Islam (the one known to us through its loudest adherents) is a dangerous enabling ideology
See what I mean? That's not Islam you are talking about, and calling it political Islam is playing precisely into the extremist fanatic's lexical demagogy.
posted by progosk at 11:28 PM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
"Modern day political Islam" has a thousand flavours and practices,
You are quite correct. I should have inserted a "the caricatured modern day political Islam", or "the Islam popular with ISIS sympathizers" or some variant thereof.
The naked racism of attempting
It's got nothing to do with races. I'm as equally opposed to all this shite no matter the hue of a person's skin, or their religion. If it were purple catholics or indigo buddhists doing it, the net would be the same.
posted by amorphatist at 11:32 PM on January 9, 2015
You are quite correct. I should have inserted a "the caricatured modern day political Islam", or "the Islam popular with ISIS sympathizers" or some variant thereof.
The naked racism of attempting
It's got nothing to do with races. I'm as equally opposed to all this shite no matter the hue of a person's skin, or their religion. If it were purple catholics or indigo buddhists doing it, the net would be the same.
posted by amorphatist at 11:32 PM on January 9, 2015
Also these murderers were born and raised in France. This is entirely a domestic issue and was not caused by the US' actions.
Unless I'm very mistaken, shockingly, this comment wasn't joking. Your fig-leaf of "domestic" is quaint, yet sadly out of place in a context of global murder and revenge. Please read up on the attackers inspiration/training/manifesto, and on the concept of blowback, while you're at it.
posted by progosk at 11:40 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Unless I'm very mistaken, shockingly, this comment wasn't joking. Your fig-leaf of "domestic" is quaint, yet sadly out of place in a context of global murder and revenge. Please read up on the attackers inspiration/training/manifesto, and on the concept of blowback, while you're at it.
posted by progosk at 11:40 PM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's been addressed far more eloquently than I ever could, in many articles, editorials, and cartoons, but I think the main gist of CH is anti-authoritarianism. It's easier to see that when there's a figurehead such as the pope, or the french state, but I feel in many ways the target of CH in recent years has included the implied soft authoritarianism of 'tolerance', a trojan horse to CH (and myself to a degree), and the notion that one should 'respect' (whatever the fuck that means in legal or social terms) another atavistic desert tribal religion from millennia past. Freedom of expression is only a fancy if one cannot safely exercise it, and these peeps died upholding that ideal.
posted by amorphatist at 11:43 PM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by amorphatist at 11:43 PM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
progosk, because "no holds barred irreverence" fails to take context into account, and context can matter a great deal. Aiming that irreverence at an oppressed minority is going to have additional adverse effects because of extant animus. There is a strong argument to be made for (voluntary) "holds barred" irreverence in some cases. That's my interpretation, at least, but I think the intention is clear with the explicit reference to punching up/punching down.
posted by Corinth at 11:52 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Corinth at 11:52 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I would dispute that CH's irreverence was ever aimed at anyone but powers-that-be. That this has - albeit tragically - surfaced a socio-political maze of intolerance and oppression is ultimately its deeper point: far from "maintaining prejudices", it bares the hypocrises that underlie and bolster them.
posted by progosk at 12:02 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by progosk at 12:02 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Thank you, the distinction is very important.
The other thing is, of course, Buddhists et al are doing it, but it doesn't make the news cause its not in the west. Illustrates the dangers of monocausal explanations.
posted by smoke at 12:05 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
The other thing is, of course, Buddhists et al are doing it, but it doesn't make the news cause its not in the west. Illustrates the dangers of monocausal explanations.
posted by smoke at 12:05 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Berend:"When I heard about the attack yesterday I thought of how on 9/11 I came to metafilter to follow the famous 911 FPP to stay informed of what was happening. Shortly after that I created my account.
So my first instinct yesterday was to run to metafilter and see what was being written about the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. When I discovered to my surprise there was no FPP yet, I started this one.
I may be oversensitive, but to be honest I am very hurt by the various "blame the victim" comments in this thread."
Berend, it's interesting you bring up the MeFi 9/11 thread, because a couple of times I started to post here: If we look back in that thread would we find people immediately discussing whether Cantor Fitzgerald was bad, a company that represented the worst of a greedy capitalist society that oppressed a great portion of the world.
In the same way, the immediate deflection in this thread to other issues while the bodies of people massacred by insane thugs were stil lying on a floor struck me as "off."
posted by NorthernLite at 12:25 AM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
So my first instinct yesterday was to run to metafilter and see what was being written about the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. When I discovered to my surprise there was no FPP yet, I started this one.
I may be oversensitive, but to be honest I am very hurt by the various "blame the victim" comments in this thread."
Berend, it's interesting you bring up the MeFi 9/11 thread, because a couple of times I started to post here: If we look back in that thread would we find people immediately discussing whether Cantor Fitzgerald was bad, a company that represented the worst of a greedy capitalist society that oppressed a great portion of the world.
In the same way, the immediate deflection in this thread to other issues while the bodies of people massacred by insane thugs were stil lying on a floor struck me as "off."
posted by NorthernLite at 12:25 AM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
The naked racism of attempting to define a loose religion with several billion adherents - and the ease in which you do so - is truly disappointing.
This is a point that has been repeated in this thread ad nauseum. So there you have it; let the point be fully conceded. Nothing can be said about anyone that makes any coherent sense. Nobody seems to know what they are talking about. No coherent narrative will ever arise out of anything, because we live in a world of opinions, diversity and confusion. It's a fascinating dynamic.
No one has said this. And: notice how easy it is to slip from Islamism, the radical ideology that justifies violence, to Islam? This a a trope/slope that needs to be kept in focus, and debunked at every occasion. Islamism is the worst enemy of Islam, and Muslims are its first victims.
One person thinks of Islam as one big group; the next person thinks there's one really important distinction; the next person thinks there are a thousand flavors; the next person says it's several billion permutations. Think about it, it's not actually important that anyone agrees. It's just enough to say you can't build consensus on issues like this anymore. That sums it up. Unregulated, anti-authoritarian, global, moral and political relativism at its fullest. Our destiny is to become one world community, with "superficial differences," living together.
Really amazing stuff. Let's hope human beings really are this great and this isn't just some prelude to a fuck-up of epic proportions. Not that anything has happened recently should make you think that. And so I guess it just comes down to how you read the news.
posted by phaedon at 1:06 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is a point that has been repeated in this thread ad nauseum. So there you have it; let the point be fully conceded. Nothing can be said about anyone that makes any coherent sense. Nobody seems to know what they are talking about. No coherent narrative will ever arise out of anything, because we live in a world of opinions, diversity and confusion. It's a fascinating dynamic.
No one has said this. And: notice how easy it is to slip from Islamism, the radical ideology that justifies violence, to Islam? This a a trope/slope that needs to be kept in focus, and debunked at every occasion. Islamism is the worst enemy of Islam, and Muslims are its first victims.
One person thinks of Islam as one big group; the next person thinks there's one really important distinction; the next person thinks there are a thousand flavors; the next person says it's several billion permutations. Think about it, it's not actually important that anyone agrees. It's just enough to say you can't build consensus on issues like this anymore. That sums it up. Unregulated, anti-authoritarian, global, moral and political relativism at its fullest. Our destiny is to become one world community, with "superficial differences," living together.
Really amazing stuff. Let's hope human beings really are this great and this isn't just some prelude to a fuck-up of epic proportions. Not that anything has happened recently should make you think that. And so I guess it just comes down to how you read the news.
posted by phaedon at 1:06 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
We already dealt with that dumb canard upthread, Joakim Ziegler. If CH is Islamophobic, racist, etc. then so are Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the New Yorker.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:24 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 1:24 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
Zineb El Rhazoui, one of the surviving staff members of Charlie Hebdo, had a few things to say year before last about allegations that the magazine is racist: « Si Charlie Hebdo est raciste, alors je le suis » : réponse de Zineb El Rhazoui à Olivier Cyran ("If Charlie Hebdo is racist, I am too: Zineb El Rhazoui's response to Olivier Cyran). (Slightly mangled Goodle translation .)
Cyran is a former writer for Charlie Hebdo, now with Article 11. Zineb El Rhazoui is also a member of the immigrant feminist organization Ni Putes Ni Soumises. (Some more info in English.) The article by Cyran that she was responding to: original, Google translation.
posted by nangar at 5:08 AM on January 10, 2015 [12 favorites]
Cyran is a former writer for Charlie Hebdo, now with Article 11. Zineb El Rhazoui is also a member of the immigrant feminist organization Ni Putes Ni Soumises. (Some more info in English.) The article by Cyran that she was responding to: original, Google translation.
posted by nangar at 5:08 AM on January 10, 2015 [12 favorites]
Algeria: the post-colonial wound that still bleeds in France.
Robert Fisk in the Independent.
"Maybe all newspaper and television reports should carry a “history corner”, a little reminder that nothing – absolutely zilch – happens without a past"
posted by adamvasco at 5:29 AM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Robert Fisk in the Independent.
"Maybe all newspaper and television reports should carry a “history corner”, a little reminder that nothing – absolutely zilch – happens without a past"
posted by adamvasco at 5:29 AM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't think we've really seen too many people demanding Muslims need to apologise in this thread, but this shutdown from an LBC London phone in is too good not to share.
posted by MattWPBS at 5:48 AM on January 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by MattWPBS at 5:48 AM on January 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
too good not to share.
A master class! Thanks MattWPBS!
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:13 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
A master class! Thanks MattWPBS!
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:13 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Thanks nangar, both articles are profound food for thought. Hard to imagine how both writers must be feeling, each somehow vindicated in their convictions by what has happened...
posted by progosk at 6:28 AM on January 10, 2015
posted by progosk at 6:28 AM on January 10, 2015
Please erase if this has been mentioned on Mefi already (I did a quick search and couldn't find anything), but ...
did you know that Anonymous has responded to the Charlie Hebdo massacre by declaring war on ISIS and al Qaida? There's something about this that I can't describe very well, but it almost feels like it could have been made up by a prescient author in a novel somewhere. For one thing, Anonymous and al Q are both (post?)modern movements; I believe anyone can join and say "I am Anonymous / al Q."
posted by Termite at 6:49 AM on January 10, 2015
did you know that Anonymous has responded to the Charlie Hebdo massacre by declaring war on ISIS and al Qaida? There's something about this that I can't describe very well, but it almost feels like it could have been made up by a prescient author in a novel somewhere. For one thing, Anonymous and al Q are both (post?)modern movements; I believe anyone can join and say "I am Anonymous / al Q."
posted by Termite at 6:49 AM on January 10, 2015
The problem with rigid adherence to the 'punching up/punching down' mantra in this context is that it attacks solidarity between people of all races and faiths who want to fight forms of bad religion through ideas, criticism and, yes, humour. Journalists, satirists, artists, secularists and feminists in the Muslim world and in Muslim minorities elsewhere, have only too often faced (and continue to face) similar dangers. People who make common cause with them and who they make common cause with, seem now to be faced with a new version of 'Won't somebody think of the children?' where for 'children' is substituted some paternalistic stereotype of a poor downtrodden ethnic minority who in some vague hand-wavy way are supposedly endangered and unable to cope because someone took the piss out of deities, or criticised a doctrine or drew a cartoon about religion.
People weren't 'punched' either up or down here - they were shot and murdered. Executed at their desks while working, killed while shopping. They were shot by the same kind of people who murder Shiites, Alawis, Ahmadis and also other Sunni muslims they consider to be insufficiently extreme, plus Yezidis, Assyrian Christians and other groups. Taking the piss out of religion and extremists is nothing compared to murdering people for their religion. But beyond extremism, even moderate forms of many of the major religions can carry strands of misogyny and homophobia which need to be opposed to maintain equal rights for women and gay people.
Solidarity between feminists and secularists across these religious cultures is now being made harder by accusations of 'punching down' - if people from a more privileged group speak out to criticise religion or religious doctrines. The end result will be that the activists from the less-powerful minority groups will be left isolated to fight their own battles, discriminated against twice over - both by majority racism and authoritarian religions from within their own minority group. Those left-wing and liberal activists who might have made common cause from positions of greater numbers and privilege to fight religious authoritarianism will increasingly shut their faces and say nothing lest they be accused of racism and turned on by their own peers.
If it hasn't been posted already, here's Southall Black Sisters on Charlie Hebdo and the need to 'stand in solidarity with all those around the world who struggle against religious fundamentalism.'
posted by Flitcraft at 6:54 AM on January 10, 2015 [41 favorites]
People weren't 'punched' either up or down here - they were shot and murdered. Executed at their desks while working, killed while shopping. They were shot by the same kind of people who murder Shiites, Alawis, Ahmadis and also other Sunni muslims they consider to be insufficiently extreme, plus Yezidis, Assyrian Christians and other groups. Taking the piss out of religion and extremists is nothing compared to murdering people for their religion. But beyond extremism, even moderate forms of many of the major religions can carry strands of misogyny and homophobia which need to be opposed to maintain equal rights for women and gay people.
Solidarity between feminists and secularists across these religious cultures is now being made harder by accusations of 'punching down' - if people from a more privileged group speak out to criticise religion or religious doctrines. The end result will be that the activists from the less-powerful minority groups will be left isolated to fight their own battles, discriminated against twice over - both by majority racism and authoritarian religions from within their own minority group. Those left-wing and liberal activists who might have made common cause from positions of greater numbers and privilege to fight religious authoritarianism will increasingly shut their faces and say nothing lest they be accused of racism and turned on by their own peers.
If it hasn't been posted already, here's Southall Black Sisters on Charlie Hebdo and the need to 'stand in solidarity with all those around the world who struggle against religious fundamentalism.'
posted by Flitcraft at 6:54 AM on January 10, 2015 [41 favorites]
Funny stuff here:
With the iCondemn®, Muslims can say “not in my name” at the speed of life!™ And non-Muslims no longer need to wonder whether 1.6 billion Muslims around the world feel the guilt and sincerely apologize for that latest reprehensible crime some idiot carried out while shouting “Allahu Akbar!”
posted by NoMich at 6:54 AM on January 10, 2015 [11 favorites]
With the iCondemn®, Muslims can say “not in my name” at the speed of life!™ And non-Muslims no longer need to wonder whether 1.6 billion Muslims around the world feel the guilt and sincerely apologize for that latest reprehensible crime some idiot carried out while shouting “Allahu Akbar!”
posted by NoMich at 6:54 AM on January 10, 2015 [11 favorites]
Four victims of terror attack on kosher supermarket named: 'These French citizens were struck down in a cold-blooded manner and mercilessly because they were Jews,' says a statement by group representing the Jewish communities in France.
posted by rosswald at 7:50 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by rosswald at 7:50 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
The writer has a loaded view of atheists, but the piece offers an interesting and compelling perspective on the use of JeSuisCharlie as a modern kind of "with-us-or-against-us" signifier:
Why I am not Charlie
I am offended when those already oppressed in a society are deliberately insulted. I don’t want to participate. This crime in Paris does not suspend my political or ethical judgment, or persuade me that scatologically smearing a marginal minority’s identity and beliefs is a reasonable thing to do. Yet this means rejecting the only authorized reaction to the atrocity. Oddly, this peer pressure seems to gear up exclusively where Islam’s involved. When a racist bombed a chapter of a US civil rights organization this week, the media didn’t insist I give to the NAACP in solidarity. When a rabid Islamophobic rightist killed 77 Norwegians in 2011, most of them at a political party’s youth camp, I didn’t notice many #IAmNorway hashtags, or impassioned calls to join the Norwegian Labor Party. But Islam is there for us, it unites us against Islam. Only cowards or traitors turn down membership in the Charlie club.The demand to join, endorse, agree is all about crowding us into a herd where no one is permitted to cavil or condemn: an indifferent mob, where differing from one another is Thoughtcrime, while indifference to the pain of others beyond the pale is compulsory.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:17 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Why I am not Charlie
I am offended when those already oppressed in a society are deliberately insulted. I don’t want to participate. This crime in Paris does not suspend my political or ethical judgment, or persuade me that scatologically smearing a marginal minority’s identity and beliefs is a reasonable thing to do. Yet this means rejecting the only authorized reaction to the atrocity. Oddly, this peer pressure seems to gear up exclusively where Islam’s involved. When a racist bombed a chapter of a US civil rights organization this week, the media didn’t insist I give to the NAACP in solidarity. When a rabid Islamophobic rightist killed 77 Norwegians in 2011, most of them at a political party’s youth camp, I didn’t notice many #IAmNorway hashtags, or impassioned calls to join the Norwegian Labor Party. But Islam is there for us, it unites us against Islam. Only cowards or traitors turn down membership in the Charlie club.The demand to join, endorse, agree is all about crowding us into a herd where no one is permitted to cavil or condemn: an indifferent mob, where differing from one another is Thoughtcrime, while indifference to the pain of others beyond the pale is compulsory.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:17 AM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
I feel solidarity with the victims both as humans and as 'martyrs' to the cause of free speech, I reject and oppose violence by states or individuals, and I hate the warped Islamism that apparently inspired these acts (while recognising that it has roots in and has been enabled by actions of the West and that it by no means represents or reflects on Muslims or Islam as a whole).
But those issues are fraught enough, given the global political situation, and become even more so as we react to events like these. Throughout my political life, which started around 9/11 when I was 16, I've seen horrific and complex events be torn apart and re-woven into narratives that have driven the mutually sick, destructive and corrupt conflict between the warlike elements of the "West" and the "Middle East", which grinds up innocents and the possibilities for a peaceful life for so many people, wastes precious blood and treasure, and breeds such corruption in our thoughts, our ways of life, and our social systems. Not just in the West, but across the world.
I've seen the 'force' of which I am in whatever small civil way a part -- i.e. "the West" -- wrap itself in the names of noble principles like freedom, heroism, righteousness, knowledge, understanding, justice and fairness, and with them ride into battle again and again and again. And I've seen these battles, while bravely fought, reveal themselves as mostly absurd, pointless horrors that serve, individually and in aggregate, to make almost everything about the situation of the people involved get worse, to a tragically extreme extent in a way that is rendered all the more insane by its obviousness and inevitability.
And a particularly pertinent part of that insanity is the way we align ourselves so fiercely in opposition to the strain of Islamism that apparently inspired these attacks, when its history and its manifestation and situation are so closely and causatively tied in with 'our' -- the non-Islamic world's -- actions and interactions with the Islamic world, both throughout history and more particularly in the build up of extremist groups like the Taliban and all their successors, which have so often been literally built and preserved by us, when they weren't being stoked and provided with their raison d'etre by our incompetent attempts to fight them.
This is the context in which I find myself hesitant, when invited to stand against these hateful hijackers of a peaceful and profound religion, to risk aligning myself against that religion, insulting all its adherents, spitefully attacking the sacred parts, and separating myself from it in community, allegiance, and even refusing the possibility that it is not diametric to reason, wisdom or goodness -- all simply because I have secured and attest the right to do so, and out of spite against these particular attackers and their backers. I hesitate both for moral, and strategic considerations. I don't want to be that person, and I don't want to be part of that force in the world.
I don't necessarily think that that is what Charlie Hebdo represents, although to the limited extent that I understand them, I don't think it's a black and white issue; while there seems much that is admirable about their vision, their voice, their attitudes, etc, I think they tread that edge and I think that in their zeal they may sometimes go to places, bolster ideas, and feed a general animus that I'm uncomfortable with -- and for the (to me) substantial reasons above, not out of mere ideological shock.
I want to be clear: I would not be framing this discomfort in this context if I was simply reacting to the fact of the massacre -- a horrific crime that cannot be excused or justified, as should go without saying. Besides risking mischaracterising a group of people I know and understand little about, it would unduly place their actions in the same arena those of their killers (even if it doesn't equate them). I'm not interested in doing that, nor in trying to use this event as a lever, in either direction, on the issue of hate speech and censorship (although perhaps in future times it may be relevant to that difficult issue).
But I am interested in representing myself truly and honestly in the ongoing conversation about how "we" react to "Islam" -- a conversation both immediate and decades-long, which is being fanned so intensely by these events and others like them . Regardless of how I feel about Charlie Hebdo -- which is mostly respect and admiration, alongside a feeling of nauseous devastation for the loss of them -- it is inevitable that whatever they represent, that representation is being taken, twisted, torn apart, and fed into that same conversation, and subjected to the same warping distortions that are so easily applied and so rarely acknowledged. And because satire always hues close to the line, I can easily see their message being wrenched over into places that I'm even less comfortable with than when it was in their deft hands.
This will be a thread -- maybe minor, maybe major -- in the conversation I take part in for years and decades to come. I want to be able to explore how closely and in what ways I identify with the message of Charlie Hebdo before I add my voice to it, without being swept up into the chorus out of sheer defiance, anger and pith. And because of all the fervent yet mostly respectful and well-reasoned voices that have been clamouring here, I feel much, much better equipped to do so than if I had just been reading the newspapers or watching the TV. So, again, thank you to those in the thread who have stayed civil.
posted by Drexen at 8:22 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
But those issues are fraught enough, given the global political situation, and become even more so as we react to events like these. Throughout my political life, which started around 9/11 when I was 16, I've seen horrific and complex events be torn apart and re-woven into narratives that have driven the mutually sick, destructive and corrupt conflict between the warlike elements of the "West" and the "Middle East", which grinds up innocents and the possibilities for a peaceful life for so many people, wastes precious blood and treasure, and breeds such corruption in our thoughts, our ways of life, and our social systems. Not just in the West, but across the world.
I've seen the 'force' of which I am in whatever small civil way a part -- i.e. "the West" -- wrap itself in the names of noble principles like freedom, heroism, righteousness, knowledge, understanding, justice and fairness, and with them ride into battle again and again and again. And I've seen these battles, while bravely fought, reveal themselves as mostly absurd, pointless horrors that serve, individually and in aggregate, to make almost everything about the situation of the people involved get worse, to a tragically extreme extent in a way that is rendered all the more insane by its obviousness and inevitability.
And a particularly pertinent part of that insanity is the way we align ourselves so fiercely in opposition to the strain of Islamism that apparently inspired these attacks, when its history and its manifestation and situation are so closely and causatively tied in with 'our' -- the non-Islamic world's -- actions and interactions with the Islamic world, both throughout history and more particularly in the build up of extremist groups like the Taliban and all their successors, which have so often been literally built and preserved by us, when they weren't being stoked and provided with their raison d'etre by our incompetent attempts to fight them.
This is the context in which I find myself hesitant, when invited to stand against these hateful hijackers of a peaceful and profound religion, to risk aligning myself against that religion, insulting all its adherents, spitefully attacking the sacred parts, and separating myself from it in community, allegiance, and even refusing the possibility that it is not diametric to reason, wisdom or goodness -- all simply because I have secured and attest the right to do so, and out of spite against these particular attackers and their backers. I hesitate both for moral, and strategic considerations. I don't want to be that person, and I don't want to be part of that force in the world.
I don't necessarily think that that is what Charlie Hebdo represents, although to the limited extent that I understand them, I don't think it's a black and white issue; while there seems much that is admirable about their vision, their voice, their attitudes, etc, I think they tread that edge and I think that in their zeal they may sometimes go to places, bolster ideas, and feed a general animus that I'm uncomfortable with -- and for the (to me) substantial reasons above, not out of mere ideological shock.
I want to be clear: I would not be framing this discomfort in this context if I was simply reacting to the fact of the massacre -- a horrific crime that cannot be excused or justified, as should go without saying. Besides risking mischaracterising a group of people I know and understand little about, it would unduly place their actions in the same arena those of their killers (even if it doesn't equate them). I'm not interested in doing that, nor in trying to use this event as a lever, in either direction, on the issue of hate speech and censorship (although perhaps in future times it may be relevant to that difficult issue).
But I am interested in representing myself truly and honestly in the ongoing conversation about how "we" react to "Islam" -- a conversation both immediate and decades-long, which is being fanned so intensely by these events and others like them . Regardless of how I feel about Charlie Hebdo -- which is mostly respect and admiration, alongside a feeling of nauseous devastation for the loss of them -- it is inevitable that whatever they represent, that representation is being taken, twisted, torn apart, and fed into that same conversation, and subjected to the same warping distortions that are so easily applied and so rarely acknowledged. And because satire always hues close to the line, I can easily see their message being wrenched over into places that I'm even less comfortable with than when it was in their deft hands.
This will be a thread -- maybe minor, maybe major -- in the conversation I take part in for years and decades to come. I want to be able to explore how closely and in what ways I identify with the message of Charlie Hebdo before I add my voice to it, without being swept up into the chorus out of sheer defiance, anger and pith. And because of all the fervent yet mostly respectful and well-reasoned voices that have been clamouring here, I feel much, much better equipped to do so than if I had just been reading the newspapers or watching the TV. So, again, thank you to those in the thread who have stayed civil.
posted by Drexen at 8:22 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
The demand to join, endorse, agree is all about crowding us into a herd where no one is permitted to cavil or condemn: an indifferent mob, where differing from one another is Thoughtcrime, while indifference to the pain of others beyond the pale is compulsory.
Meh. This article, and others like it, have been making the rounds, which of course disproves this very point. It is false and silly to charge that one is not "permitted to cavil or condemn". Those doing so are not being silenced in any meaningful sense. People may disagree with them, but that is not what being silenced is. Being murdered, on the other hand...
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:31 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
Meh. This article, and others like it, have been making the rounds, which of course disproves this very point. It is false and silly to charge that one is not "permitted to cavil or condemn". Those doing so are not being silenced in any meaningful sense. People may disagree with them, but that is not what being silenced is. Being murdered, on the other hand...
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:31 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
If it hasn't been posted already, here's Southall Black Sisters on Charlie Hebdo and the need to 'stand in solidarity with all those around the world who struggle against religious fundamentalism.'
I don't think it has been linked, and I'm glad to see SBS mentioned in this discussion. They are, along with some of the other organizations and people I've linked to above, working from positions of Muslim or ex-Muslim identity opposing both xenophobia against Muslims and Muslims who use political Islam to violate human rights. The work of these people is, in my opinion, too often ignored by those who should be natural allies. The SBS statement links to a letter being circulated by Maryam Namazie.
I strongly encourage those interested to check out the extensive video archive from the Secular 2014 Conference in London. Related is the Bread and Roses TV program available on YouTube produced by Namazie and Fariborz Pooya.
To be clear, I don't always agree with Namazie et al.'s critique of Western left politics and cultural theory, but I do think that their voices, as (ex)Muslims working for human rights, deserve more attention than they currently get.
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:47 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't think it has been linked, and I'm glad to see SBS mentioned in this discussion. They are, along with some of the other organizations and people I've linked to above, working from positions of Muslim or ex-Muslim identity opposing both xenophobia against Muslims and Muslims who use political Islam to violate human rights. The work of these people is, in my opinion, too often ignored by those who should be natural allies. The SBS statement links to a letter being circulated by Maryam Namazie.
In October 2014, secularists – including atheists, agnostics and believers from many countries, in particular many Muslim-majority countries, met in London to denounce the religious-Right and to demand being seen as its alternative. It is high time to learn from their analysis and lived experiences.Yes, Western government have claimed to act in the name of "justice," "equality" etc. while violating those very principles. That's reason to condemn government hypocrisy, not abandon those principles which at this very moment are also being used by Muslims and others in majority-Muslim nations to fight the human rights violations they face from their own governments.
The tragic massacre in Paris will undoubtedly give fuel to the traditional xenophobic far-Right and the immediate danger is an increase in racism, marginalization and exclusion of people of Muslim descent in Europe and further. We do not want to witness “anti-Muslim witch hunts” nor do we welcome the promotion of “moderate” Islamists by governments as official political partners. What is needed is a straightforward analysis of the political nature of armed Islamists: they are an extreme-Right political force, working under the guise of religion and they aim at political power. They should be combated by political means and mass mobilisation, not by giving extra privileges to any religion.
I strongly encourage those interested to check out the extensive video archive from the Secular 2014 Conference in London. Related is the Bread and Roses TV program available on YouTube produced by Namazie and Fariborz Pooya.
To be clear, I don't always agree with Namazie et al.'s critique of Western left politics and cultural theory, but I do think that their voices, as (ex)Muslims working for human rights, deserve more attention than they currently get.
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:47 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Modern day political Islam" has a thousand flavours and practices, ranging from African American practice in the US, liberal Shia activists in Iran, the Saudi regime and the more liberal Arabian flavour with its traditions coming from the Hejaz, to the persecuted South Indian population, Uighurs fighting for independence in Xin Jiang, the Rohingyas being killed by Burmese and Thai's to the insurgencies in the Phillippines, and beyond.
This is certainly true. Yet there is one thing that binds together radical Islamist terrorists (for want of a better term; see further) -- an ideological compulsion to kill using terroristic methods abhorred in the west. And what anti-religionists such as Dawkins, and perhaps elements or the whole of Charlie Hebdo, are trying to get at is that this common thread needs identification and within our civilization is sought to be stamped out.
We can also go on about how poorly this ideology serves Islam generally, or even about how it represents an oppression or tainting of Islam, and may at extreme calculations be about generation of an overreaction which will hurt individual Muslims in the short term.
We could also discuss at length, most likely, how this entire mindset and approach differs from that of the West, which privileges macro political action and hegemony through economic and military might.
But certainly one thing that differs in this ideology from what we are "used to" is how it is not aimed at changing policy or overthrowing the existing power structure or government or even, really, changing hearts and minds -- something that Western terrorist movements usually aspired toward. Nor does it even outline a discernible end game or equilibrium that could inform strategy.
This is probably at the heart of what we should be discussing rather than arguing over how to blame whomever or collectively punish. It's certainly the common problem for both the West and Islamic society generally. It's likely that the individual actors do come from similar stock in some ways (although class distinctions pursued post 9/11 seem to have borne little fruit, e.g. these French guys were losers, while Mohammed Atta was an architect, and of course bin Laden himself effectively came from the global 1%). I think there is a need to have a name that we can agree on because I think most of us would agree this is the problem to be solved. The trouble is that most of us don't have the tools, the educational background, the Vox cards, to make the necessary distinctions, and that tends to muck up any discussion and derail it into an argument about those distinctions rather than about what it needs to be about.
But I think it's as foolish as saying "all Muslims" as it is to deny that this is a problem distinct to the Muslim diaspora in many ways, even if we don't mean that "all Muslims" are in any way responsible. There's been oppression all over the world, much of it down to the capitalist, imperialist Western institutions that seem to be at the root of the ire of this minuscule but deadly class of ostensible, self-identified co-religionists (again, even if 99% of Muslims deny them, as this is a radical movement within and aimed at taking over Islam). One of the few guerrilla movements anywhere in the world that has adopted a similar set of tactics was the Tamil Tigers, who are primarily Hindu (and although it is my understanding that much of the dispute there was ethnic rather than religious in nature, it played a part, but either way this represents a quite different dynamic).
To pull this all together, I think there is something important here that shouldn't be ignored, either out of deliberate self-censorship or multivariate distraction. I had had a feeling during the beginning of the Arab Spring that there was an opening for a future in which the dissatisfaction that must underlay militancy gets addressed in new political structures, but that hope has obviously dissipated in the wake of the overall failure of that movement to gel into something more than a threat to the oft-distasteful stability of extant regimes, as illustrated in quite different but ultimately connected ways by Libya, Egypt, Syria, and lately Yemen (not to ignore Iraq, but our occupation resulted special circumstances). And yet, of course, this French incident is intimately tied to their own colonial history.
What the critical brick in this structure might be, though, I cannot say. I just know it isn't, and probably won't be affected by, the framing and response we give it, like celebrating a quotation attributed to Voltaire. That's our own feel-good lullaby, but I don't think the people we need to hear us are even listening.
posted by dhartung at 8:47 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
This is certainly true. Yet there is one thing that binds together radical Islamist terrorists (for want of a better term; see further) -- an ideological compulsion to kill using terroristic methods abhorred in the west. And what anti-religionists such as Dawkins, and perhaps elements or the whole of Charlie Hebdo, are trying to get at is that this common thread needs identification and within our civilization is sought to be stamped out.
We can also go on about how poorly this ideology serves Islam generally, or even about how it represents an oppression or tainting of Islam, and may at extreme calculations be about generation of an overreaction which will hurt individual Muslims in the short term.
We could also discuss at length, most likely, how this entire mindset and approach differs from that of the West, which privileges macro political action and hegemony through economic and military might.
But certainly one thing that differs in this ideology from what we are "used to" is how it is not aimed at changing policy or overthrowing the existing power structure or government or even, really, changing hearts and minds -- something that Western terrorist movements usually aspired toward. Nor does it even outline a discernible end game or equilibrium that could inform strategy.
This is probably at the heart of what we should be discussing rather than arguing over how to blame whomever or collectively punish. It's certainly the common problem for both the West and Islamic society generally. It's likely that the individual actors do come from similar stock in some ways (although class distinctions pursued post 9/11 seem to have borne little fruit, e.g. these French guys were losers, while Mohammed Atta was an architect, and of course bin Laden himself effectively came from the global 1%). I think there is a need to have a name that we can agree on because I think most of us would agree this is the problem to be solved. The trouble is that most of us don't have the tools, the educational background, the Vox cards, to make the necessary distinctions, and that tends to muck up any discussion and derail it into an argument about those distinctions rather than about what it needs to be about.
But I think it's as foolish as saying "all Muslims" as it is to deny that this is a problem distinct to the Muslim diaspora in many ways, even if we don't mean that "all Muslims" are in any way responsible. There's been oppression all over the world, much of it down to the capitalist, imperialist Western institutions that seem to be at the root of the ire of this minuscule but deadly class of ostensible, self-identified co-religionists (again, even if 99% of Muslims deny them, as this is a radical movement within and aimed at taking over Islam). One of the few guerrilla movements anywhere in the world that has adopted a similar set of tactics was the Tamil Tigers, who are primarily Hindu (and although it is my understanding that much of the dispute there was ethnic rather than religious in nature, it played a part, but either way this represents a quite different dynamic).
To pull this all together, I think there is something important here that shouldn't be ignored, either out of deliberate self-censorship or multivariate distraction. I had had a feeling during the beginning of the Arab Spring that there was an opening for a future in which the dissatisfaction that must underlay militancy gets addressed in new political structures, but that hope has obviously dissipated in the wake of the overall failure of that movement to gel into something more than a threat to the oft-distasteful stability of extant regimes, as illustrated in quite different but ultimately connected ways by Libya, Egypt, Syria, and lately Yemen (not to ignore Iraq, but our occupation resulted special circumstances). And yet, of course, this French incident is intimately tied to their own colonial history.
What the critical brick in this structure might be, though, I cannot say. I just know it isn't, and probably won't be affected by, the framing and response we give it, like celebrating a quotation attributed to Voltaire. That's our own feel-good lullaby, but I don't think the people we need to hear us are even listening.
posted by dhartung at 8:47 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
I think this is a good piece of context.
"In France, almost a fifth of the population has been willing to vote for an extremist party, the National Front, which is founded on the same clash-of-civilizations ideology that motivates the jihadis. As with the Islamic-extremist underclass, it targets Jews and pro-European liberals, and opposes European unity.
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, seemed strangely quiet and anodyne after Wednesday’s attack. There’s a good reason: She and her father, the party’s founder, have for years been the key targets of Charlie Hebdo: The newspaper has featured her on the cover as a Nazi concentration-camp guard. As a libertine product of the 1968 democracy movements, it represents everything she opposes.
She, like her political cousins in Britain (Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party) and the Netherlands (Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party) is an explicit supporter of, and is backed by, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has turned the clash-of-civilizations ideology into his guiding mission (with the addition of an equally fictional third, “Eurasian,” civilization).
So far, parties like hers have failed to either govern or become the leading opposition in any major European country.
But Islamic-extremist attacks like this week’s are intended not just to punish, but to polarize: Jihadis explicitly want a war of “civilizations” in Europe. If that other, larger group of divisive believers prevails at the ballot, then their mission will have succeeded."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:53 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
"In France, almost a fifth of the population has been willing to vote for an extremist party, the National Front, which is founded on the same clash-of-civilizations ideology that motivates the jihadis. As with the Islamic-extremist underclass, it targets Jews and pro-European liberals, and opposes European unity.
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, seemed strangely quiet and anodyne after Wednesday’s attack. There’s a good reason: She and her father, the party’s founder, have for years been the key targets of Charlie Hebdo: The newspaper has featured her on the cover as a Nazi concentration-camp guard. As a libertine product of the 1968 democracy movements, it represents everything she opposes.
She, like her political cousins in Britain (Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party) and the Netherlands (Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party) is an explicit supporter of, and is backed by, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has turned the clash-of-civilizations ideology into his guiding mission (with the addition of an equally fictional third, “Eurasian,” civilization).
So far, parties like hers have failed to either govern or become the leading opposition in any major European country.
But Islamic-extremist attacks like this week’s are intended not just to punish, but to polarize: Jihadis explicitly want a war of “civilizations” in Europe. If that other, larger group of divisive believers prevails at the ballot, then their mission will have succeeded."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:53 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Jean-Marie Le Pen : "Moi, je suis désolé, je ne suis pas Charlie" Here's the founder of the main French Far-Right party denouncing the dead journalists as his enemies - he's not Charlie and he'd like you to know it.
posted by Flitcraft at 8:53 AM on January 10, 2015 [7 favorites]
Unmournable Bodies (New Yorker)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:13 AM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:13 AM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
the killers asked for him by name
Laurent Léger, (audio, 12min, question at 2min30sec) who was in the room at the time of the shooting (managed to hide behind a table and escape their notice) and witnessed it, was asked directly about this point and refutes it with an "absolutement pas". He says that they entered shouting and immediately open fire on the assembled group.
Somewhere upthread was an account of them asking for where they could find Charb (and others?) as they entered the building. Once they had located the room itself, you wouldn't really expect them to hang around asking for specifics when their intent was to kill him and his team - just to open fire on everyone.
posted by rory at 9:21 AM on January 10, 2015
Laurent Léger, (audio, 12min, question at 2min30sec) who was in the room at the time of the shooting (managed to hide behind a table and escape their notice) and witnessed it, was asked directly about this point and refutes it with an "absolutement pas". He says that they entered shouting and immediately open fire on the assembled group.
Somewhere upthread was an account of them asking for where they could find Charb (and others?) as they entered the building. Once they had located the room itself, you wouldn't really expect them to hang around asking for specifics when their intent was to kill him and his team - just to open fire on everyone.
posted by rory at 9:21 AM on January 10, 2015
It's worth pointing out that in the article Flitcraft linked to, Jean-Marie Le Pen goes on to say that Charlie Hebdo was morally depraved (and anarcho-Trotskyist!) and implies they had it coming. He then says that "well, this the kind of security problem you get when you allow massive immigration."
So, the intellectual and ideological heir of the Vichy regime is playing exactly the hand one would expect.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:30 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
So, the intellectual and ideological heir of the Vichy regime is playing exactly the hand one would expect.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:30 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Zineb El Rhazoui's article (linked by nangar above) is pretty powerful; Google Translate doesn't do it justice. Here are a couple highlights. Note that she's responding to a former Charlie Hebdo writer, and refers to his critique being enthusiastically endorsed by Islamists.
"To start with, you cite Bernard Maris, Catherine, Charb, Fourest… and me. And me? You've chosen to suppress my name, even if it is my articles that you point out as dangerously "islamophobic" and thus, according to you, strongly racist. I've honestly asked myself why, and I see only two options. On one hand, it might have bothered you to inform the detractors of Charlie Hebdo (who could hardly agree with your reasoning unless they didn't read it) that the author of these 'racist insanities' in fact belongs to the Muslim 'race'. Or on the other, because in a nest of fascists like Charlie, I couldn't be anything but an Arab servant. They would have hired me to be an alibi, to fill their diversity quotas— you can't imagine in any case that they added me to the team for the same reasons as you, years before. An Olivier is of course hired for his professional qualities; a Zineb, only because of affirmative action...
"You see, Olivier, as a blédarde [native North African woman], assigned willy-nilly to a religious box, not only by you but above all by a theocratic state which gives me no choice for my faith and governs my personal life with religious laws, I've always wondered why people like you lie down before Islamist propaganda. The laws of my country don't give me a quarter of the rights that you've had from birth, and if I'm attacked or raped in the streets of Casablanca by some bearded man, as was promised to me in hundreds of messages— never taken seriously by the Moroccan police— the [Islamic] websites which have taken up your accusation would certainly say that I deserved it, because I didn't respect Islam. And you, here in France, in a secular state, you mindlessly rehearse all of this moralizing speech about "respecting Islam", as the Islamists demand without ever asking if they respect other religions— or other people simply. Why the hell should I respect Islam? Does it respect me? The day when Islam manifests the smallest bit of esteem toward women first, and to freethinkers next, I promise I'll reconsider my position."
This is one of the "racists", "xenophobes", "neo-Nazis" that people on this page have been condemning. She was away at the time, so her "unwise" actions couldn't catch up with her. This time. On the other hand, her colleague Moustapha Ourrad, a CH copy editor from Algeria, was one of the victims.
I don't have the inclination, or the right, to be as uncompromising as she is. But please be careful in demands to "respect Islam" by avoiding CH's style of satire. That's not supporting Muslims; it's taking sides in a complicated inter-Muslim debate. And it's directly attacking attacking (ex-)Muslims like Zineb and Moustapha.
It's grimly amusing that Le Pen is taking the time to distance himself from CH. The real French racists know who their enemies are.
posted by zompist at 9:35 AM on January 10, 2015 [36 favorites]
"To start with, you cite Bernard Maris, Catherine, Charb, Fourest… and me. And me? You've chosen to suppress my name, even if it is my articles that you point out as dangerously "islamophobic" and thus, according to you, strongly racist. I've honestly asked myself why, and I see only two options. On one hand, it might have bothered you to inform the detractors of Charlie Hebdo (who could hardly agree with your reasoning unless they didn't read it) that the author of these 'racist insanities' in fact belongs to the Muslim 'race'. Or on the other, because in a nest of fascists like Charlie, I couldn't be anything but an Arab servant. They would have hired me to be an alibi, to fill their diversity quotas— you can't imagine in any case that they added me to the team for the same reasons as you, years before. An Olivier is of course hired for his professional qualities; a Zineb, only because of affirmative action...
"You see, Olivier, as a blédarde [native North African woman], assigned willy-nilly to a religious box, not only by you but above all by a theocratic state which gives me no choice for my faith and governs my personal life with religious laws, I've always wondered why people like you lie down before Islamist propaganda. The laws of my country don't give me a quarter of the rights that you've had from birth, and if I'm attacked or raped in the streets of Casablanca by some bearded man, as was promised to me in hundreds of messages— never taken seriously by the Moroccan police— the [Islamic] websites which have taken up your accusation would certainly say that I deserved it, because I didn't respect Islam. And you, here in France, in a secular state, you mindlessly rehearse all of this moralizing speech about "respecting Islam", as the Islamists demand without ever asking if they respect other religions— or other people simply. Why the hell should I respect Islam? Does it respect me? The day when Islam manifests the smallest bit of esteem toward women first, and to freethinkers next, I promise I'll reconsider my position."
This is one of the "racists", "xenophobes", "neo-Nazis" that people on this page have been condemning. She was away at the time, so her "unwise" actions couldn't catch up with her. This time. On the other hand, her colleague Moustapha Ourrad, a CH copy editor from Algeria, was one of the victims.
I don't have the inclination, or the right, to be as uncompromising as she is. But please be careful in demands to "respect Islam" by avoiding CH's style of satire. That's not supporting Muslims; it's taking sides in a complicated inter-Muslim debate. And it's directly attacking attacking (ex-)Muslims like Zineb and Moustapha.
It's grimly amusing that Le Pen is taking the time to distance himself from CH. The real French racists know who their enemies are.
posted by zompist at 9:35 AM on January 10, 2015 [36 favorites]
Which just underlines how tone deaf and relatively uninformed that Teju Cole New Yorker piece is. Innuendos, false equivalencies, armchair accusations of racism that seem to rely largely on Twitter, it's all there: the whole little Eichmanns/roosting chickens nine yards. I thought the attempt to link via innuendo Charlie Hebdo and the Illinois Nazis was particularly classy.
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:47 AM on January 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:47 AM on January 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
Those doing so are not being silenced in any meaningful sense.
I think that's quite true. I also think that is worth considering the measure of which jingoism supports the distribution of the #JeSuisCharlie message. It feels much like post-9/11 messaging, but beyond my personal feelings, we already see countries unaffected by this tragedy using it as a means to continue and even expand the same kinds of human rights abuses that led us — in part — to these murders: the UK, for instance, is using this attack as a pretext to throw more money and expanded powers to its surveillance divisions.
I am not not Charlie, but like Joe Sacco and the writer of the piece I linked, I also have misgivings about the degree to which this tragedy is being used to worsen or ignore existing divisions.
I also wonder if the cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo, were they still alive, would satirize the kind of sudden aggrandizement of their image that we are seeing, given their previous status in the media.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:48 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think that's quite true. I also think that is worth considering the measure of which jingoism supports the distribution of the #JeSuisCharlie message. It feels much like post-9/11 messaging, but beyond my personal feelings, we already see countries unaffected by this tragedy using it as a means to continue and even expand the same kinds of human rights abuses that led us — in part — to these murders: the UK, for instance, is using this attack as a pretext to throw more money and expanded powers to its surveillance divisions.
I am not not Charlie, but like Joe Sacco and the writer of the piece I linked, I also have misgivings about the degree to which this tragedy is being used to worsen or ignore existing divisions.
I also wonder if the cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo, were they still alive, would satirize the kind of sudden aggrandizement of their image that we are seeing, given their previous status in the media.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:48 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also some good points made here by architect and satirist Karl Sharro (who is well worth a follow on twitter) : Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Be Offended
"The culture-clash interpretation of the horror in Paris transcends political divides in the West. On the right, some claim that Muslims’ beliefs are incompatible with modernity and Western values. On the left, some construe the attack as a retaliation for severe offenses, essentially suggesting that Muslims are incapable of responding rationally to such offenses and that it is therefore best not to provoke them. The latter explanation is dressed up in the language of social justice and marginalization, but is, at its core, a patronizing view of ordinary Muslims and their capacity to advocate for their rights without resorting to nihilistic violence.
This outlook also promotes the idea that Muslims and other people of Middle Eastern origin are defined primarily by their religion, which in turn devalues and demeans the attempts of Arab and Middle Eastern secularists to define themselves through varying interpretations of religion or even by challenging religion and its role in public life.
By seeking to present religion as a form of cultural identity that should be protected from offense and critique, Western liberals are consequently undermining the very struggles against the authority of inherited institutions through which much of the Western world’s social and political progress was achieved."
posted by Flitcraft at 9:52 AM on January 10, 2015 [34 favorites]
"The culture-clash interpretation of the horror in Paris transcends political divides in the West. On the right, some claim that Muslims’ beliefs are incompatible with modernity and Western values. On the left, some construe the attack as a retaliation for severe offenses, essentially suggesting that Muslims are incapable of responding rationally to such offenses and that it is therefore best not to provoke them. The latter explanation is dressed up in the language of social justice and marginalization, but is, at its core, a patronizing view of ordinary Muslims and their capacity to advocate for their rights without resorting to nihilistic violence.
This outlook also promotes the idea that Muslims and other people of Middle Eastern origin are defined primarily by their religion, which in turn devalues and demeans the attempts of Arab and Middle Eastern secularists to define themselves through varying interpretations of religion or even by challenging religion and its role in public life.
By seeking to present religion as a form of cultural identity that should be protected from offense and critique, Western liberals are consequently undermining the very struggles against the authority of inherited institutions through which much of the Western world’s social and political progress was achieved."
posted by Flitcraft at 9:52 AM on January 10, 2015 [34 favorites]
It's almost as if there is no ethos but rather a lookup table of socially approved causes and positions.
posted by rr at 10:01 AM on January 10, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by rr at 10:01 AM on January 10, 2015 [12 favorites]
By seeking to present religion as a form of cultural identity that should be protected from offense and critique, Western liberals are consequently undermining the very struggles against the authority of inherited institutions through which much of the Western world’s social and political progress was achieved.
Excellent. Yes. I like essay this very much.
posted by feste at 10:06 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Excellent. Yes. I like essay this very much.
posted by feste at 10:06 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
VIDEO. Porte de Vincennes: an employee of the store hid hostages
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:12 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:12 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's almost as if there is no ethos but rather a lookup table of socially approved causes and positions.
at this moment, i truly feel like i cannot favourite this observation enough.
posted by cendawanita at 10:14 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
at this moment, i truly feel like i cannot favourite this observation enough.
posted by cendawanita at 10:14 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Flitcraft , thanks for introducing me to Karl Sharro.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 10:21 AM on January 10, 2015
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 10:21 AM on January 10, 2015
The Daily Beast has gone and published another one from someone who isn't French, arguably had never heard of Charlie Hebdo as recently as last Thursday and repeatedly and consistently mistakes his own lazy incomprehension for vacuity on CH's part. "Yes, killing is bad but they were puerile trolls who offended people for no reason so stop valorizing them." If you actually want to read it it's here -> .
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:43 AM on January 10, 2015
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:43 AM on January 10, 2015
"In France, almost a fifth of the population has been willing to vote for an extremist party, the National Front, which is founded on the same clash-of-civilizations ideology that motivates the jihadis. As with the Islamic-extremist underclass, it targets Jews and pro-European liberals, and opposes European unity."
Interestingly....
posted by IndigoJones at 10:49 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Interestingly....
posted by IndigoJones at 10:49 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Heh. I was going to link this tweet from Karl Sharro last night after phaedon's comment:
@KarlreMarks: "As usual in the aftermath of every big event, I find that the most troubling thing is that people have other opinions."
Reading Fitcrafts' excellent comments leaves me wishing that secular/liberal/leftist movements in the ME and elsewhere were better organized and had more global support. Maybe the Charlie Hebdo attack could be a call to arms (or pens) for the secularist intelligentsia.
Paris’s Jewish community retreats in shock after deadly end to siege
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:59 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
@KarlreMarks: "As usual in the aftermath of every big event, I find that the most troubling thing is that people have other opinions."
Reading Fitcrafts' excellent comments leaves me wishing that secular/liberal/leftist movements in the ME and elsewhere were better organized and had more global support. Maybe the Charlie Hebdo attack could be a call to arms (or pens) for the secularist intelligentsia.
Paris’s Jewish community retreats in shock after deadly end to siege
“We’re afraid, but what more could the government do to protect us?” said Berg. “Our schools and places of worship have already been guarded for the last two years. People wouldn’t want a police escort to go shopping.”This map shows every attack on French Muslims since Charlie Hebdo
[...]
In the southern district of Montrouge, where Coulibaly shot a policewoman dead on Thursday morning, residents said they were convinced he had originally intended to attack a Jewish school and synagogue less than 100 yards away from the shooting.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:59 AM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile it doesn't get much more meta than this.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:06 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:06 AM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Flitcraft, thank you so much for your comments and especially your links -- as a Left person of sorta-maybe-kinda faith who is also a free speech absolutist, I've had difficulty expressing some of my reactions, but you expressed what I think I've been wanting to say quite eloquently. Much appreciated.
posted by mostly vowels at 11:38 AM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by mostly vowels at 11:38 AM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
@AFP: "#BREAKING Hayat Boumeddiene entered Turkey Jan 2, may now be in Syria, says Turkish security source"
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:57 AM on January 10, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:57 AM on January 10, 2015
I don't understand what entering Turkey a week before the attacks would have to do with anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:00 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:00 PM on January 10, 2015
They're saying she is probably in Syria now. I think this may indicate she has not been in Paris since then and should not be a suspect?
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:10 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:10 PM on January 10, 2015
Oh, I see.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:12 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:12 PM on January 10, 2015
‘I AM NOT CHARLIE’: Leaked Newsroom Emails Reveal Al Jazeera Fury over Global Support for Charlie Hebdo
“I guess if you insult 1.5 billion people chances are one or two of them will kill you,” wrote Mohamed Vall Salem, who reported for Al Jazeera’s Arab-language channel before joining its English wing in 2006. “And I guess if you encourage people to go on insulting 1.5 billion people about their most sacred icons then you just want more killings..."posted by Golden Eternity at 12:38 PM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
France is not sympathetic to Jews as a community.
Yesterday's events were really scary and the kosher market attack was clearly anti-semitic in motivation. This is, beyond a tragedy involving Charlie Hebdo, certainly terrifying for those in the Jewish Marais and Jews elsewhere in France. Having said that, I'd take issue with the statement posted above. First, it's overly broad ("France" doesn't dislike Jews.) Second, it's not clear ("sympathetic" in what way?). While living in France for more than five years, I didn't see evidence of systemic or uniform discrimination or disapproval (by political leaders, media figures, intellectuals, friends, students) of the Jewish community. While long-time supporters of the extreme far right are surely anti-semitic, the burgeoning numbers supporting the FN (many of whom live in the south near where I lived) seemed to be much more concerned about north Africans than Jews. The casual racist remarks I routinely heard were always about the presence of north Africans (or in code, those from the banlieus). Not trying to make this into an either/or proposition and it's just my two cents based on my experiences there a while ago (plus hearing about it from a family member still living there), but those are my impressions.
posted by faux ami at 12:58 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yesterday's events were really scary and the kosher market attack was clearly anti-semitic in motivation. This is, beyond a tragedy involving Charlie Hebdo, certainly terrifying for those in the Jewish Marais and Jews elsewhere in France. Having said that, I'd take issue with the statement posted above. First, it's overly broad ("France" doesn't dislike Jews.) Second, it's not clear ("sympathetic" in what way?). While living in France for more than five years, I didn't see evidence of systemic or uniform discrimination or disapproval (by political leaders, media figures, intellectuals, friends, students) of the Jewish community. While long-time supporters of the extreme far right are surely anti-semitic, the burgeoning numbers supporting the FN (many of whom live in the south near where I lived) seemed to be much more concerned about north Africans than Jews. The casual racist remarks I routinely heard were always about the presence of north Africans (or in code, those from the banlieus). Not trying to make this into an either/or proposition and it's just my two cents based on my experiences there a while ago (plus hearing about it from a family member still living there), but those are my impressions.
posted by faux ami at 12:58 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, Al Jazeera's response is literally the "of course killing is bad but..." tiptoe approach to victim blaming:
Note also the subhead on that: "Debating free speech in the wake of Charlie Hebdo". Sorry AJ but for most of us it's not a debate.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:59 PM on January 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
The initial reaction was shock and this grew into a debate about freedom of speech. The provocative publication has a history of publishing cartoons that many have deemed offensive, and what was missing from the initial coverage was context and an attempt to understand why this had happened.Emphasis mine. And "in need of explanation"? Sure, because nobody had mentioned CH's content until AJ cleverly spotted it and pointed it out. Filling a real journalistic vacuum there, not victim blaming at all.
France has a tradition of satire that shocks and savages - to an extent that would not be tolerated in other so-called liberal democracies. There is nothing that justifies the murder of any journalist or cartoonist over their work, but this is a story in need of explanation.
Note also the subhead on that: "Debating free speech in the wake of Charlie Hebdo". Sorry AJ but for most of us it's not a debate.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:59 PM on January 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
Well, the AJ editor's suggested tack (the point in his email beginning "This was a targeted attack, not a broad attack on the french population a la Twin towers or 7/7 style") was invalidated as soon as the terrorists hit the kosher supermarket. It's interesting seeing how the sausage gets made inside AJ English, though.
posted by topynate at 1:20 PM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by topynate at 1:20 PM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
Those email exchanges between Al Jazeera editors and reporters are grotesque. I hope Jacky Rowland will leave that organization.
Last, if you no longer have anything that you hold sacred (the death of religion and the death of God etc…), there 1.5 billion people who still have … don’t ignore their values in the name of yours, because values are a cultural construct, they vary from age to age and from culture to culture …
What does this even mean? 1.5 billion Muslims have the same values, but values are a cultural construct that vary from age to age?
posted by feste at 1:25 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Last, if you no longer have anything that you hold sacred (the death of religion and the death of God etc…), there 1.5 billion people who still have … don’t ignore their values in the name of yours, because values are a cultural construct, they vary from age to age and from culture to culture …
What does this even mean? 1.5 billion Muslims have the same values, but values are a cultural construct that vary from age to age?
posted by feste at 1:25 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Which isn't to say that the entire French population actually was being targeted – it does appear a bit less broad than that from the point of view of the killers – just that, putting it as gently as I can, if you go through his email and substitute 'magazine' with 'magazine and Jews' it doesn't really fit the explanatory framework he's trying to erect.
posted by topynate at 1:26 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by topynate at 1:26 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
In fairness, the first two opinion pieces AJE published after the tragedy were irreproachable:
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:30 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Are We Not Allowed To Laugh Anymore?But if you look at their opinion index page now, subsequent ones on the topic seem to be reflective of the shift indicated from on high in the emails.
A Defining Moment For France's Right
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:30 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Joe: France is not sympathetic to Jews as a community.
Faux: I'd take issue with the statement posted above. First, it's overly broad ("France" doesn't dislike Jews.) Second, it's not clear ("sympathetic" in what way?). While living in France for more than five years, I didn't see evidence of systemic or uniform discrimination or disapproval
This is the third attack in a European French speaking country in as many years where Islamic extremists have murdered Jews with assault weapons in broad daylight, in cold blood. As Joe noted, Jews and Jewish institutions in France are currently in a siege mentality and have been for years.
The French response will probably continue be very public chest-beating for the next week, then hand-wringing, and then finally nothing. Meanwhile I think this attack will be the nail in the coffin for French Jewry - the current trend of them leaving for Israel in record numbers will accelerate, and there will probably be no Jews in France by 2050.
posted by rosswald at 2:09 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Faux: I'd take issue with the statement posted above. First, it's overly broad ("France" doesn't dislike Jews.) Second, it's not clear ("sympathetic" in what way?). While living in France for more than five years, I didn't see evidence of systemic or uniform discrimination or disapproval
This is the third attack in a European French speaking country in as many years where Islamic extremists have murdered Jews with assault weapons in broad daylight, in cold blood. As Joe noted, Jews and Jewish institutions in France are currently in a siege mentality and have been for years.
The French response will probably continue be very public chest-beating for the next week, then hand-wringing, and then finally nothing. Meanwhile I think this attack will be the nail in the coffin for French Jewry - the current trend of them leaving for Israel in record numbers will accelerate, and there will probably be no Jews in France by 2050.
posted by rosswald at 2:09 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo, Before the Massacre: In this short documentary filmed at Charlie Hebdo in 2006, cartoonists and editors design a satirical front page image of Muhammad.
posted by Rumple at 2:52 PM on January 10, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by Rumple at 2:52 PM on January 10, 2015 [20 favorites]
Rumple, that short film is very revealing. It shows the concerns of the cartoonists and editors, how they thought, and what they wanted to make their jokes about. Those who harp on with the "yes, but..." can now at last be still, for they are utterly wrong.
posted by Thing at 3:12 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by Thing at 3:12 PM on January 10, 2015
Rumple, I loved that. Makes it all so human, so close. Thanks for posting that.
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:47 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:47 PM on January 10, 2015
I know no one can keep up with all the links, but that's the same thing that shivohum linked above.
I really appreciate all the material in this thread. I wish someone within the French world would write a little piece for Slate or somewhere rounding up the explanations of the more visually transgressive cartoons as I still see a lot of op-eds and FB posts either accusing the cartoonists of racism, or defending them from a "they were terrible but free speech over all else" POV. I haven't that seen much from Americans expressing solidarity straightforwardly.
posted by mdn at 4:11 PM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
I really appreciate all the material in this thread. I wish someone within the French world would write a little piece for Slate or somewhere rounding up the explanations of the more visually transgressive cartoons as I still see a lot of op-eds and FB posts either accusing the cartoonists of racism, or defending them from a "they were terrible but free speech over all else" POV. I haven't that seen much from Americans expressing solidarity straightforwardly.
posted by mdn at 4:11 PM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
Saying fanatical extremists have targeted Jews is the same as France not being sympathetic to Jews doesn't compute to me. And the siege mentality for years comment is a huge stretch, I think. But those who want to believe that will believe that regardless of what I say (and despite not living there themselves).
posted by faux ami at 6:00 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by faux ami at 6:00 PM on January 10, 2015
The Charlie Hebdo attack was a strike against free speech. So why is the response more surveillance? Let’s not avenge the deaths of journalists by trying to curtail the very rights for which the world has praised them
posted by homunculus at 6:06 PM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 6:06 PM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
And the siege mentality for years comment is a huge stretch, I think. But those who want to believe that will believe that regardless of what I say (and despite not living there themselves).
I guess this is directed at me? You are right - I don't live there. Perhaps then you can explain the record breaking number of Jews leaving France?
posted by rosswald at 6:15 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
I guess this is directed at me? You are right - I don't live there. Perhaps then you can explain the record breaking number of Jews leaving France?
posted by rosswald at 6:15 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
BBC: Paris shootings: Jews 'don't feel safe in France'
posted by rosswald at 6:26 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rosswald at 6:26 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Saying fanatical extremists have targeted Jews is the same as France not being sympathetic to Jews doesn't compute to me. And the siege mentality for years comment is a huge stretch, I think. But those who want to believe that will believe that regardless of what I say (and despite not living there themselves).
Vous vivez en France actuellement?
posted by Nevin at 6:33 PM on January 10, 2015
Vous vivez en France actuellement?
posted by Nevin at 6:33 PM on January 10, 2015
Wow, Al Jazeera's respectability really plummets with that leaked email exchange, thanks George Spiggott.
Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris by Juan Cole
"Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance."
posted by jeffburdges at 6:48 PM on January 10, 2015
Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris by Juan Cole
"Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance."
posted by jeffburdges at 6:48 PM on January 10, 2015
Slate published a somewhat clumsy translation of a story about Charlie Hebdo's first editorial meeting in which they discuss how to handle the edition scheduled for next week... Pretty powerful, at least I thought so.
posted by mdn at 7:00 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by mdn at 7:00 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
We've good debunking of the accusation that the Boko Haram cartoon was racist, right-wing, etc. upthread, but..
What was the context of Charlie Hebdo's cartoon depicting Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens?
"This cover is a double snipe in classical Charlie style, both against Boko Haram and our right wing, NOT against the sex slaves or "welfare queens". To misunderstand that shows complete ignorance of French press and the left wing / anarchist tradition of Charlie."
posted by jeffburdges at 7:22 PM on January 10, 2015 [11 favorites]
What was the context of Charlie Hebdo's cartoon depicting Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens?
"This cover is a double snipe in classical Charlie style, both against Boko Haram and our right wing, NOT against the sex slaves or "welfare queens". To misunderstand that shows complete ignorance of French press and the left wing / anarchist tradition of Charlie."
posted by jeffburdges at 7:22 PM on January 10, 2015 [11 favorites]
Zineb El Rhazoui, a writer for Charlie Hebdo (mentioned earlier), had an article yesterday in Le Monde reminiscing about the magazine and her collegues. Here's an English translation by somebody on tumblr. The original in Le Monde: « Il arrivait que l’on dise aux collègues : “Je vous aime” ».
posted by nangar at 8:33 PM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nangar at 8:33 PM on January 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
a lungful of dragon: I also have misgivings about the degree to which this tragedy is being used to worsen or ignore existing divisions.
There's conservatives (such as in the example you linked to, the UK Tories) who do that with every tragedy. They do that when there's no tragedy. They'll do that no matter what. FOX News, for example, can always find a way to spin things so that Obama sucks and it's not about their racism. They're not alone. The facts of whatever springboard they're using doesn't actually matter.
There's no way to react or deal with a tragedy like this that won't have these significant segments of the right-wing attempt to make the world worse in their reaction. So there's no reason to attempt to alter one's reaction because of that concern, because there's nothing anyone reasonable can do differently to not have them attempt to worsen and/or ignore existing divisions. They'll do it regardless.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:42 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's conservatives (such as in the example you linked to, the UK Tories) who do that with every tragedy. They do that when there's no tragedy. They'll do that no matter what. FOX News, for example, can always find a way to spin things so that Obama sucks and it's not about their racism. They're not alone. The facts of whatever springboard they're using doesn't actually matter.
There's no way to react or deal with a tragedy like this that won't have these significant segments of the right-wing attempt to make the world worse in their reaction. So there's no reason to attempt to alter one's reaction because of that concern, because there's nothing anyone reasonable can do differently to not have them attempt to worsen and/or ignore existing divisions. They'll do it regardless.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:42 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Those leaked Al Jazeera mails... just wow.
National broadcasters can be disciplined by their governments - does a transnational network just self-govern?
posted by progosk at 12:23 AM on January 11, 2015
National broadcasters can be disciplined by their governments - does a transnational network just self-govern?
posted by progosk at 12:23 AM on January 11, 2015
Robert Crumb comments on the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
posted by Termite at 1:08 AM on January 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Termite at 1:08 AM on January 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
Very nice Termite :
"You don’t have journalists [in American] anymore, what they have is public relations people." - Robert Crumb
Al Jazeera ordered their reporters to intentionally deceive readers, progosk, but that's no different from what Fox News does every day. Afaik no hate speech violation here. Al Jazeera's 'penalty' should be merely that we stop trusting them so much.
Also, any countries with Al Jazeera offices and strong hate speech laws should keep a close eye on them, especially France given their serious anti-semitism problem.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:32 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
"You don’t have journalists [in American] anymore, what they have is public relations people." - Robert Crumb
Al Jazeera ordered their reporters to intentionally deceive readers, progosk, but that's no different from what Fox News does every day. Afaik no hate speech violation here. Al Jazeera's 'penalty' should be merely that we stop trusting them so much.
Also, any countries with Al Jazeera offices and strong hate speech laws should keep a close eye on them, especially France given their serious anti-semitism problem.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:32 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
I haven't that seen much from Americans expressing solidarity straightforwardly.
I'm Anglo-Australian rather than American, and it's a humble personal blog rather than Slate, but I attempted to do as much here, adapting some of my comments from this thread and referencing other people's. The trigger was seeing that Jacob Canfield article cited on Twitter yet again on Friday night. The more we hear from actual people in France, not least surviving members of the CH staff, the more hasty and unsustainable that position looks.
CH were (and still are) left-wing, secular, atheist, anarchic cartoonists... these are my people. Je suis Charlie, and screw qualifications and caveats.
posted by rory at 1:51 AM on January 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm Anglo-Australian rather than American, and it's a humble personal blog rather than Slate, but I attempted to do as much here, adapting some of my comments from this thread and referencing other people's. The trigger was seeing that Jacob Canfield article cited on Twitter yet again on Friday night. The more we hear from actual people in France, not least surviving members of the CH staff, the more hasty and unsustainable that position looks.
CH were (and still are) left-wing, secular, atheist, anarchic cartoonists... these are my people. Je suis Charlie, and screw qualifications and caveats.
posted by rory at 1:51 AM on January 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
Big march in Paris from Place de la République to Place de la Nation on Sunday. And it looks like tout le monde will be there!
Among them some heads of states who have a poor track record when it comes to 'liberty of the press'.
There is, for instance, Ahmet Davutoglu (Turkey's prime minister), Sergueï Lavrov (Russia's foreign minister), Ali Bongo (Gabon's president), and Naftali Bennett (Israel's economics minister). [OK, the latter has only bragged about "killing plenty of arabs".]
According to Reporters Without Borders review of 2014... out of 180 countries, Turkey is 154th, Russia 148th, Gabon 98th, Israel 96th.
Will Bachar Al-Assad turn up at the last moment?
posted by Mister Bijou at 1:51 AM on January 11, 2015
Among them some heads of states who have a poor track record when it comes to 'liberty of the press'.
There is, for instance, Ahmet Davutoglu (Turkey's prime minister), Sergueï Lavrov (Russia's foreign minister), Ali Bongo (Gabon's president), and Naftali Bennett (Israel's economics minister). [OK, the latter has only bragged about "killing plenty of arabs".]
According to Reporters Without Borders review of 2014... out of 180 countries, Turkey is 154th, Russia 148th, Gabon 98th, Israel 96th.
Will Bachar Al-Assad turn up at the last moment?
posted by Mister Bijou at 1:51 AM on January 11, 2015
Regarding those heads of state, this is neither the first nor the last time that government officials have self-servingly endorsed values which their employers otherwise disrespect. You would be hard-pressed to find a country governed without hypocrisy, or a demonstration without hypocrites. I am sure that each of those officials' countries are making their presence known because they do not want extremist groups conducting funny business within their respective borders. I have little affection for, say, the government of Russia, but it's not like I can blame them for publicly rejecting these attacks.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:04 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:04 AM on January 11, 2015
I've just watched the vid taken during one of their sessions, and the journalist saying "France is paradise" brought tears to my eyes. I've been brought up with those artists (Cabu was featured in a kids program in the 80's, they all have drawn for many newspapers, have created many well-known characters). They are sorely missed. The feeling that prevails is that of a paradise being lost. It's eerie to think that misunderstandings could lead to such outcomes [well I know how complex it is... but the men who pulled the triggers...] Those guys were jesters and they often mimicked opinions to show how shocking they were. Their best-known characters were caricatures.
posted by nicolin at 3:09 AM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 3:09 AM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Here's that "cowardly" Crumb vignette.
Libé had some other great ones the other day; I love this one in particular.
posted by progosk at 3:37 AM on January 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
Libé had some other great ones the other day; I love this one in particular.
posted by progosk at 3:37 AM on January 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
Meantime, arsonist have hit the offices of the Hamburger Morgenpost, who had republished a collection of CH panels the day after the massacre.
posted by progosk at 3:42 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by progosk at 3:42 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
progosk: While it might be the only place with an English-language translation of some of the stuff you are talking about, that "Gallia Watch" blog is really iffy, "clash of civilizations" stuff.
Those leaked Al Jazeera mails... just wow.
National broadcasters can be disciplined by their governments - does a transnational network just self-govern?
Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar.
posted by dhens at 4:01 AM on January 11, 2015
Those leaked Al Jazeera mails... just wow.
National broadcasters can be disciplined by their governments - does a transnational network just self-govern?
Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar.
posted by dhens at 4:01 AM on January 11, 2015
The prude comments from some Americans, who express an opinion after googling a couple of Charlie Hebdo covers, puzzle me. As if Americans suddenly lost the ability to see the point of bad taste - after teaching the whole planet that bad taste is fun.
Charlie Hebdo would probably not exist if it weren't for American underground comics from the late sixties. Where do you think these guys learned to draw? Robert Crumb (see his comment to the massacre here) has probably taught them half of what they know.
posted by Termite at 4:31 AM on January 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo would probably not exist if it weren't for American underground comics from the late sixties. Where do you think these guys learned to draw? Robert Crumb (see his comment to the massacre here) has probably taught them half of what they know.
posted by Termite at 4:31 AM on January 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
Golden Eternity: thank you for those links. Hanon Ghaddar's article is particularly on point.
posted by progosk at 4:35 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by progosk at 4:35 AM on January 11, 2015
The Atlantic - French Prime Minister Warns: If Jews Flee, the Republic Will Be Judged a Failure. Manuel Valls: "If 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France."
“There is a new anti-Semitism in France,” he told me. “We have the old anti-Semitism, and I’m obviously not downplaying it, that comes from the extreme right, but this new anti-Semitism comes from the difficult neighborhoods, from immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, who have turned anger about Gaza into something very dangerous. Israel and Palestine are just a pretext. There is something far more profound taking place now.”posted by rosswald at 5:36 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
In discussing the attacks on French synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses this summer, during the Gaza war, he said, “It is legitimate to criticize the politics of Israel. This criticism exists in Israel itself. But this is not what we are talking about in France. This is radical criticism of the very existence of Israel, which is anti-Semitic. There is an incontestable link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Behind anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”
-----
[The Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Paris said:] "The issue is that the government cannot protect every Jewish person and Jewish institution. There’s always more to do, but they can’t do everything. Even if they did all that needs to be done—counter-radicalization, education, making sure that imprisoned people don’t become radicalized, and so on—there’s always more to do. We have a very, very profound problem.”
Seeing the list of politicians joining the march in Paris on Twitter, my response was that any politician should only be allowed to do it wearing a t-shirt bearing a cartoon depicting them in sexual congress with a farmyard animal, preferably a pig. Otherwise they should just fuck off. I stand by that.
posted by Grangousier at 5:55 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Grangousier at 5:55 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think this cartoon from the Libération link above catches that well.
posted by Flitcraft at 6:02 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Flitcraft at 6:02 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
why?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:03 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:03 AM on January 11, 2015
I'm thinking about the politicians who've turned out - many of whom have terrible records on freedom of the press and how they treat journalists. It's a bit ironic. A chap called Daniel Wickham has been tweeting a list.
posted by Flitcraft at 6:07 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by Flitcraft at 6:07 AM on January 11, 2015
Why?
That cartoon is based on a CH cartoon of yesteryear which had Muhammed lamenting that "C'est dur d'être aimeé pas des cons".
This time around it features two of the murdered cartoonists, Wolinski (left) and Cabu (right).
"C'est dur d'être aimeé pas des cons" roughly translates as "It's hard being loved by cons (take your pick from one or more of the following: morons, idiots, imbeciles, dickheads, jerks, twats, cunts).
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:22 AM on January 11, 2015
That cartoon is based on a CH cartoon of yesteryear which had Muhammed lamenting that "C'est dur d'être aimeé pas des cons".
This time around it features two of the murdered cartoonists, Wolinski (left) and Cabu (right).
"C'est dur d'être aimeé pas des cons" roughly translates as "It's hard being loved by cons (take your pick from one or more of the following: morons, idiots, imbeciles, dickheads, jerks, twats, cunts).
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:22 AM on January 11, 2015
The Marche Republicaine in Paris (estimated to be hundreds of thousands of people) is being covered live by France24 (in French) right now.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xigbvx_en-direct-toute-l-actu-france-24-en-francais_news
Lots of world leaders there including Hollande (obvs), Merkel, Cameron, Abbas, Netanyahu.
posted by desjardins at 6:51 AM on January 11, 2015
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xigbvx_en-direct-toute-l-actu-france-24-en-francais_news
Lots of world leaders there including Hollande (obvs), Merkel, Cameron, Abbas, Netanyahu.
posted by desjardins at 6:51 AM on January 11, 2015
Unity rally for Paris shootings
It is nice to see the Muslim and Jewish leaders of Paris together, and having the world's leaders take part in the march is a powerful tribute to France. Hopefully it might help open the doors to more cooperation in Syria. I hope Muslim leaders are given a strong platform to mourn the tragedy together with the whole city. That said, it's hard to see Putin and Davutoglu's presence as anything but placating violence against free speech and an insult to killed and imprisoned journalists everywhere.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:31 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
It is nice to see the Muslim and Jewish leaders of Paris together, and having the world's leaders take part in the march is a powerful tribute to France. Hopefully it might help open the doors to more cooperation in Syria. I hope Muslim leaders are given a strong platform to mourn the tragedy together with the whole city. That said, it's hard to see Putin and Davutoglu's presence as anything but placating violence against free speech and an insult to killed and imprisoned journalists everywhere.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:31 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
German newspaper that reprinted the Muhammad cartoons from the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo has been the target of an arson attack.
posted by arcticseal at 7:44 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by arcticseal at 7:44 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh. Yesterday, I thought I read he was going to meet with Merkel. My bad.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:52 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:52 AM on January 11, 2015
This Paris rally is golden. The ambassador for Saudi Arabia is attending even though his country is currently whipping Raif Badawi for writing a blog. Not that many of the Western leaders are exactly friends of free speech.
posted by Thing at 8:14 AM on January 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Thing at 8:14 AM on January 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
This French blogger has had enough: she explains, in plain English, why Charlie Hebdo is not racist, even when they draw the minister of justice as a monkey.
Meanwhile, the real racists, France's Front National party, is not invited to today's solidarity march (inviting Putin was fine, though). Jean-Marie Le Pen, the former Front National leader, describes Charlie Hebdo as an "enemy" of his party.
posted by Termite at 9:30 AM on January 11, 2015 [12 favorites]
Meanwhile, the real racists, France's Front National party, is not invited to today's solidarity march (inviting Putin was fine, though). Jean-Marie Le Pen, the former Front National leader, describes Charlie Hebdo as an "enemy" of his party.
posted by Termite at 9:30 AM on January 11, 2015 [12 favorites]
I don't actually have a problem with (non-French) politicians staying home. They really do have better things to do. Also, if they're credibly on the side of good then their participation adds nothing; if, like the Saudis, they're rank hypocrites, then it rather detracts from the occasion.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:33 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:33 AM on January 11, 2015
France24 is saying there are 2.5 million people at the march. (Revised from 600k earlier today.) The population of Paris is 2.2 million. What's the biggest demonstration in world history?
posted by desjardins at 9:35 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 9:35 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
BBC says "over a million." It's really difficult to get accurate counts at these things, of course, but in any case, this was a huge showing.
posted by desjardins at 9:38 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by desjardins at 9:38 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
What's the biggest demonstration in world history?
According to Wikipedia's list of "peaceful gatherings", I think it may have been the 2006 Gay Pride march in São Paulo, Brazil. It depends on your definition of "demonstration", though. There have been much larger gatherings for religious events, as well as funerals and concerts.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:41 AM on January 11, 2015
According to Wikipedia's list of "peaceful gatherings", I think it may have been the 2006 Gay Pride march in São Paulo, Brazil. It depends on your definition of "demonstration", though. There have been much larger gatherings for religious events, as well as funerals and concerts.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:41 AM on January 11, 2015
According to the Grauniad's live updates ->
France’s interior ministry has apparently given up counting how many people are taking part in the march. “It’s not possible to estimate”, it says.
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:41 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
France’s interior ministry has apparently given up counting how many people are taking part in the march. “It’s not possible to estimate”, it says.
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:41 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, I missed the 2003 anti-War protests. They were global, but the one in Rome involved around three million people. But as Master Yoda says, "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm."
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:43 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:43 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Tariq Ali: "Hollande and Sarkozy have announced that they will lead a march of national unity (Cameron’s going along too). As a French friend wrote to me, ‘The idea of Charlie Hebdo provoking a “union sacrée” has to be one of the ironies of history that even the most cynical post-’68 libertarian anti-establishmentarian would have choked on in disbelief.’"
posted by colie at 9:45 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by colie at 9:45 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
According to Le Monde's live updates... excluding Paris, about 2,000,000 people have marched in cities and towns throughout the hexagon.
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:45 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:45 AM on January 11, 2015
And thoughts from Chomsky.
Comparing the attack on Charlie Hebdo with the NATO attack on the Serbian broadcaster is puzzling. While the war between NATO and Serbia may not have been sanctioned by the UN, it was essentially a legal war conducted according to legally established rules of conduct.
posted by Nevin at 10:00 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Comparing the attack on Charlie Hebdo with the NATO attack on the Serbian broadcaster is puzzling. While the war between NATO and Serbia may not have been sanctioned by the UN, it was essentially a legal war conducted according to legally established rules of conduct.
posted by Nevin at 10:00 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is a couple of days late because I haven't been following the thread, but some ctrl+F'ing produced only one link, so:
BBC has reported "revenge" attacks on French Muslims (big general article, scroll down):
posted by byanyothername at 10:02 AM on January 11, 2015
BBC has reported "revenge" attacks on French Muslims (big general article, scroll down):
Two shots were fired at a Muslim prayer room in the town of Port-la-Nouvelle in the southern region of Aude on Wednesday eveningMore here. No deaths and so far the only injury is the assaulted teenager. The map Golden Eternity linked to has a good graphic and article with more context as well.
A Muslim family was shot at in their car in Caromb, in the southern region of Vaucluse
Dummy grenades were thrown during the night at a mosque in Le Mans, western France
The slogan "Death to Arabs" was daubed on the door of a mosque in Poitiers, central France, during the night
A blast hit a kebab shop beside a mosque in Villefranche-sur-Saone in central France
posted by byanyothername at 10:02 AM on January 11, 2015
Salah-Aldeen Khadr's email at Al Jazeera seems to be a reasonable, non-western response to the typical western egocentric hysteria we've come to know when these sorts of events occur.
This entire hubbub is eerily reminiscent of the uproar after 9/11 that led to the mid-east wars. I can't count the number of times I heard from so-called liberals "I'm no neo-con, but ...." Western nations, united once again in common cause.
posted by JackFlash at 10:04 AM on January 11, 2015
This entire hubbub is eerily reminiscent of the uproar after 9/11 that led to the mid-east wars. I can't count the number of times I heard from so-called liberals "I'm no neo-con, but ...." Western nations, united once again in common cause.
posted by JackFlash at 10:04 AM on January 11, 2015
Salah-Aldeen Khadr's email at Al Jazeera seems to be a reasonable, non-western response to the typical western egocentric hysteria we've come to know when these sorts of events occur.
Well, if you happen to be a journalist from a Western country you are going to be affected if a fellow journalist (ie, 12 Charlie Hebdo staff members) are killed with assault rifles. For the Western media, these deaths are not abstract, and, unlike some of the "foreign" terrorist attacks, not particularly complicated to comprehend.
I suppose Khadr has become used to this sort of atrocity, but for better or for worse most of us in Western democracies are not used to it.
It would be nice if the Gulf states stopped sponsoring ISIL and al Qaeda by the way.
posted by Nevin at 10:43 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, if you happen to be a journalist from a Western country you are going to be affected if a fellow journalist (ie, 12 Charlie Hebdo staff members) are killed with assault rifles. For the Western media, these deaths are not abstract, and, unlike some of the "foreign" terrorist attacks, not particularly complicated to comprehend.
I suppose Khadr has become used to this sort of atrocity, but for better or for worse most of us in Western democracies are not used to it.
It would be nice if the Gulf states stopped sponsoring ISIL and al Qaeda by the way.
posted by Nevin at 10:43 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
> This Paris rally is golden. The ambassador for Saudi Arabia is attending even though his country is currently whipping Raif Badawi for writing a blog.
This really should be stated more widely. I'd tweet it myself to both of my followers if there were any point. It'd be fucking amazing if Charlie Hebdo themselves published something to this effect. And I certainly wouldn't put it past them: at least one of them is acutely sensitive to the high-profile bandwagon hypocrisy taking place now.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:05 AM on January 11, 2015
This really should be stated more widely. I'd tweet it myself to both of my followers if there were any point. It'd be fucking amazing if Charlie Hebdo themselves published something to this effect. And I certainly wouldn't put it past them: at least one of them is acutely sensitive to the high-profile bandwagon hypocrisy taking place now.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:05 AM on January 11, 2015
It's been pointed out that London's rally today in Trafalgar Square in favour of free speech would probably have been dispersed by police had it happened a few weeks ago in nearby Parliament Square, which has recently been the subject of anti-protest laws. This is all going a bit wrong.
posted by colie at 11:14 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by colie at 11:14 AM on January 11, 2015
Nevin's link goes to a picture of the world leaders in attendance at the march. L-R, Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mali’s Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, French president Francois Hollande, Germany’s Angela Merkel, EC president Donald Tusk and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. Not shown: British PM David Cameron and a bunch of others I didn't recognize. No one from the US that I'm aware of.
posted by desjardins at 11:18 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by desjardins at 11:18 AM on January 11, 2015
Quite a display of competing interests and competing hypocritical responses to these two attacks.
posted by Nevin at 11:25 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by Nevin at 11:25 AM on January 11, 2015
It's been pointed out that London's rally today in Trafalgar Square in favour of free speech would probably have been dispersed by police had it happened a few weeks ago in nearby Parliament Square, which has recently been the subject of anti-protest laws. This is all going a bit wrong.
Indeed, I recall that the Government's (of all kinds) attempts to do away with Brian Haw were pretty reprehensible. I thought Haw was a bit mad, personally, but the way they hounded him was beyond reasonable. Though I also recall that great deal of public and media opinion was against the Government too.
posted by Thing at 11:30 AM on January 11, 2015
Indeed, I recall that the Government's (of all kinds) attempts to do away with Brian Haw were pretty reprehensible. I thought Haw was a bit mad, personally, but the way they hounded him was beyond reasonable. Though I also recall that great deal of public and media opinion was against the Government too.
posted by Thing at 11:30 AM on January 11, 2015
This Paris rally is golden. The ambassador for Saudi Arabia is attending even though his country is currently whipping Raif Badawi for writing a blog.
Torture of Saudi blogger sentenced to 10 years and 1,000 lashes begins
posted by homunculus at 11:32 AM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Torture of Saudi blogger sentenced to 10 years and 1,000 lashes begins
posted by homunculus at 11:32 AM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is interesting. Monna Chollet (twitter) was fired from Charlie Hebdo in 2000 after she protested against an article which called Palestinians "non-civilized." She wrote this article about Charlie Hebdo in 2006 after they published the Prophet cartoons, which along with accepting advertisers seems to have been part of a decision to "sell out" after poor circulation, if I'm reading her correctly. At the time the paper also decided to start a crusade against all "isms" starting with Islamism (but missing colonialism, imperialism, racism, and liberalism).
Unreadable google translation:
l’obscurantisme beauf - the ideological head-to-tail of Charlie Hebdo
Unreadable google translation:
l’obscurantisme beauf - the ideological head-to-tail of Charlie Hebdo
Reproduced, with permission, the excellent text Mona Chollet dedicated in 2006 to the lamentable drift of Charlie Hebdo. A drift that has left a satirical weekly, libertarian tradition, a kind of Crapouillot [ 1 ] républicaniste, increasingly complaisant with the ruling classes, their media, their organic intellectuals, and more haughty, contempt or hatred against the popular classes, Arabs and Muslims.posted by Golden Eternity at 11:50 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I guess this is directed at me? You are right - I don't live there. Perhaps then you can explain the record breaking number of Jews leaving France?
For context, are we using figures cited in the NYT (from the Jewish Agency for Israel):
1,407 of France’s roughly 500,000 Jews left in the first three months of the year [0.3% of French Jews, up from 0.07% from the year before]
Or, anecdata and opinion from Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle: Every single French Jew I know has either left or is actively working out how to leave?
Again, the contention that "France" is not "sympathetic" to Jews and that there has been a "siege mentality" for years doesn't seem supported by the numbers (or, again, my personal experience living there for five years and the experience of my mother still living there). I repeat, however, what just happened is scary stuff--so things might change. I hope they don't. I hope the cosmopolitan France that I knew in southern France near Marseilles remains tolerant and open to those from all faiths and cultural heritages. I also think it's important to be cautious when making generalizations (such as about France and its Jewish population)--not because they don't raise real, significant issues but because it detracts a bit from our ability to really understand what is happening. Again, just my two cents.
Vous vivez en France actuellement?
Non, malheureusement.
posted by faux ami at 11:51 AM on January 11, 2015
For context, are we using figures cited in the NYT (from the Jewish Agency for Israel):
1,407 of France’s roughly 500,000 Jews left in the first three months of the year [0.3% of French Jews, up from 0.07% from the year before]
Or, anecdata and opinion from Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle: Every single French Jew I know has either left or is actively working out how to leave?
Again, the contention that "France" is not "sympathetic" to Jews and that there has been a "siege mentality" for years doesn't seem supported by the numbers (or, again, my personal experience living there for five years and the experience of my mother still living there). I repeat, however, what just happened is scary stuff--so things might change. I hope they don't. I hope the cosmopolitan France that I knew in southern France near Marseilles remains tolerant and open to those from all faiths and cultural heritages. I also think it's important to be cautious when making generalizations (such as about France and its Jewish population)--not because they don't raise real, significant issues but because it detracts a bit from our ability to really understand what is happening. Again, just my two cents.
Vous vivez en France actuellement?
Non, malheureusement.
posted by faux ami at 11:51 AM on January 11, 2015
A satirical piece with a rather blunt headline: Norway's Christians didn't have to apologise for Anders Breivik, and it's the same for Muslims now
posted by byanyothername at 11:58 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by byanyothername at 11:58 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
From October 2014:
In Open Letter To Muslim World, French Muslim Philosopher Says Islam Has Given Birth To Monsters, Needs Reform
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 12:03 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
In Open Letter To Muslim World, French Muslim Philosopher Says Islam Has Given Birth To Monsters, Needs Reform
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 12:03 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by faux ami - For context, are we using figures cited in the NYT [...] Or, anecdata and opinion
JTA: For the first time, according to the Jewish Agency, more immigrants came from France than from any other country. Nearly 7,000 French immigrants arrived in Israel in 2014, double the 3,400 who came in 2013.
posted by rosswald at 12:15 PM on January 11, 2015
JTA: For the first time, according to the Jewish Agency, more immigrants came from France than from any other country. Nearly 7,000 French immigrants arrived in Israel in 2014, double the 3,400 who came in 2013.
posted by rosswald at 12:15 PM on January 11, 2015
As an atheist I'd just like to apologize again for Russia's annexation of Crimea.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:16 PM on January 11, 2015
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:16 PM on January 11, 2015
Somewhere between interesting and grimly amusing: the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, says "The behavior of the takfiri [jihadi] groups that claim to follow Islam have distorted Islam, the Quran and the Muslim nation more than Islam's enemies ... who insulted the prophet in films ... or drew cartoons of the prophet."
(Part of the context for this is that Hezbollah is fighting ISIS in Syria.)
posted by zompist at 12:29 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
(Part of the context for this is that Hezbollah is fighting ISIS in Syria.)
posted by zompist at 12:29 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's a helluva note when the head of Hezbollah, which listed by the EU (and others) as a terrorist organization begins to sound like a sober and responsible statesman.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:34 PM on January 11, 2015
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:34 PM on January 11, 2015
> This French blogger has had enough ...
67 tardis street's article was a pretty good take-down. I wish they'd gone on longer.
American liberals are ignorant fuckwits who think making up shit is just as good as knowledge, and it's impossible for them to entertain the the idea that they could possibly, or even hypothetically, be wrong about anything, or that anything could possibly be more complicated than they think it is.
Like 67 tardis street said, "Not knowing is fine. Spreading false informations, or giving your opinion about things you don’t know, is not."
posted by nangar at 12:49 PM on January 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
67 tardis street's article was a pretty good take-down. I wish they'd gone on longer.
American liberals are ignorant fuckwits who think making up shit is just as good as knowledge, and it's impossible for them to entertain the the idea that they could possibly, or even hypothetically, be wrong about anything, or that anything could possibly be more complicated than they think it is.
Like 67 tardis street said, "Not knowing is fine. Spreading false informations, or giving your opinion about things you don’t know, is not."
posted by nangar at 12:49 PM on January 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
There are many things to say, and we (and there, I mean, the French) have our share in this mess (it's so sad to think that the killers were French people who couldn't fit in). But it sure feels good to watch young people from all origins singing la Marseillaise. I do hope that we (and here I guess I really mean they : the beautiful and bright young people who are the future) will be able to mend all those fucking rifts we've left between them. If we could only help them.
posted by nicolin at 12:51 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 12:51 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
American liberals are ignorant fuckwits who think making up shit is just as good as knowledge, and it's impossible for them to entertain the the idea that they could possibly, or even hypothetically, be wrong about anything, or that anything could possibly be more complicated than they think it is.
The constant lure of Republicans having done it for decades without being called on their bullshit finally became too much, I guess.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:53 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
The constant lure of Republicans having done it for decades without being called on their bullshit finally became too much, I guess.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:53 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Probably the best rejoinder I've read yet to the people instantly judging CH from images seen for the first time out of context on Twitter:
On Charlie Hebdo: A letter to my British friends
On Charlie Hebdo: A letter to my British friends
... They ridiculed the pope, orthodox Jews and Muslims in equal measure and with the same biting tone. They took ferocious stances against the bombings of Gaza. Even if their sense of humour was apparently inacceptable to English minds, please take my word for it: it fell well within the French tradition of satire – and after all was only intended for a French audience. It is only by reading or seeing it out of context that some cartoons appear as racist or islamophobic. Charlie Hebdo also continuously denounced the pledge of minorities and campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay. I hope this helps you understand that if you belong to the radical left, you have lost precious friends and allies.posted by George_Spiggott at 12:55 PM on January 11, 2015 [17 favorites]
This being clear, the attack becomes all the more tragic and absurd: two young French Muslims of Arab descent have not assaulted the numerous extreme-right wing newspapers that exist in France (Minute, Valeurs Actuelles) who ceaselessly amalgamate Arabs, Muslims and fundamentalists, but the very newspaper that did the most to fight racism. ...
Oh sure, the only persons who caused trouble seeing me reading Charlie Hebdo weren't muslims, but beaufs who couldn't understand that everyone wasn't a right-wing white supremacist.
posted by nicolin at 1:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 1:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
American liberals are ignorant fuckwits who think making up shit is just as good as knowledge, and it's impossible for them to entertain the the idea that they could possibly, or even hypothetically, be wrong about anything, or that anything could possibly be more complicated than they think it is.
I think this statement is (obviously) pretty harsh needlessly combative, but also fundamentally true. MetaFilter is great when it comes to discussing issues within an American context, but not so good when discussing issues outside of an American context. It's because MF is an American site.
posted by Nevin at 1:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think this statement is (obviously) pretty harsh needlessly combative, but also fundamentally true. MetaFilter is great when it comes to discussing issues within an American context, but not so good when discussing issues outside of an American context. It's because MF is an American site.
posted by Nevin at 1:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
It's not just MetaFilter, either—I've seen plenty of Americans (on social media and elsewhere online) ignore all evidence that Charlie might not be utterly and despicably racist, even when it's pointed out directly to them, because it's apparently not on the list of approved opinions. Instead, they just repeat the same talking points they don't actually understand, à la Bill O'Reilly.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:14 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:14 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
the record breaking number of Jews
This is my last (futile) effort! One user threw out sweeping generalizations about "France" and its "sympathy" to the Jewish community. I reasonably responded that those characterizations seemed extreme at worst, or at best unclear (particularly coming from someone not living in France). It's doubly frustrating b/c most folks here don't live in France so folks aren't likely to challenge those characterizations--and as a community we end up taking that user's word for it. (If I'm exaggerating there, I apologize, but that's how I see it.) Next the "record breaking numbers of Jews" are leaving comment appears. Again, this characterization is off or at least lacking context.
The increasing rate of emigration is certainly reason for concern and reflects troubling events and fear of violence--I've said this multiple times. But, having less than 1% of the population emigrate, while extremely troubling I think (and if I'm underestimating how serious this is, I am sorry and would be genuinely happy to be enlightened), does not amount to all Jews feeling as if they have been living for years. I think that does a disservice to France.
Most importantly, what's happening with these mischaracterizations (and the unwillingness to acknowledge them as such) is it shifts the discussion from the legitimate fears of radical extremism experienced by both the French Jewish and non-extremist Arab communities as well as structural reasons for why north and west Africans feel alienated in France (the issue of the veil, of France's separation of church and state) to a discussion primarily about fears of the French Jewish community (again, totally worthy of discussion, but within a broader context).
I would suggest that, in addition to thinking about the legitimate fears of the Jewish community in France at this time, let's also not lose focus on this broader context. There is also arguably substantial discrimination and a siege mentality experienced by (at least some if not many) north African communities in the Parisian banlieues, in Marseilles, in Lyon, etc. Let's remember that it was the inhabitants of these banlieues were called "scum" by the former Prime Minister of France and Muslims have been subject to numerous attacks in the last day or two.
posted by faux ami at 1:24 PM on January 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is my last (futile) effort! One user threw out sweeping generalizations about "France" and its "sympathy" to the Jewish community. I reasonably responded that those characterizations seemed extreme at worst, or at best unclear (particularly coming from someone not living in France). It's doubly frustrating b/c most folks here don't live in France so folks aren't likely to challenge those characterizations--and as a community we end up taking that user's word for it. (If I'm exaggerating there, I apologize, but that's how I see it.) Next the "record breaking numbers of Jews" are leaving comment appears. Again, this characterization is off or at least lacking context.
The increasing rate of emigration is certainly reason for concern and reflects troubling events and fear of violence--I've said this multiple times. But, having less than 1% of the population emigrate, while extremely troubling I think (and if I'm underestimating how serious this is, I am sorry and would be genuinely happy to be enlightened), does not amount to all Jews feeling as if they have been living for years. I think that does a disservice to France.
Most importantly, what's happening with these mischaracterizations (and the unwillingness to acknowledge them as such) is it shifts the discussion from the legitimate fears of radical extremism experienced by both the French Jewish and non-extremist Arab communities as well as structural reasons for why north and west Africans feel alienated in France (the issue of the veil, of France's separation of church and state) to a discussion primarily about fears of the French Jewish community (again, totally worthy of discussion, but within a broader context).
I would suggest that, in addition to thinking about the legitimate fears of the Jewish community in France at this time, let's also not lose focus on this broader context. There is also arguably substantial discrimination and a siege mentality experienced by (at least some if not many) north African communities in the Parisian banlieues, in Marseilles, in Lyon, etc. Let's remember that it was the inhabitants of these banlieues were called "scum" by the former Prime Minister of France and Muslims have been subject to numerous attacks in the last day or two.
posted by faux ami at 1:24 PM on January 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
To be fair, some on Mefi did change their minds, which is laudable - it's not easy to change a heartfelt belief, or to admit one's wrong. A few did throw their toys out of the playground, though. As for the media, they will never track back. The goal is to sell, not to be accurate. The amount of bullshit I have seen presented as fact from the Guardian / Telegraph / NYT / WaPo / Slate has cemented my resolve not to read or believe the news anymore except in its most general lines. It really makes hay for outfits like RT, which are undoubtedly even more full of shit, but have an easy time capturing those embittered by the randomness of Western media.
posted by Spanner Nic at 1:34 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 1:34 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well I live in France and I couldn't give you details about the way members of the Jewish community feel like, but I'm pretty sure that the events linked with the Gang of Barbarians have not contributed to their lightness of heart.
posted by nicolin at 1:37 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nicolin at 1:37 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is my last (futile) effort!
Again, this characterization is off or at least lacking context.
The increasing rate of emigration is certainly reason for concern and reflects troubling events and fear of violence--I've said this multiple times. But,
is it shifts the discussion from the legitimate fears of radical extremism experienced by both the French Jewish and non-extremist Arab communities as well as structural reasons for why north and west Africans feel alienated in France
fears of the Jewish community in France at this time, let's also not lose focus on this broader context.
I guess I will say my piece then, and bow out as well.
I feel like I and very few others have been willing to bring up or discuss anti-Semitic angle to this attack, or that fact that this is a part series of attacks by French citizens with MENA roots (even before grocery store hostage taking, I mentioned Toulouse-Montauban, the Brussels Jewish Museum shootings, and the rising level of anti-Semitic attacks in France generally).
And again - Jews are leaving France in unprecedented numbers. Could this years doubling be a statistical bump? Maybe. But over ten years, even at the rate of 3,000 a year that would lead to a 15% reduction in the community - and that is assuming the rate drops in half compared to this year (and these stats. are only of those Jews leaving for Israel). You keep reminding me I don't live there - and you are right - but from my distant vantage point saying France is 'sympathetic' to Jews seems lacking in conviction. You yourself link to an article written by someone claiming that many in the community are frightened and thinking of leaving, but you just dismiss it. "Anecdata."
And I am personally disheartened how focusing on the Jewish experience in France, the fact that members of the communities are told to literally hide their identity to stay safe, how temples and schools are patrolled by armed guards with machine rifles, how people are leaving in record numbers - leads to me being told that I am not focusing enough on context.
Clearly (and as usual) my stance seems to not have wide acceptance on MeFi, but it seemed to me like I was the only one raising this issue.
posted by rosswald at 2:04 PM on January 11, 2015
Again, this characterization is off or at least lacking context.
The increasing rate of emigration is certainly reason for concern and reflects troubling events and fear of violence--I've said this multiple times. But,
is it shifts the discussion from the legitimate fears of radical extremism experienced by both the French Jewish and non-extremist Arab communities as well as structural reasons for why north and west Africans feel alienated in France
fears of the Jewish community in France at this time, let's also not lose focus on this broader context.
I guess I will say my piece then, and bow out as well.
I feel like I and very few others have been willing to bring up or discuss anti-Semitic angle to this attack, or that fact that this is a part series of attacks by French citizens with MENA roots (even before grocery store hostage taking, I mentioned Toulouse-Montauban, the Brussels Jewish Museum shootings, and the rising level of anti-Semitic attacks in France generally).
And again - Jews are leaving France in unprecedented numbers. Could this years doubling be a statistical bump? Maybe. But over ten years, even at the rate of 3,000 a year that would lead to a 15% reduction in the community - and that is assuming the rate drops in half compared to this year (and these stats. are only of those Jews leaving for Israel). You keep reminding me I don't live there - and you are right - but from my distant vantage point saying France is 'sympathetic' to Jews seems lacking in conviction. You yourself link to an article written by someone claiming that many in the community are frightened and thinking of leaving, but you just dismiss it. "Anecdata."
And I am personally disheartened how focusing on the Jewish experience in France, the fact that members of the communities are told to literally hide their identity to stay safe, how temples and schools are patrolled by armed guards with machine rifles, how people are leaving in record numbers - leads to me being told that I am not focusing enough on context.
Clearly (and as usual) my stance seems to not have wide acceptance on MeFi, but it seemed to me like I was the only one raising this issue.
posted by rosswald at 2:04 PM on January 11, 2015
faux ami, to requote from the article I posted earlier:
The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:07 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
“We’re afraid, but what more could the government do to protect us?” said Berg. “Our schools and places of worship have already been guarded for the last two years. People wouldn’t want a police escort to go shopping.”Just adding to the article I linked to previously from Mona Chollet:
The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo
France’s then President Jacques Chirac released a statement at the time saying, “Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided. Freedom of expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility.”It seems that Charlie Hebdo made a big move away from the French Left towards anti-Islamist liberalism/neoconservatism in 2006.
Charlie Hebdo responded by publishing a letter, signed by 12 writers and intellectuals ... ( the first of which is Ayaan Hirsi Ali):After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
Recent events, prompted by the publication of drawings of Muhammad in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values.
This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field.
It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism between West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarian ideologies, Islamism is nurtured by fear and frustration.
Preachers of hatred play on these feelings to build the forces with which they can impose a world where liberty is crushed and inequality reigns.
But we say this, loud and clear: nothing, not even despair, justifies choosing darkness, totalitarianism and hatred.
Islamism is a reactionary ideology that kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.
Its victory can only lead to a world of injustice and domination: men over women, fundamentalists over others.
On the contrary, we must ensure access to universal rights for the oppressed or those discriminated against.
We reject the "cultural relativism" which implies an acceptance that men and women of Muslim culture are deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secularism in the name of the respect for certain cultures and traditions.
We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it.
We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can exist in every continent, towards each and every maltreatment and dogma.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits in every country that our century may be one of light and not dark.
Signed by:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Levy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:07 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
It seems that Charlie Hebdo made a big move away from the French Left towards anti-Islamist liberalism/neoconservatism in 2006.
Opposing religious totalitarianism is not a neoconservative position.
Why do [not very in practice] progressives so want this to be about islamophobia? The desperation to paint this as anythig but a completely unacceptable attack by and large motivated by religion-as-practiced is palpable.
posted by rr at 2:12 PM on January 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
Opposing religious totalitarianism is not a neoconservative position.
Why do [not very in practice] progressives so want this to be about islamophobia? The desperation to paint this as anythig but a completely unacceptable attack by and large motivated by religion-as-practiced is palpable.
posted by rr at 2:12 PM on January 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
The desperation to paint this as anythig but a completely unacceptable attack by and large motivated by religion-as-practiced is palpable.
I would be the first to put organized religions on the rubbish heap of a modern, civilized society, starting with Christianity and particularly Mormonism, but the idea that this attack defines Muslims — defines Islam as a religion — is pretty laughable, historically. You're basically placing the blame for an attack by three extremists on the shoulders of roughly 1.6 billion people, nearly every one of whom has absolutely nothing to do with France's or even Europe's long history of racial and economic turmoil. I mean, when you step back and look at the big picture, you've made a totally ridiculous extrapolation.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:38 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would be the first to put organized religions on the rubbish heap of a modern, civilized society, starting with Christianity and particularly Mormonism, but the idea that this attack defines Muslims — defines Islam as a religion — is pretty laughable, historically. You're basically placing the blame for an attack by three extremists on the shoulders of roughly 1.6 billion people, nearly every one of whom has absolutely nothing to do with France's or even Europe's long history of racial and economic turmoil. I mean, when you step back and look at the big picture, you've made a totally ridiculous extrapolation.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:38 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think that's what rr was saying. I think he was responding to the people who say things like "but they're not real Muslims because they are violent!". Which is a No True Scotsman fallacy. You can absolutely practice Islam as a violent religion. Just like many people have practiced Christianity as a violent religion. That doesn't make you not-a-real-Christian or not-a-real-Muslim.
posted by Justinian at 2:42 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:42 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're basically placing the blame for an attack by three extremists on the shoulders of roughly 1.6 billion people,
No he didn't. He blamed the extremists and their own motivation and practice. He didn't posit identity between their notional actions and the whole of Islam.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:43 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
No he didn't. He blamed the extremists and their own motivation and practice. He didn't posit identity between their notional actions and the whole of Islam.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:43 PM on January 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
Seconding rr; however problematic the Vals era at CH may have been, I get no neocon vibe from that letter.
After the historic crowd that gathered today in Paris (and elsewhere), let's hope this may yet become an historic moment of clarity for the world - so far there's a lot of signal being lost to noise, but there is also some strong thinking going on - it'd be great to see this thread continue with its selection of the better pieces of writing (and drawing!) about these issues over the coming days.
posted by progosk at 2:46 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
After the historic crowd that gathered today in Paris (and elsewhere), let's hope this may yet become an historic moment of clarity for the world - so far there's a lot of signal being lost to noise, but there is also some strong thinking going on - it'd be great to see this thread continue with its selection of the better pieces of writing (and drawing!) about these issues over the coming days.
posted by progosk at 2:46 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
In a conversation dominated in the public sphere by absolutists, there seems to be no willingness to reconcile these two notions:
To both of them, only one of these things can be true. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure they both are.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:03 PM on January 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
- The violent extremists believe they act on behalf of and in accordance with Islam, and are given a great deal of support in this belief from at least some part of their specific native or chosen Muslim communities.
- The Islamic world as a whole does not by and large agree and many of its most respected representatives utterly repudiate them.
To both of them, only one of these things can be true. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure they both are.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:03 PM on January 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
It seems that Charlie Hebdo made a big move away from the French Left towards anti-Islamist liberalism/neoconservatism in 2006.
This position was supported by the then editor-in-chief Philippe Val and was extremely controversial at the time, resulting in a serious rift within CH itself. At one point, Val was accused weekly of being a neocon sellout, even in columns published by his own magazine, so this opinion was shared by many other people.
On the other hand, reading the magazine itself, and the diversity of opinions expressed in it, was a different experience. The last issue (published before the events) has a column and a cartoon that both included direct attacks on islamophobia and personalities such a Eric Zemmour, accused of using the fear of islam for "fomenting civil war". And it also has columns on the Iranian blogger Soheil Arabi and on the Mauritanian anti-slavery activist Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaiti, who are both facing death penalty in their respective countries.
posted by elgilito at 3:07 PM on January 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
This position was supported by the then editor-in-chief Philippe Val and was extremely controversial at the time, resulting in a serious rift within CH itself. At one point, Val was accused weekly of being a neocon sellout, even in columns published by his own magazine, so this opinion was shared by many other people.
On the other hand, reading the magazine itself, and the diversity of opinions expressed in it, was a different experience. The last issue (published before the events) has a column and a cartoon that both included direct attacks on islamophobia and personalities such a Eric Zemmour, accused of using the fear of islam for "fomenting civil war". And it also has columns on the Iranian blogger Soheil Arabi and on the Mauritanian anti-slavery activist Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaiti, who are both facing death penalty in their respective countries.
posted by elgilito at 3:07 PM on January 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
that this attack defines Muslims — defines Islam as a religion — is pretty laughable
Then it's a good thing no one did that.
I am curious, though. On the very rare occasions when an abortion provider is murdered, the questions about whether they support the murder are usually asked to Christian religious leaders of various flavors, and all of them come on record with "absolutely we do not support that/god is the final judge/but.." which are amusingly like the positions taken in this thread and by Al Jazeera.
The thing is, in that context, one (rightly) concludes that the leaders will pretty much say anything to bury the story and one (rightly) suspects that in fact inside the churches the leaders say the opposite, at least softly and sometimes not so softly. I don't think this is a controversial position: "Yes, of course the Pope says the church opposed to murdering abortion doctors, but in churches all across the country they send a different message ... "
What amazes me is that I don't think the people taking the position that the Muslim leaders have decried the attacks is sufficient evidence that this is not the result of Islam-as-practiced would take the same position in other circumstances.
In fact, there would likely be lots of discussion about systematic effects and where these ideas come from as there are in other discussions. There is a deeply inconsistent approach to collective responsibility and acceptable perceptions when the topic is different and the group being discussed less politically favored.
posted by rr at 3:21 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Then it's a good thing no one did that.
I am curious, though. On the very rare occasions when an abortion provider is murdered, the questions about whether they support the murder are usually asked to Christian religious leaders of various flavors, and all of them come on record with "absolutely we do not support that/god is the final judge/but.." which are amusingly like the positions taken in this thread and by Al Jazeera.
The thing is, in that context, one (rightly) concludes that the leaders will pretty much say anything to bury the story and one (rightly) suspects that in fact inside the churches the leaders say the opposite, at least softly and sometimes not so softly. I don't think this is a controversial position: "Yes, of course the Pope says the church opposed to murdering abortion doctors, but in churches all across the country they send a different message ... "
What amazes me is that I don't think the people taking the position that the Muslim leaders have decried the attacks is sufficient evidence that this is not the result of Islam-as-practiced would take the same position in other circumstances.
In fact, there would likely be lots of discussion about systematic effects and where these ideas come from as there are in other discussions. There is a deeply inconsistent approach to collective responsibility and acceptable perceptions when the topic is different and the group being discussed less politically favored.
posted by rr at 3:21 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
BBC Reporter Slammed for Anti-Semitic Comments at Paris March
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
BBC reporter Tim Wilcox was interviewing a French Jewish woman at the Paris mega rally, held after Islamist terrorists murdered 17 people in a string of attacks, including at a kosher grocery store. The latest attack on France's embattled Jewish community has left French Jews feeling understandably shaken, yet after hearing the woman's fears that Jews are being targeted in Europe, Wilcox interjected, saying: "many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well."I actually heard the latter comment when it was broadcast; I am amazed that no apology was made, and that the man still has a job. "Prominent Jewish faces"? Really?
His interviewee, clearly taken aback by the question, begins to respond by telling him that the two issues aren't comparable, at which point Willcox interrupts again: "but you understand everything is seen from different perspectives?"
It is not the first time Wilcox has been accused of anti-Semitism.
Less than two months ago, during a live daily review of the morning's papers hosted by Willcox, one of his guests claimed that a "Jewish lobby" was trying to subvert Labor party leader Ed Milliband's "principled" support of a controversial, symbolic bill to recognize "Palestine" as a state, by pulling funding for his election campaign.
Instead of calling out his interviewee for invoking an anti-Semitic trope, Willcox not only concurred, but added his own, commenting that "a lot of these prominent Jewish faces will be very much against the mansion tax" which Milliband supports.
[...]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:00 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
It seems that Charlie Hebdo made a big move away from the French Left towards anti-Islamist liberalism/neoconservatism in 2006.
posted by Golden Eternity 2 ¾ hours ago [+]
Then you are completely ignorant of anything related to the matter at hand and should read some of the well thought out links that explain the French political context.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:54 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity 2 ¾ hours ago [+]
Then you are completely ignorant of anything related to the matter at hand and should read some of the well thought out links that explain the French political context.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:54 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
George_Spiggott: This really should be stated more widely. I'd tweet it myself to both of my followers if there were any point. It'd be fucking amazing if Charlie Hebdo themselves published something to this effect. And I certainly wouldn't put it past them: at least one of them is acutely sensitive to the high-profile bandwagon hypocrisy taking place now.
According to their website, the next issue will be published next Wednesday. I'm really interested in what the surviving staff members have to say. As an outsider to France who has always followed European politics pretty closely, and who can read and understand French reasonably well, it's been tough listening to assessments of CH's satire from media pundits who couldn't tell you what hebdo is short for.
It's also worth noting, as a general bit of context, that the man who attempted to shoot Jaques Chirac in 2002 had anti-semitic motives.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:19 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
According to their website, the next issue will be published next Wednesday. I'm really interested in what the surviving staff members have to say. As an outsider to France who has always followed European politics pretty closely, and who can read and understand French reasonably well, it's been tough listening to assessments of CH's satire from media pundits who couldn't tell you what hebdo is short for.
It's also worth noting, as a general bit of context, that the man who attempted to shoot Jaques Chirac in 2002 had anti-semitic motives.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:19 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
There is a deeply inconsistent approach to collective responsibility and acceptable perceptions when the topic is different and the group being discussed less politically favored.
It is odd to claim one is not holding all Muslims accountable ("it's a good thing no one did that"), while stating there is collective responsibility on their part that is being inconsistently applied, or perhaps not at all.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:22 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
It is odd to claim one is not holding all Muslims accountable ("it's a good thing no one did that"), while stating there is collective responsibility on their part that is being inconsistently applied, or perhaps not at all.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:22 PM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
When did the words "defines Islam as a religion" come to mean "holding accountable"?
Again: there is a desperation to avoid the topic.
posted by rr at 5:29 PM on January 11, 2015
Again: there is a desperation to avoid the topic.
posted by rr at 5:29 PM on January 11, 2015
Worth noting: Witness to Paris officer’s death regrets publishing video
The iconic nature of the imagery — rebroadcast again and again — has anguished Merabet’s family. His brother Malek told journalists Saturday: “How dare you take that video and broadcast it? I heard his voice. I recognized him. I saw him get slaughtered and I hear him get slaughtered every day.”posted by Joe in Australia at 5:34 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
[...]
Mir wanted Merabet’s family to know he was “very sorry,” saying that he had turned down offers to buy the footage and that he wanted media organizations to blur Merabet’s image before running it. But many, he said, just broadcast the unedited footage without permission.
The AP received Mir’s authorization to run the video on condition that it cut the scene of the officer’s death, which is standard AP practice.
Mir said that, if he could do it all again, he would have kept the video off Facebook.
“On Facebook, there’s no confidentiality,” he said. “It’s a lesson for me.”
Prescient (from 2004):
Chirac Condemns Sharon for Remarks
Israeli Leader Urged French Jews to Emigrate
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:46 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Chirac Condemns Sharon for Remarks
Israeli Leader Urged French Jews to Emigrate
[...] Sharon was speaking to an American Jewish group Sunday in Jerusalem when he apparently departed from prepared remarks and referred to a spate of anti-Semitic incidents in France in the last several years. They include vandalism at synagogues, Jewish schools and cemeteries, and attacks on a Jewish soccer team and Jewish children riding a school bus.Yes, well.
[...]
Jean-Louis Debre, a Chirac ally and a leader in the French Parliament, said Sharon's comments "distort reality" and called them "an example of hostility toward our country."
French Jewish leaders also tried to distance themselves from Sharon's comments, and praised the government's response to anti-Semitic incidents. Specifically, Jewish leaders have commended the former interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, now finance minister, for making a top police priority of prosecuting anti-Semitic attacks and sensitizing others in the government to the need to speak out forcefully against the problem.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:46 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was very moved by Malek Merabet's eulogy for his brother, Ahmed Merabet.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:07 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:07 PM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just thought I'd leave this here as a bit of thoughtful foreign coverage by Paul Wells, who is a Canadian journalist fluent in French, and who has previously lived and studied in Paris.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:30 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:30 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
The only woman killed was killed because she was Jewish.
They let the other female writers go saying, "they don't kill women." Extremely disturbing.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:51 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
They let the other female writers go saying, "they don't kill women." Extremely disturbing.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:51 PM on January 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Interesting that that report's from CNN. Here's a different report from CNN which seems to bend over backwards to demonstrate that the attack on the kosher supermarket may not have been anti-Semitic.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:00 PM on January 11, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:00 PM on January 11, 2015
On the other hand, reading the magazine itself, and the diversity of opinions expressed in it, was a different experience.
elgilito, thanks for your comments. As incomprehensibly sad as this is, it has been a pleasure to learn a bit about Charlie Hebdo and some of its writers. I basically have fond feelings for it and French intellectual culture. Oh, I wish I could read French. I think your explanation of the Boko Haram cartoon makes the best sense of any I've come across so far. I would note that it appears there were also many in France who took it the wrong way when it came out:
Charlie Hebdo : Boko Haram et ses "esclaves sexuelles", la Une jugée islamophobe sur Twitter
« TOUCHEZ PAS A NOS ALLOCS », la nouvelle Une Islamophobe de Charlie Hebdo
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:51 PM on January 11, 2015
elgilito, thanks for your comments. As incomprehensibly sad as this is, it has been a pleasure to learn a bit about Charlie Hebdo and some of its writers. I basically have fond feelings for it and French intellectual culture. Oh, I wish I could read French. I think your explanation of the Boko Haram cartoon makes the best sense of any I've come across so far. I would note that it appears there were also many in France who took it the wrong way when it came out:
Charlie Hebdo : Boko Haram et ses "esclaves sexuelles", la Une jugée islamophobe sur Twitter
« TOUCHEZ PAS A NOS ALLOCS », la nouvelle Une Islamophobe de Charlie Hebdo
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:51 PM on January 11, 2015
For the record, the headline of that CNN report should at least have quotation marks around it, as it's based on her cousin's putting two and two together. That said, she had apparently received anonymous calls to this effect, and it's not to be excluded there may have been a sick, concious decision.
(So hard to watch the typical/worst newscaster emotion-baiting, nice to see the cousin's steely passion/empathy standing firm.)
posted by progosk at 10:06 PM on January 11, 2015
(So hard to watch the typical/worst newscaster emotion-baiting, nice to see the cousin's steely passion/empathy standing firm.)
posted by progosk at 10:06 PM on January 11, 2015
Video Claims to Show Gunman in Paris Terror Attack Pledging Allegiance to the Islamic State
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:13 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:13 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
One Student's Epic Tweets Call Out the Biggest Hypocrites Marching for Free Speech In Paris :)
posted by jeffburdges at 10:29 PM on January 11, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 10:29 PM on January 11, 2015 [11 favorites]
Actually @DanielWickham93 has oodls of informative tweets across the board.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:07 AM on January 12, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 2:07 AM on January 12, 2015
Reporters Without Borders "outraged and appalled" by presence of press freedom "predators" at Paris march
posted by jeffburdges at 2:24 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 2:24 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Video Claims to Show Gunman in Paris Terror Attack Pledging Allegiance to the Islamic State
The video also claims that he blew up a car in Paris. Indeed, a car exploded at 8:40 pm Thursday night. We heard the blast as it's only 700 m from here. But since there were no damages except to the car itself it didn't make the news. It was just a mysterious incident (no obvious targets) and more important things were happening.
Now this blast did not happen in Paris, but in a commune in the suburbs called Villejuif, which translates as Jewish Town (though the name is actually derived from a Gallo-Roman named Juvius). Like Montrouge (where Coulibaly shot the policewoman), it's next to Gentilly (where he lived). So, for all we know, Coulibaly may have blown up a car in Villejuif because he believed that the place was full of Jews.
posted by elgilito at 2:42 AM on January 12, 2015 [7 favorites]
The video also claims that he blew up a car in Paris. Indeed, a car exploded at 8:40 pm Thursday night. We heard the blast as it's only 700 m from here. But since there were no damages except to the car itself it didn't make the news. It was just a mysterious incident (no obvious targets) and more important things were happening.
Now this blast did not happen in Paris, but in a commune in the suburbs called Villejuif, which translates as Jewish Town (though the name is actually derived from a Gallo-Roman named Juvius). Like Montrouge (where Coulibaly shot the policewoman), it's next to Gentilly (where he lived). So, for all we know, Coulibaly may have blown up a car in Villejuif because he believed that the place was full of Jews.
posted by elgilito at 2:42 AM on January 12, 2015 [7 favorites]
Unconfirmed from 'The Jewish Press' - It has been revealed that terrorist Amedy Coulibaya, who murdered four people in a kosher supermarket in Paris on Friday, may have planned to attack a Jewish school just one day earlier.
Maps with the locations of Jewish schools on them were found in his car.
posted by rosswald at 4:34 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Maps with the locations of Jewish schools on them were found in his car.
posted by rosswald at 4:34 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo: the danger of polarised debate, Gary Younge, The Guardian.
Straw men are stopped and searched in case they are carrying nuance and then locked up until the crisis is over. No charges are ever brought because a trial would require questions and evidence.posted by nangar at 7:06 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Imperfect Tenderness: Satire is an unusual art form, in that it is designed to be misunderstood. If you respond to it with horror or disgust, that was likely the artist’s goal. The satirist attempts to mimic the view of his or her enemy, often using the same kind of language and imagery as that opponent, but to do so ironically, and to take it so far into the absurd that their enemy’s entire moral basis collapses.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 AM on January 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 AM on January 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
Somewhere upthread was an account of them asking for where they could find Charb (and others?) as they entered the building. Once they had located the room itself, you wouldn't really expect them to hang around asking for specifics when their intent was to kill him and his team - just to open fire on everyone.
rory, I believe you are correct. I too read that they sought additional direction to hone in on target: offices / Charb. But I had also read it being (mis)characterized as more up close identifying for precision execution (may just have been in french media) and was the reason the interviewer raised that exact question.
Also in the interview I linked Laurent is obviously (and understandably) in a tremendous amout of shock and admits he lacks a clear handle on time frame or how he managed to survive. So it wasn't intended as a definitive account or hard refutation, rather I just wanted to help avoid that confusion here. So really it is just a bit of cross hatching over in a corner.
Now as an aside, after watching the flaming feces CNN just dumped, where there is no nuance and again the idea that it wasn't just a bloodbath with luck the deciding factor in who lived as the room was raked with rounds is ... cartoon fantasy.
Here is a very rough translation of the interview with Laurent Léger which runs completely counter to CNN's claims.
LL: I saw a masked man. Lots of blood. Half of the editing room on the floor. I'm still asking myself how I managed to escape. Well ... there you go ... so ... I heard Charb's voice two times. I heard a man say to a woman who was trying to hide that he wasn't going to kill women as Elsa, one of our journalists had already fallen under the table, the meeting table of the editing room. I saw the horror. I saw all of this is the middle of Paris. I really can't believe it. And nobody in our small group of survivors has really understood the reality yet. For us Charb, Cabu, Wolinski, they are still here with us.
Question: How did it happen? Do you remember the order of events?
LL: Why yes. It was the end of the editorial meeting that we have every Wednesday morning when all of a sudden we heard a couple of bangs. We didn't know exactly what it was. Then the door burst open ... and then ... a person sprang into the room shouting Allahou Akbar. He looked like someone from the GIGN or RAID. He wore a mask. He was dressed all in black. He had a weapon he held with two hands. An assault pistol, a Kalashnikov, I really know nothing of these things. And they were shooting ... and the smell of the gunpowder ... and by pure luck I was able to throw myself behind a small table in the corner ... and I escaped his notice ... and then all my compatriots from the magazine fell. That is what I saw. After that I didn't see him again.
I just saw a flash for a couple of seconds and then I realized it wasn't a joke. At the beginning we didn't know what it was and when we hear sounds like firecrackers we think it is a joke. Because we are rather a bunch of jokers there. So sometimes when we hear these types of things we can say it is a joke. Somebody is playing a prank. But not at all. It was barbarism that enter the newspaper.
Question: It seems apparently that the killers asked for the names of the people they wanted to kill. Did you hear this?
LL: Absolutely not
Question: Absolutely not?
LL: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. They did say Charb's name at a certain point, that is true. But I think they were looking for him and anyway he was at the table and it all happened so fast. The bursts of gunfire were shot ... it went like that ... the room was fairly compact ... It goes very fast. A few seconds and everyone is on the floor. But no, I did read that they had asked for the identities but that is completely false. No, it went very fast. They just shot straight into the group, quite simply.
Question: How did you manage to protect yourself or come to be spared?
LL: Well, I don't know. I still don't know how I could have thrown myself behind this table in the back, that wasn't the meeting table but a little table ... I really don't know ... my survival instinct ... I stayed crouched there and could see the people on the floor ... hear the gunshots ... then suddenly silence. Then I heard footsteps and knew the killer was coming back, but the room is fairly cramped so it was hard for him to get around the table so he left again toward a back corridor. Then silence. Then he suddenly exchanged a few words, with somebody else, obviously. And then I came to realize there was more than one. And then I heard him say to one of our female coworkers that had survived, obviously, that they didn't kill women. While one had just fallen in the meeting room. Who was there with us. Who was now on the floor. But ... well ... a few more footsteps and then further shots that I could tell were coming from outside. And that is when we stood up, there were a few survivors. And that is when you see the aberration, the surreality, a sort of sideration (great awe and paralysis). We don't really understand what has just happened. All of this in the middle of Paris. In a newspaper. In a newspaper where we have fun. We never stopped having fun at Charlie Hebdo. Sure we were there to explain and decipher things but always with good humor and laughter. And to tease and provoke of course ... it is something completely ... we were a great group of friends, some older than others. Cabu, Wolinski, Honoré who have tens of years of experience behind them, they were feathers (of beauty), they were tremendous talents that are all of a sudden on the ground.
Question: Charlie Hebdo had been threatened. Charlie Hebdo had been attacked. Could you ever have imagined anything like this?
LL : No, it is not imaginable. To think we would be attacked in the middle of Paris ... with heavy weapons. No, no. In the editing room, no, it is not imaginable. I think Charb, our leader, was more conscious of it than us. We, we took things more lightly.
Question: He talked about these things sometimes?
LL: No, almost never. But he was protected, he lived ... had to live with this ... this ball at his feet (in the sense of being restrained). The police were very sympathetic, it's not that ... it's just always having a presence behind you, it is very difficult, very weighing, a different life to lead for years and years. He was no longer free. Free in his movement. While he was a very free person, free before anything, a free spirit, a very free person, in drawing brilliantly. Absolute freedom. So to see him like that with his guardian angels, the security detail, officers present 24 hours a day, it is hard. So he felt more threatened than us. For us we had a process, so threats, we would from time to time receive emails and alerts. And it is true when we were having some financial trouble a few weeks ago we had a lot of people calling pledging to send checks for zero euro to support us. To try to provoke us. But these are just silly jokes. That isn't terrorism. It isn't gratuitous violence. It isn't death descending upon a newspaper. It isn't 10 people on the ground. It isn't journalists, and editor, a delivery or maintenance person on the ground floor or a policeman on a bike cut down on the street. It is hard to imagine all this for a paper. Against the liberty of expression, against a few drawings.
Question : Did you believe at the time that your final hour had arrived?
LL: Yes. I believed it was all over. I believed they were going to go around the room to look for survivors. I believed ... I believed ... yes, yes I believed that for ... too long. Maybe two minutes, maybe it was a few seconds but to me it seemed minutes that would not end. And ... (audible exhale) ... there you go. And I am here. I don't know how I am here. I don't know how the others managed to survive either, but we stood up. We were crushed but we were alive. I went toward the wounded. I took the had of our webmaster. Simon. He is hurt and we are thinking of him (sniffing and holding back tears). There are 4 wounded and they are in tremendous shock too. Very very shaken. And we think of them before all else. The families of all the others. Of our friends. Mustapha, George Wolinski, Cabu, Charb, Elsa, Honoré, the police officer, Franck, I'm forgetting some, a visiter who was bringing drawings to Cabu, an organizer for an art festival if I understood correctly and who fell with the others. Who had nothing to do there other than to come visit as a friend and now he stayed, stayed with the others.
Question: Today Laurent Léger, there is a movement in place to make sure your newspaper continues and can continue to have life. Is this important for you?
LL: Yes this is important as we do need the support. We are already well supported. We received tens if not hundreds of thousands of messages from everyone, from people in countries from around the world and that is simply extraordinary. We're going to try to do a small edition, not too hard hitting for next week. I'm not sure exactly how. But we will do something. Not the how or when but we need something for Monday at the latest. Because it needs to be strapped down for Monday.
Question: Is it important for you to do this one alone this time?
LL: Yes, of course it is very important, and especially because I am still here. And you know Charb and the others would have wanted that we come out with the paper and that we say that we exist and I don't want to do one focused on death but to tell of the struggle to exist, the struggle to say things freely, to fight against silly notions and human follies. To fight against marginalizing others and against all fundamentalism and this is what we have done for years and years. Well before I ever arrived at the paper they were fighting this, this horror and barbarism ... while trying to say things in a somewhat intelligent manner. To give witness. To excite. To be present and to accompany those who are living hard struggles. So we have to put together at least a few pages for the next issue.
Question: Do you think this drama, this massacre could in someway be useful in helping people understand something in this country?
LL: I hope. I don't know. I hope. I hope before all else. I hope but ... (exhale) ... we are in a society with shared doubts and fears with a focus on worries and fantasies, so it is very hard to get pass this in society today. We think we have tried to shine a light, for those who seek to have things put clear for themselves. Not sure how much it has worked, but we are going to try to keep going. Keep going and at least have something for next week. And with the little bit of energy we have left we would like to thank everyone who has sent us messages, who is thinking of us, that have written, that have talked to and have supported us and will do so again. This is very important. And to fight against those who would have us believe that they were acting in the name of a religion. They acted in the name of violence and fear and an obscure face in this world.
posted by phoque at 8:07 AM on January 12, 2015 [13 favorites]
rory, I believe you are correct. I too read that they sought additional direction to hone in on target: offices / Charb. But I had also read it being (mis)characterized as more up close identifying for precision execution (may just have been in french media) and was the reason the interviewer raised that exact question.
Also in the interview I linked Laurent is obviously (and understandably) in a tremendous amout of shock and admits he lacks a clear handle on time frame or how he managed to survive. So it wasn't intended as a definitive account or hard refutation, rather I just wanted to help avoid that confusion here. So really it is just a bit of cross hatching over in a corner.
Now as an aside, after watching the flaming feces CNN just dumped, where there is no nuance and again the idea that it wasn't just a bloodbath with luck the deciding factor in who lived as the room was raked with rounds is ... cartoon fantasy.
Here is a very rough translation of the interview with Laurent Léger which runs completely counter to CNN's claims.
LL: I saw a masked man. Lots of blood. Half of the editing room on the floor. I'm still asking myself how I managed to escape. Well ... there you go ... so ... I heard Charb's voice two times. I heard a man say to a woman who was trying to hide that he wasn't going to kill women as Elsa, one of our journalists had already fallen under the table, the meeting table of the editing room. I saw the horror. I saw all of this is the middle of Paris. I really can't believe it. And nobody in our small group of survivors has really understood the reality yet. For us Charb, Cabu, Wolinski, they are still here with us.
Question: How did it happen? Do you remember the order of events?
LL: Why yes. It was the end of the editorial meeting that we have every Wednesday morning when all of a sudden we heard a couple of bangs. We didn't know exactly what it was. Then the door burst open ... and then ... a person sprang into the room shouting Allahou Akbar. He looked like someone from the GIGN or RAID. He wore a mask. He was dressed all in black. He had a weapon he held with two hands. An assault pistol, a Kalashnikov, I really know nothing of these things. And they were shooting ... and the smell of the gunpowder ... and by pure luck I was able to throw myself behind a small table in the corner ... and I escaped his notice ... and then all my compatriots from the magazine fell. That is what I saw. After that I didn't see him again.
I just saw a flash for a couple of seconds and then I realized it wasn't a joke. At the beginning we didn't know what it was and when we hear sounds like firecrackers we think it is a joke. Because we are rather a bunch of jokers there. So sometimes when we hear these types of things we can say it is a joke. Somebody is playing a prank. But not at all. It was barbarism that enter the newspaper.
Question: It seems apparently that the killers asked for the names of the people they wanted to kill. Did you hear this?
LL: Absolutely not
Question: Absolutely not?
LL: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. They did say Charb's name at a certain point, that is true. But I think they were looking for him and anyway he was at the table and it all happened so fast. The bursts of gunfire were shot ... it went like that ... the room was fairly compact ... It goes very fast. A few seconds and everyone is on the floor. But no, I did read that they had asked for the identities but that is completely false. No, it went very fast. They just shot straight into the group, quite simply.
Question: How did you manage to protect yourself or come to be spared?
LL: Well, I don't know. I still don't know how I could have thrown myself behind this table in the back, that wasn't the meeting table but a little table ... I really don't know ... my survival instinct ... I stayed crouched there and could see the people on the floor ... hear the gunshots ... then suddenly silence. Then I heard footsteps and knew the killer was coming back, but the room is fairly cramped so it was hard for him to get around the table so he left again toward a back corridor. Then silence. Then he suddenly exchanged a few words, with somebody else, obviously. And then I came to realize there was more than one. And then I heard him say to one of our female coworkers that had survived, obviously, that they didn't kill women. While one had just fallen in the meeting room. Who was there with us. Who was now on the floor. But ... well ... a few more footsteps and then further shots that I could tell were coming from outside. And that is when we stood up, there were a few survivors. And that is when you see the aberration, the surreality, a sort of sideration (great awe and paralysis). We don't really understand what has just happened. All of this in the middle of Paris. In a newspaper. In a newspaper where we have fun. We never stopped having fun at Charlie Hebdo. Sure we were there to explain and decipher things but always with good humor and laughter. And to tease and provoke of course ... it is something completely ... we were a great group of friends, some older than others. Cabu, Wolinski, Honoré who have tens of years of experience behind them, they were feathers (of beauty), they were tremendous talents that are all of a sudden on the ground.
Question: Charlie Hebdo had been threatened. Charlie Hebdo had been attacked. Could you ever have imagined anything like this?
LL : No, it is not imaginable. To think we would be attacked in the middle of Paris ... with heavy weapons. No, no. In the editing room, no, it is not imaginable. I think Charb, our leader, was more conscious of it than us. We, we took things more lightly.
Question: He talked about these things sometimes?
LL: No, almost never. But he was protected, he lived ... had to live with this ... this ball at his feet (in the sense of being restrained). The police were very sympathetic, it's not that ... it's just always having a presence behind you, it is very difficult, very weighing, a different life to lead for years and years. He was no longer free. Free in his movement. While he was a very free person, free before anything, a free spirit, a very free person, in drawing brilliantly. Absolute freedom. So to see him like that with his guardian angels, the security detail, officers present 24 hours a day, it is hard. So he felt more threatened than us. For us we had a process, so threats, we would from time to time receive emails and alerts. And it is true when we were having some financial trouble a few weeks ago we had a lot of people calling pledging to send checks for zero euro to support us. To try to provoke us. But these are just silly jokes. That isn't terrorism. It isn't gratuitous violence. It isn't death descending upon a newspaper. It isn't 10 people on the ground. It isn't journalists, and editor, a delivery or maintenance person on the ground floor or a policeman on a bike cut down on the street. It is hard to imagine all this for a paper. Against the liberty of expression, against a few drawings.
Question : Did you believe at the time that your final hour had arrived?
LL: Yes. I believed it was all over. I believed they were going to go around the room to look for survivors. I believed ... I believed ... yes, yes I believed that for ... too long. Maybe two minutes, maybe it was a few seconds but to me it seemed minutes that would not end. And ... (audible exhale) ... there you go. And I am here. I don't know how I am here. I don't know how the others managed to survive either, but we stood up. We were crushed but we were alive. I went toward the wounded. I took the had of our webmaster. Simon. He is hurt and we are thinking of him (sniffing and holding back tears). There are 4 wounded and they are in tremendous shock too. Very very shaken. And we think of them before all else. The families of all the others. Of our friends. Mustapha, George Wolinski, Cabu, Charb, Elsa, Honoré, the police officer, Franck, I'm forgetting some, a visiter who was bringing drawings to Cabu, an organizer for an art festival if I understood correctly and who fell with the others. Who had nothing to do there other than to come visit as a friend and now he stayed, stayed with the others.
Question: Today Laurent Léger, there is a movement in place to make sure your newspaper continues and can continue to have life. Is this important for you?
LL: Yes this is important as we do need the support. We are already well supported. We received tens if not hundreds of thousands of messages from everyone, from people in countries from around the world and that is simply extraordinary. We're going to try to do a small edition, not too hard hitting for next week. I'm not sure exactly how. But we will do something. Not the how or when but we need something for Monday at the latest. Because it needs to be strapped down for Monday.
Question: Is it important for you to do this one alone this time?
LL: Yes, of course it is very important, and especially because I am still here. And you know Charb and the others would have wanted that we come out with the paper and that we say that we exist and I don't want to do one focused on death but to tell of the struggle to exist, the struggle to say things freely, to fight against silly notions and human follies. To fight against marginalizing others and against all fundamentalism and this is what we have done for years and years. Well before I ever arrived at the paper they were fighting this, this horror and barbarism ... while trying to say things in a somewhat intelligent manner. To give witness. To excite. To be present and to accompany those who are living hard struggles. So we have to put together at least a few pages for the next issue.
Question: Do you think this drama, this massacre could in someway be useful in helping people understand something in this country?
LL: I hope. I don't know. I hope. I hope before all else. I hope but ... (exhale) ... we are in a society with shared doubts and fears with a focus on worries and fantasies, so it is very hard to get pass this in society today. We think we have tried to shine a light, for those who seek to have things put clear for themselves. Not sure how much it has worked, but we are going to try to keep going. Keep going and at least have something for next week. And with the little bit of energy we have left we would like to thank everyone who has sent us messages, who is thinking of us, that have written, that have talked to and have supported us and will do so again. This is very important. And to fight against those who would have us believe that they were acting in the name of a religion. They acted in the name of violence and fear and an obscure face in this world.
posted by phoque at 8:07 AM on January 12, 2015 [13 favorites]
Meanwhile a bird craps on Francois Hollande's shoulder, prompting gales of laughter.
posted by Nevin at 8:21 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Nevin at 8:21 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
The perfect image from yesterday's rally in Paris (by photographer Martin Argyrolo).
posted by elgilito at 8:31 AM on January 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by elgilito at 8:31 AM on January 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
Maggie Simpson: Je Suis Charlie
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:34 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:34 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yoav Hattab, son of Tunis chief rabbi, died a Tunisian patriot
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:35 AM on January 12, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:35 AM on January 12, 2015
Tim Holder's article in The Comics Journal was pretty excellent, and he links to lot of really good stuff, too. Thanks for linking to that, roomthreeseventeen.
Also, thanks, phoque.
posted by nangar at 8:38 AM on January 12, 2015
Also, thanks, phoque.
posted by nangar at 8:38 AM on January 12, 2015
French comedian Dieudonné faces inquiry over ‘Charlie Coulibaly’ remark
posted by rosswald at 8:42 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rosswald at 8:42 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
French comedian Dieudonné faces inquiry over ‘Charlie Coulibaly’ remark
I guess he didn't get to go to the big rally in defense of free speech.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:38 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
I guess he didn't get to go to the big rally in defense of free speech.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:38 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Christ, what an asshole.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:39 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:39 AM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Heh. The @CENTCOM Twitter account was just hacked by by someone claiming to be Daesh, or the "cybercaliphate." They linked to this:
Pentagon networks hackedposted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 AM on January 12, 2015
AMERICAN SOLDIERS,
WE ARE COMING, WATCH YOUR BACK. ISIS. #CyberCaliphate
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the CyberCaliphate under the auspices of ISIS continues its CyberJihad. While the US and its satellites kill our brothers in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan we broke into your networks and personal devices and know everything about you.
You'll see no mercy infidels. ISIS is already here, we are in your PCs, in each military base. With Allah's permission we are in CENTCOM now.
We won't stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children.
U.S. soldiers! We're watching you!
Next Charlie Hebdo Issue Will Depict The Prophet Muhammed
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:57 AM on January 12, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:57 AM on January 12, 2015
2016 hopefuls hit Obama's Paris absence I guess it's a good thing none of these people will actually be running against the President in 2016. SMH.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:11 AM on January 12, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:11 AM on January 12, 2015
New Twist: Charlie Hebdo Police Investigator Turns Up Dead, ‘Suicided’
posted by nickyskye at 10:15 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nickyskye at 10:15 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Raw: Woman Wanted in French Attack Enters Turkey
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:29 AM on January 12, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:29 AM on January 12, 2015
2016 hopefuls, none of whom attended either, hit Obama's Paris absence
FTFT
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:42 AM on January 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
FTFT
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:42 AM on January 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
phoque, thank you for the Léger interview translation; a harrowing but important read. Is it your own translation? In that case, even more thanks for taking the time on it.
posted by rory at 10:59 AM on January 12, 2015
posted by rory at 10:59 AM on January 12, 2015
Heh. The @CENTCOM Twitter account was just hacked
Is this "heh-worthy"? Am I missing something?
posted by Nevin at 11:01 AM on January 12, 2015
Is this "heh-worthy"? Am I missing something?
posted by Nevin at 11:01 AM on January 12, 2015
Hollande asked Netanyahu not to attend unity march
Incidentally, three of the four dead hostages are to be buried in Israel. The last, the son of the Tunisian Chief Rabbi, is to be buried in Tunisia. None will, reportedly, be buried in France.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:04 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
[...] Israeli media reported early Monday that French President Francois Hollande in a conversation with Netanyahu on Friday night following the end of the hostage standoff at the Hyper Cacher said he did not want Netanyahu to attend the march for fear it would divert attention from the unity message by adding a focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Muslim-Jewish relations.There's something about this that doesn't sit right with me. There were reportedly about fifty world leaders at the march. Why should Israel's have been excluded? And Israel isn't just some random country; it's the only one with a Jewish majority, and was explicitly intended to be a refuge for Jews. And then the idea that inviting Abbas shows balance ... balance between what, and what?
According to the reports, when Netanyahu decided to attend, Hollande extended an invitation to the prime minister, as well as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas also attended the march.
Incidentally, three of the four dead hostages are to be buried in Israel. The last, the son of the Tunisian Chief Rabbi, is to be buried in Tunisia. None will, reportedly, be buried in France.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:04 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why single out Israel though? They don't have the worst record, certainly.
posted by Nevin at 11:35 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Nevin at 11:35 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why single out Israel though? They don't have the worst record, certainly.
Because they have a lot of baggage from all the other stuff they've done outside of killing journalists.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:37 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Because they have a lot of baggage from all the other stuff they've done outside of killing journalists.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:37 AM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Compared to all of these other leaders who attended the rally? Really? The Israelis are the worst of the bunch? Jesus wept.
Albania -- Prime Minister Edi Rama
Algeria -- Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra
Austria -- Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz
Belgium -- Prime Minister Charles Michel
Benin -- President Thomas Boni Yayi
Britain -- Prime Minister David Cameron
Bulgaria -- Prime Minister Boyko Borisov
Canada -- Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney
Croatia -- Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic
Czech -- Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka
Denmark -- Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt
Gabon -- President Ali Bongo Ondimba
Georgia -- Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili
Germany -- Chancellor Angela Merkel
Greece -- Prime Minister Antonis Samaras
Hungary -- Prime Minister Viktor Orban
Israel -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
Italy -- Prime Minister Matteo Renzi
Jordan -- King Abdullah II and Queen Rania
Latvia -- Prime Minister Laimdota Straujuma
Mali -- President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita
Niger -- President Mahamadou Issoufou
Palestine -- president Mahmud Abbas
Portugal -- Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho
Romania -- President Klaus Iohannis
Russia -- Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
Spain -- Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy
Switzerland -- President Simonetta Sommaruga
The Netherlands -- Prime Minister Mark Rutte
Tunisia -- Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa
Turkey -- Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
United Arab Emirates -- Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan
Ukraine -- President Petro Poroshenko
United States -- Attorney General Eric Holder
European Commission -- President Jean-Claude Juncker
European Parliament -- President Martin Schulz
European Union -- President Donald Tusk
NATO -- Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
posted by Nevin at 12:05 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Albania -- Prime Minister Edi Rama
Algeria -- Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra
Austria -- Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz
Belgium -- Prime Minister Charles Michel
Benin -- President Thomas Boni Yayi
Britain -- Prime Minister David Cameron
Bulgaria -- Prime Minister Boyko Borisov
Canada -- Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney
Croatia -- Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic
Czech -- Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka
Denmark -- Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt
Gabon -- President Ali Bongo Ondimba
Georgia -- Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili
Germany -- Chancellor Angela Merkel
Greece -- Prime Minister Antonis Samaras
Hungary -- Prime Minister Viktor Orban
Israel -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
Italy -- Prime Minister Matteo Renzi
Jordan -- King Abdullah II and Queen Rania
Latvia -- Prime Minister Laimdota Straujuma
Mali -- President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita
Niger -- President Mahamadou Issoufou
Palestine -- president Mahmud Abbas
Portugal -- Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho
Romania -- President Klaus Iohannis
Russia -- Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
Spain -- Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy
Switzerland -- President Simonetta Sommaruga
The Netherlands -- Prime Minister Mark Rutte
Tunisia -- Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa
Turkey -- Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
United Arab Emirates -- Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan
Ukraine -- President Petro Poroshenko
United States -- Attorney General Eric Holder
European Commission -- President Jean-Claude Juncker
European Parliament -- President Martin Schulz
European Union -- President Donald Tusk
NATO -- Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
posted by Nevin at 12:05 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, it's not a contest (except to the Republican hopefuls, naturally) but we did pretty well considering the rest of our hemisphere. Canada's Minister of Public Safety and the rest of the Americas not represented at all.
Also, apologizing wasn't necessary. The Attorney General is the head of the Dept of Justice and a very appropriate choice.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:42 PM on January 12, 2015
Also, apologizing wasn't necessary. The Attorney General is the head of the Dept of Justice and a very appropriate choice.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:42 PM on January 12, 2015
Yes Nevin, with the exception of Jordan and Russia.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:52 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:52 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
phoque: " Then the door burst open ... and then ... a person sprang into the room shouting Allahou Akbar. He looked like someone from the GIGN or RAID."
Oh man. While it doesn't matter, cuz Alex Jones'll be Alex Jonesin'... This sort of quote, taken out of context will just be one more fuel to his idiotic fire. Hell, I don't believe that conspiracy shit, but upon reading that, first thing my mind thought was "OH SEE INSIDE JOB!" (sarcastically).
*shudder*
That said, yes, thanks for the interview, nice to see a first hand perspective instead of talking heads or outsiders ("nice" here is obviously a relative term).
posted by symbioid at 1:02 PM on January 12, 2015
Oh man. While it doesn't matter, cuz Alex Jones'll be Alex Jonesin'... This sort of quote, taken out of context will just be one more fuel to his idiotic fire. Hell, I don't believe that conspiracy shit, but upon reading that, first thing my mind thought was "OH SEE INSIDE JOB!" (sarcastically).
*shudder*
That said, yes, thanks for the interview, nice to see a first hand perspective instead of talking heads or outsiders ("nice" here is obviously a relative term).
posted by symbioid at 1:02 PM on January 12, 2015
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Newspaper Edits Female World Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:03 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:03 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
I read this Jane's article the other day which I think did a good job of accurately describing the terrorists as highly trained while of course distinguishing them from true security professionals:
posted by rosswald at 1:07 PM on January 12, 2015
In the hours after the attack took place, several eyewitness videos of the attackers began circulating online and showed the two suspects moving in a seemingly well-trained and experienced manner in their engagements with police. The videos seem to indicate a familiarity and proficiency in the use of small-arms, and their movements suggest a level of training in fire and move techniques.IHS Janes - Islamist militants attack French magazine office
However, in other parts of some videos, the suspects engage police while standing in the middle of the street without any cover, possibly suggesting that if the attackers had in fact received training, it may have only been relatively basic. The video footage also clearly shows the suspects using military-style equipment, including AK-series assault rifles and what looks like vests designed to carry ammunition into combat.
The footage strongly suggests the attackers, who had their faces covered, had a clear escape plan in place, underlining the extent of planning behind the attack. After the two men exited the building, they were met by a third man in an escape vehicle and were quickly able to escape the scene, before switching to at least one other vehicle. The men were also wearing black overalls, possibly concealing civilian clothes underneath, in an attempt to blend in to the general population following the attack.
posted by rosswald at 1:07 PM on January 12, 2015
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Newspaper Edits Female World Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March
Hasidic newspapers have been doing that kind of thing for a while. It could be charitably described as bizarre.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:09 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hasidic newspapers have been doing that kind of thing for a while. It could be charitably described as bizarre.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:09 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, roomthreeseventeen, they edited Hillary out of the bin Laden situation room photo, too. Fundies gonna fundie.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 1:13 PM on January 12, 2015
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 1:13 PM on January 12, 2015
Just to know: what's the dogmatic rationale/excuse for female-removal in this case? Actually, while on the subject: what exactly was the Kouachi's for their own brand of female-denying? (So unsurprised to see gender politics cropping up as an operative category at the heart both of this horrific crime, and of its media portrayal.)
posted by progosk at 1:29 PM on January 12, 2015
posted by progosk at 1:29 PM on January 12, 2015
Sole Woman Killed in Charlie Hebdo Massacre Targeted Because ‘She Was Jewish,’ Cousin Says:
[...] Bramley responded. “They spared all the women, and she was the only one killed, and she was the only one Jewish.”posted by rosswald at 1:34 PM on January 12, 2015
[...]
That realization, Bramley continued, “makes it even worse, because the press hasn’t really talked about it that way here. It was only about freedom of speech that was attacked, and my feeling was that religion was there too.”
The cover of CH, 14 January 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:48 PM on January 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:48 PM on January 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
rosswald, though it's important to know that Cayat received specific threats in recent weeks, the cousin's deductions that she was specifically targeted are not borne out by Leger's account of the attack; I'm not sure reiterating the point here really adds something useful to the story.
posted by progosk at 1:51 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by progosk at 1:51 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Interesting progosk. If you have a link please post or memail - thanks!
posted by rosswald at 1:59 PM on January 12, 2015
posted by rosswald at 1:59 PM on January 12, 2015
I was waiting for Taslima Nasreen (or Nasrin) (a Bangladeshi writer forced into exile because of her criticism of Islam, see previously) to weigh in, and she did not disappoint:
The intellectuals of the Occident have always spoken in favour of Muslims, no matter how much terror Muslims might perpetrate. Perhaps they wish to maintain the western liberal tradition, or maybe their sympathies are drawn to the Muslims who were once colonized by European nations and now form a minority in Europe, or perhaps they are moved by the fate of Muslims persecuted in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine. But the intellectuals working at Charlie Hebdo spared no one. No politician, no religious leader of any denomination, escaped their humour. They made fun of Christianity, Judaism and Islam alike. They would also sometimes lampoon the Prophet Mohammad. Those were intelligent works of art. Some people complain they were provocative. But they have all the right to be provocative, and no one should have the right to kill them for being provocative.
posted by dhens at 2:22 PM on January 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
The intellectuals of the Occident have always spoken in favour of Muslims, no matter how much terror Muslims might perpetrate. Perhaps they wish to maintain the western liberal tradition, or maybe their sympathies are drawn to the Muslims who were once colonized by European nations and now form a minority in Europe, or perhaps they are moved by the fate of Muslims persecuted in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine. But the intellectuals working at Charlie Hebdo spared no one. No politician, no religious leader of any denomination, escaped their humour. They made fun of Christianity, Judaism and Islam alike. They would also sometimes lampoon the Prophet Mohammad. Those were intelligent works of art. Some people complain they were provocative. But they have all the right to be provocative, and no one should have the right to kill them for being provocative.
posted by dhens at 2:22 PM on January 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
Big ups to Libération as well for giving them a place to work and being the ones to spring the cover. I wonder what the security is like now.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:22 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:22 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
In 2011, after the bombing at CH and while supporting Golgotha picnic, a stage play that Catholic fundamentalists were loudly protesting for "blasphemy", Charb was expressing support for the Muslims accused of not reacting enough to fundamentalism (quick and dirty translation, and note that this was not a formal interview or an article):
One does not believe that Islamism will take power in France, it is well known that this is a tiny minority, it's fifteen assholes, just like Catholic fundamentalists. People are concerned that "moderate Muslims" do not react but that's because there are no "moderate Muslims" in France, there are no Muslims at all, there are people who are of Muslim culture, who observe Ramadan just as I observe Christmas and eat turkey with my parents, but they should not have to take position against radical Islam as "moderate Muslims" since they are not "moderate Muslims", they are citizens. What pisses me off is that they are always questioned as "moderate Muslims", there are no "moderate Muslims". It's like telling me: "React as a moderate Catholic." I am not a "moderate Catholic", although I am baptized. I'm not Catholic at all.
posted by elgilito at 2:57 PM on January 12, 2015 [11 favorites]
One does not believe that Islamism will take power in France, it is well known that this is a tiny minority, it's fifteen assholes, just like Catholic fundamentalists. People are concerned that "moderate Muslims" do not react but that's because there are no "moderate Muslims" in France, there are no Muslims at all, there are people who are of Muslim culture, who observe Ramadan just as I observe Christmas and eat turkey with my parents, but they should not have to take position against radical Islam as "moderate Muslims" since they are not "moderate Muslims", they are citizens. What pisses me off is that they are always questioned as "moderate Muslims", there are no "moderate Muslims". It's like telling me: "React as a moderate Catholic." I am not a "moderate Catholic", although I am baptized. I'm not Catholic at all.
posted by elgilito at 2:57 PM on January 12, 2015 [11 favorites]
rory
Yes it is my translation. It is not as exact as I would like because there are some expressions that carry ideas that are bigger than their words convey. Like when Laurent says "Ils ont tiré dans le tas". It is an expression with a clear connotation of both randomness and brutality that a direct word for word "they shot into the pile" translation doesn't capture. It lacks the humanity being extinguished. And adding people to pile wouldn't fix it because they weren't actually piled up. So I went with "shot into the group", since they were grouped, like people do. But I still can't think of an English equivalent with the same visceral amplitude.
There were also one or two places where I couldn't make out a word or they are terms from France that I'm unfamiliar with ... like I had trouble picturing in my mind where the table was that Laurent hid behind, whether it was in some sort of alcove or curve at the back of the room or if it was a table jutting out from the others toward the back or a stand alone corner table. So I just went with my best guess, corner table / back of the room. Also there are a lot of "mais voilà" and "mais bon" which are used to expand or punctuate thoughts and neither English equivalent of nor direct translation works. Their inclusion makes things sound too light hearted in English because they are more sighs or ways of saying, "you know the rest". So I omitted most. There was also a lot of emotion and pauses and double speaking while seeking words that had to be chopped out. Trying to strike a balance between spoken emotion and readability and not make the whole thing ellipses ... was another compromise.
There is also a certain order in which we express ideas in French that loses flavour when reordered to the English manner. For simplicity sake I gave some ideas English expression while trying to preserve the French voice underneath it all.
Anyway there is plenty of room for correction and substitution of better English words or phrasing but I just wanted some semblance of it on the MeFi record.
posted by phoque at 3:21 PM on January 12, 2015 [13 favorites]
Yes it is my translation. It is not as exact as I would like because there are some expressions that carry ideas that are bigger than their words convey. Like when Laurent says "Ils ont tiré dans le tas". It is an expression with a clear connotation of both randomness and brutality that a direct word for word "they shot into the pile" translation doesn't capture. It lacks the humanity being extinguished. And adding people to pile wouldn't fix it because they weren't actually piled up. So I went with "shot into the group", since they were grouped, like people do. But I still can't think of an English equivalent with the same visceral amplitude.
There were also one or two places where I couldn't make out a word or they are terms from France that I'm unfamiliar with ... like I had trouble picturing in my mind where the table was that Laurent hid behind, whether it was in some sort of alcove or curve at the back of the room or if it was a table jutting out from the others toward the back or a stand alone corner table. So I just went with my best guess, corner table / back of the room. Also there are a lot of "mais voilà" and "mais bon" which are used to expand or punctuate thoughts and neither English equivalent of nor direct translation works. Their inclusion makes things sound too light hearted in English because they are more sighs or ways of saying, "you know the rest". So I omitted most. There was also a lot of emotion and pauses and double speaking while seeking words that had to be chopped out. Trying to strike a balance between spoken emotion and readability and not make the whole thing ellipses ... was another compromise.
There is also a certain order in which we express ideas in French that loses flavour when reordered to the English manner. For simplicity sake I gave some ideas English expression while trying to preserve the French voice underneath it all.
Anyway there is plenty of room for correction and substitution of better English words or phrasing but I just wanted some semblance of it on the MeFi record.
posted by phoque at 3:21 PM on January 12, 2015 [13 favorites]
Compared to all of these other leaders who attended the rally? Really?
I don't know what to say to your long, context-free list. I really don't. There's not much there to respond to, as written. So that said, as written, the problematic contexts of a Netanyahu going to a rally about healing from an event of violent extremism is probably going to be different from the context of several people on your list.
If it is going to be different, it is going to be factually different, due to the policies and actions of the government he represents, which is why he was asked not to attend. It may not be fair, but then the fault for that probably lies primarily at the feet of leaders of those kinds of governments, who make those kinds of judgement calls, which leads everyone else who isn't Netanyahu want to distance themselves from those like him when these atrocities happen.
I don't think he is the "worst" of the bunch — there were a lot of candidates who were probably asked to stay at home, but didn't — but I also wouldn't say Marine Le Pen is the worst, either, and she was rightfully (IMO) asked to stay away from the event.
Certainly, someone like him holds a lot more power to pursue peace and reconciliation than the Le Pens of the world, so maybe it isn't about "who is worst", so much as what those people have done in their respective, high-profile roles to be divisive and violent, and how those divisive and violent roles are relevant to the violence that took place last week — particularly where journalists are involved, given what the rally is supposed to be about.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:22 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know what to say to your long, context-free list. I really don't. There's not much there to respond to, as written. So that said, as written, the problematic contexts of a Netanyahu going to a rally about healing from an event of violent extremism is probably going to be different from the context of several people on your list.
If it is going to be different, it is going to be factually different, due to the policies and actions of the government he represents, which is why he was asked not to attend. It may not be fair, but then the fault for that probably lies primarily at the feet of leaders of those kinds of governments, who make those kinds of judgement calls, which leads everyone else who isn't Netanyahu want to distance themselves from those like him when these atrocities happen.
I don't think he is the "worst" of the bunch — there were a lot of candidates who were probably asked to stay at home, but didn't — but I also wouldn't say Marine Le Pen is the worst, either, and she was rightfully (IMO) asked to stay away from the event.
Certainly, someone like him holds a lot more power to pursue peace and reconciliation than the Le Pens of the world, so maybe it isn't about "who is worst", so much as what those people have done in their respective, high-profile roles to be divisive and violent, and how those divisive and violent roles are relevant to the violence that took place last week — particularly where journalists are involved, given what the rally is supposed to be about.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:22 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
particularly where journalists are involved, given what the rally is supposed to be about
The Jews killed at the kosher grocer were journalists? The rally wasn't for them?
posted by rosswald at 3:25 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Jews killed at the kosher grocer were journalists? The rally wasn't for them?
posted by rosswald at 3:25 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Charlie Hebdo attackers: born, raised and radicalised in Paris (Angelique Chrisafis for the Guardian)
posted by RogerB at 3:26 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by RogerB at 3:26 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Luz : “All eyes are on us, we’ve become a symbol”
posted by rory at 3:28 PM on January 12, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by rory at 3:28 PM on January 12, 2015 [9 favorites]
The rally wasn't for them?
I'm not sure I said that. Apologies if I somehow made that insinuation. Just to be clear: I did not say that.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:32 PM on January 12, 2015
I'm not sure I said that. Apologies if I somehow made that insinuation. Just to be clear: I did not say that.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:32 PM on January 12, 2015
Liberation has a good compilation of cartoons dedicated to Charlie:
Ça crayonne dur pour Charlie
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:38 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ça crayonne dur pour Charlie
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:38 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure I said that. Apologies if I somehow made that insinuation. Just to be clear: I did not say that.
posted by a lungful of dragon
I agree, but then if we posit the rally was for Free-Speech/Hebdo and the victims of the anitsemitic attack on the Jewish grocer - inviting an Israeli delegation of some kind doesn't seem that far fetched.
posted by rosswald at 3:41 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon
I agree, but then if we posit the rally was for Free-Speech/Hebdo and the victims of the anitsemitic attack on the Jewish grocer - inviting an Israeli delegation of some kind doesn't seem that far fetched.
posted by rosswald at 3:41 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
UK prime minister wants backdoors into messaging apps or he’ll ban them
In wake of Paris attacks, David Cameron targets encrypted communication services.
In wake of Paris attacks, David Cameron targets encrypted communication services.
David Cameron, the British Prime minister, is one-upping his Western allies when it comes to anti-encryption propaganda. Ahead of national elections in May, Cameron said that if re-elected, he would seek to ban encrypted online messaging apps unless the UK government is given backdoors.posted by XMLicious at 3:45 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn't possible to read?" Cameron said Monday while campaigning, in reference to apps such as WhatsApp, Snapchat, and other encrypted services. "My answer to that question is: 'No, we must not.'"
I live in Paris, next to the center of the march. Yesterday, we put music on our window, especially peace songs. Watch as the crowd sings along and then applauds for Imagine by John Lennon.
posted by nickyskye at 3:48 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nickyskye at 3:48 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Newspaper Edits Female World Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March
It appears the even the original photo of the "march" was a fake, a photo op staged to appear as if the world leaders were leading the march. Apparently they just staged the picture and then they all quickly hopped back into their limos and made their escape. Hardly worth the plane fare.
posted by JackFlash at 5:03 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
It appears the even the original photo of the "march" was a fake, a photo op staged to appear as if the world leaders were leading the march. Apparently they just staged the picture and then they all quickly hopped back into their limos and made their escape. Hardly worth the plane fare.
posted by JackFlash at 5:03 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
the problematic contexts of a Netanyahu going to a rally about healing from an event of violent extremism [...]
Don't you think Hollande would have treated any Israeli Prime Minister the same way? If the "solution" was to invite Abbas, the problem must have been the Prime Minister's nationality, not his personality. And this is, if you will excuse me, part of the problem. The world cannot tolerate a Jewish state any more than it can tolerate Jews. France, particularly, cannot tolerate them; they are tolerated as citoyens but not as Jews. In their death the victims committed a crime against laïcité: Jewish vulnerability is incompatible with the pretence that the Republic can officially ignore religion. The Israeli Prime Minister's presence underscored the victims' identity in an embarrassing way; France's only defence was to treat him as a political leader, instead of one whose attendance was uniquely significant.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:07 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Don't you think Hollande would have treated any Israeli Prime Minister the same way? If the "solution" was to invite Abbas, the problem must have been the Prime Minister's nationality, not his personality. And this is, if you will excuse me, part of the problem. The world cannot tolerate a Jewish state any more than it can tolerate Jews. France, particularly, cannot tolerate them; they are tolerated as citoyens but not as Jews. In their death the victims committed a crime against laïcité: Jewish vulnerability is incompatible with the pretence that the Republic can officially ignore religion. The Israeli Prime Minister's presence underscored the victims' identity in an embarrassing way; France's only defence was to treat him as a political leader, instead of one whose attendance was uniquely significant.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:07 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't know what to say to your long, context-free list. I really don't. There's not much there to respond to, as written. So that said, as written, the problematic contexts of a Netanyahu going to a rally about healing from an event of violent extremism is probably going to be different from the context of several people on your list.
My point was that Netanyahu was no more hypocritical in attending the rally than any other leader on that list, and there are several leaders who attended who have worse track records than Israel.
The idea of calling out Israel and Netanyahu has being particularly hypocritical is just plain nuts. Why not call out the US, which has most definitely targeted journalists? Or Russia's attendance? Or Turkey?
I have an idea why those other countries are ignored...
posted by Nevin at 5:25 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
My point was that Netanyahu was no more hypocritical in attending the rally than any other leader on that list, and there are several leaders who attended who have worse track records than Israel.
The idea of calling out Israel and Netanyahu has being particularly hypocritical is just plain nuts. Why not call out the US, which has most definitely targeted journalists? Or Russia's attendance? Or Turkey?
I have an idea why those other countries are ignored...
posted by Nevin at 5:25 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Charlie Hebdo cartoonist: "We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends."
posted by dirigibleman at 5:31 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 5:31 PM on January 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Why not call out the US, which has most definitely targeted journalists?
Because they haven't sent anyone, probably.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:37 PM on January 12, 2015
Because they haven't sent anyone, probably.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:37 PM on January 12, 2015
In their death the victims committed a crime against laïcité: Jewish vulnerability is incompatible with the pretence that the Republic can officially ignore religion.
Joe, I don't think laïcité means the government "ignores" religion in the way you're saying. It keeps religion out of government and prevents it from being taught in public schools, but I don't think it prevents the government from protecting people from hate crimes. I think there were already police officers stationed at Jewish schools, etc., and I read somewhere that 5k police are being added to this duty. Hollande shouldn't have asked Netanyahu to stay home, but it seems to me inviting Abbas was a good idea. Obviously, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a soar spot throughout the Muslim world that has been exacerbated by the recent destruction and Gaza.
‘With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France': Death threats follow publication of cartoon in Israeli newspaper
Joe, I don't think laïcité means the government "ignores" religion in the way you're saying. It keeps religion out of government and prevents it from being taught in public schools, but I don't think it prevents the government from protecting people from hate crimes. I think there were already police officers stationed at Jewish schools, etc., and I read somewhere that 5k police are being added to this duty. Hollande shouldn't have asked Netanyahu to stay home, but it seems to me inviting Abbas was a good idea. Obviously, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a soar spot throughout the Muslim world that has been exacerbated by the recent destruction and Gaza.
‘With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France': Death threats follow publication of cartoon in Israeli newspaper
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris last week Haaretz published a daring cartoon juxtaposing journalists* killed in Gaza by Israel during the brutal summer slaughter with the journalists killed at the office of the satirical magazine in Paris. This set off a chain reaction which ultimately led to calls for murdering Haaretz journalists after Ronen Shoval, founder of the neo-Zionist and proto-fascist Im Tirtzu movement, called for an investigation of the newspaper’s editors.posted by Golden Eternity at 5:37 PM on January 12, 2015 [10 favorites]A raft of death threats came in. “We must do what the terrorists did to them in France, but at Haaretz,” wrote Facebook user Chai Aloni. “Why is there no terror attack at Haaretz?” wrote Moni Ponte.
“Let the terrorists eliminate them,” wrote Daniella Peretz. “With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France,” wrote Miki Dahan. As Danit Hajaj put it, “They should die.”
“Haaretz is where the terrorists should have gone,” wrote Riki Michael. “Death to traitors,” added Moshe Mehager. “I hope that terrorism reaches Haaretz as well,” wrote Tuval Shalom. “With God’s help, [there will be] a Hamas operation that kills all of you, like the journalists in France,” wrote Ruti Hevroni.
Haaretz’s editorial staff said the cartoons published in the project were a personal gesture by the newspaper’s designers, not the editorial board, and this is how they were presented.
[Laïcité] keeps religion out of government and prevents it from being taught in public schools, but I don't think it prevents the government from protecting people from hate crimes.
Sure. But look at the present response: ten thousand French soldiers have been mobilised to protect vulnerable sites. According to the Washington Post, "about 4,700" of them will be protecting Jewish schools. Surely this is not sustainable, and even if it is sustained it will underscore the fact that Jews are not like other citizens of the Republic. It's one thing to provide security for an institution; it's quite another to mandate that Jewish schools - unlike other schools - get to have soldiers standing outside. That's what isn't compatible with laïcité; special treatment for a particular faith. By needing that protection, Jews strain the French secular ideal. And it's not just schools, incidentally - the target this time was a supermarket. Will kosher supermarkets be protected? Butchers? Does official protection come with every business opened?
My prediction: there will be no soldiers outside Jewish businesses; the soldiers outside Jewish schools will be gradually withdrawn. There will be another atrocity, and another one, and France's Jewish community will eventually be no more.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:01 PM on January 12, 2015
Sure. But look at the present response: ten thousand French soldiers have been mobilised to protect vulnerable sites. According to the Washington Post, "about 4,700" of them will be protecting Jewish schools. Surely this is not sustainable, and even if it is sustained it will underscore the fact that Jews are not like other citizens of the Republic. It's one thing to provide security for an institution; it's quite another to mandate that Jewish schools - unlike other schools - get to have soldiers standing outside. That's what isn't compatible with laïcité; special treatment for a particular faith. By needing that protection, Jews strain the French secular ideal. And it's not just schools, incidentally - the target this time was a supermarket. Will kosher supermarkets be protected? Butchers? Does official protection come with every business opened?
My prediction: there will be no soldiers outside Jewish businesses; the soldiers outside Jewish schools will be gradually withdrawn. There will be another atrocity, and another one, and France's Jewish community will eventually be no more.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:01 PM on January 12, 2015
Originally Joe posted this Op-Ed - which I thought was worth linking - Solidarity with journalists, not Jews
posted by rosswald at 6:44 PM on January 12, 2015
posted by rosswald at 6:44 PM on January 12, 2015
By needing that protection, Jews strain the French secular ideal.
How so?
posted by clavdivs at 9:14 PM on January 12, 2015
How so?
posted by clavdivs at 9:14 PM on January 12, 2015
Paris attacks prompt fears France's Muslim 'no-go' zones incubating jihad (warning: Fox News)
France’s problems are in plain sight
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:19 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
“These ‘no-go’ zones are essentially breeding grounds for radicalism, and it’s a very big problem,” Soeren Kern, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, told FoxNews.com. “These are areas where essentially the French government has lost control.”I'm not sure Muslim populations addressing problems within Islamic law on their own is necessarily a problem in and of itself, unless it involves immoral punishment. Aren't there other orthodox communities that essentially work the same way?
Created in 1996, the zones are sprinkled throughout cities and suburbs in rundown neighborhoods France sought to revitalize with tax breaks for businesses. Most of the zones are blocks of neighborhoods, with the average ZUS containing about 6,000 residents. An estimated 5 million people live the zones, and most of the residents are part of France's 10 percent Muslim population. In some zones, Islamic law actually supersedes the French legal system on civil matters such as property disputes, adultery and divorce.
France’s problems are in plain sight
Despite the billions of euros poured into immigrant-dominated “sensitive urban zones” since the riots of 2005, nothing has improved. Youth unemployment in these areas is upward of 40 per cent, according to The Economist. Sixty per cent of France’s prison inmates are of “Muslim religion or culture,” and the prisons have become breeding grounds for radicalization.Boko Haram May Have Just Pulled Off One Of The Worst Terrorist Attacks Ever
[...]
An Ipsos survey published in 2013 found that 74 per cent of French citizens view Islam as “intolerant” and “incompatible” with French values. Seventy per cent of respondents said there are too many foreigners in France, and 67 per cent said they no longer feel at home in their own country.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:19 PM on January 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
The interview with Luz is deeply insightful, thanks for posting, rory.
posted by progosk at 10:17 PM on January 12, 2015
posted by progosk at 10:17 PM on January 12, 2015
So, how can someone in the US buy a copy?
posted by 445supermag at 10:38 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by 445supermag at 10:38 PM on January 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
"By needing that protection, Jews strain the French secular ideal."
How so?
posted by clavdivs at 12:14 AM
Well they are not because JIA (joe) has confused a definition to a circumstance. Which needs an explanation imo. Besides being what Donald Hall called WSHF, joes assertion and subsequent predictions are confirmations of his paradigm; finding what data fits an assertion.
He does not tell you mosques are also being protected.
But no , even as pointed out by another user who types 10x better then I and no doubt, the same ratio in brain work stuff.
And that sentence frightens me a bit. And that's not easy.
I'll let history judge that sentence:
"Jews strain...
I can't finish it.
posted by clavdivs at 10:40 PM on January 12, 2015
How so?
posted by clavdivs at 12:14 AM
Well they are not because JIA (joe) has confused a definition to a circumstance. Which needs an explanation imo. Besides being what Donald Hall called WSHF, joes assertion and subsequent predictions are confirmations of his paradigm; finding what data fits an assertion.
He does not tell you mosques are also being protected.
But no , even as pointed out by another user who types 10x better then I and no doubt, the same ratio in brain work stuff.
And that sentence frightens me a bit. And that's not easy.
I'll let history judge that sentence:
"Jews strain...
I can't finish it.
posted by clavdivs at 10:40 PM on January 12, 2015
Joe collected a bunch of links about anti-semitism in France, not sure how much there exists upthread.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:03 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 1:03 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Notable in marienbad's BBC link, is that the cover is discussed but not shown, with the added info that "The latest cover of Charlie Hebdo has been published in advance by French media. Outside France, the Washington Post, Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine, Corriere della Sera in Italy and the UK's Guardian are among publications to show the cartoon. "
The Guardian itself, (at least its online version, would be interesting to know how they played this in print) shows the cover near the bottom of the article, so that they can get in a declaimer at the top: "Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive", plus a similar list of co-"offenders": "Newspapers around Europe, including Libération, Le Monde and Frankfurter Allgemeine have used the image online. The BBC showed it briefly during a newspaper review on Newsnight. In the US, the Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, The Daily Beast and CBS News ran the cover but the New York Times did not. In Australia, the ABC showed the image of the cartoon on its 24-hour rolling news programme but with a warning to viewers.", plus a further justification of their choice: "The Guardian is running this cover as its news value warrants publication."
The NYT doesn't show the image (providing only a link back to Libé's article with it); WaPo features it with no particular warnings, but did publish an explanatory column, justifying its choice to publish the image; USA Today doesn't have it on its frontpage, and in the article where it's published there's a line of justification on the grounds of news-worthiness; the LATimes and WSJ have the article in their "Europe" sub-sections; the other european newspaper sites have it right up on their front pages with no particular provisos.
Interesting to watch the new global map of hoops that freedom of expression will now have to jump through...
posted by progosk at 1:33 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Guardian itself, (at least its online version, would be interesting to know how they played this in print) shows the cover near the bottom of the article, so that they can get in a declaimer at the top: "Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive", plus a similar list of co-"offenders": "Newspapers around Europe, including Libération, Le Monde and Frankfurter Allgemeine have used the image online. The BBC showed it briefly during a newspaper review on Newsnight. In the US, the Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, The Daily Beast and CBS News ran the cover but the New York Times did not. In Australia, the ABC showed the image of the cartoon on its 24-hour rolling news programme but with a warning to viewers.", plus a further justification of their choice: "The Guardian is running this cover as its news value warrants publication."
The NYT doesn't show the image (providing only a link back to Libé's article with it); WaPo features it with no particular warnings, but did publish an explanatory column, justifying its choice to publish the image; USA Today doesn't have it on its frontpage, and in the article where it's published there's a line of justification on the grounds of news-worthiness; the LATimes and WSJ have the article in their "Europe" sub-sections; the other european newspaper sites have it right up on their front pages with no particular provisos.
Interesting to watch the new global map of hoops that freedom of expression will now have to jump through...
posted by progosk at 1:33 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Largest Dutch papers:
De Volkskrant shows part of the cartoon, and describes the rest.
Algemeen Dagblad shows all of it.
As does NRC.
And De Telegraaf.
Even Trouw, which is usually rather cautious, shows it completely.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:48 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
De Volkskrant shows part of the cartoon, and describes the rest.
Algemeen Dagblad shows all of it.
As does NRC.
And De Telegraaf.
Even Trouw, which is usually rather cautious, shows it completely.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:48 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
I thought this was interesting....
Farid Benyettou, previously 'spiritual guide' of the Buttes-Chaumont group (the ones who were recruiting and sending volunteers to Syria in 2006 to fight against Assad) and who was also previously a mentor of the Brothers Kouachi. Benyettou was sentenced to six years in prison in 2008 and released in 2011. Benyettou has since been undertaking training to become a hospital nurse...
"My intervention is not to proclaim my innocence. My innocence is not in doubt. My intervention is to condemn what has been done. Some people who cite my name, if I do not answer, they will think I endorse what's happened. Islam condemns all that was done, all those acts, and all, be it loose and monstrous murder of the journalists, the policemen who were killed, the members of the Jewish community. I'm here to say that all this should not be attributed to Islam. If you do this, if you are murderers, that's your business. Do not believe that Islam legitimates your actions. On the contrary, it condemns."
He also notes that "Certain people think France oppresses muslims. I am proof of the opposite. I have a prison record that's difficult to live with. I was condemned for terrorism, it's the worst of cases. Despite that, I've not been discriminated against. On the contrary, I've been helped. People continue to believe in me." [my rough translation]
source: today's Le Monde
posted by Mister Bijou at 1:50 AM on January 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
Farid Benyettou, previously 'spiritual guide' of the Buttes-Chaumont group (the ones who were recruiting and sending volunteers to Syria in 2006 to fight against Assad) and who was also previously a mentor of the Brothers Kouachi. Benyettou was sentenced to six years in prison in 2008 and released in 2011. Benyettou has since been undertaking training to become a hospital nurse...
"My intervention is not to proclaim my innocence. My innocence is not in doubt. My intervention is to condemn what has been done. Some people who cite my name, if I do not answer, they will think I endorse what's happened. Islam condemns all that was done, all those acts, and all, be it loose and monstrous murder of the journalists, the policemen who were killed, the members of the Jewish community. I'm here to say that all this should not be attributed to Islam. If you do this, if you are murderers, that's your business. Do not believe that Islam legitimates your actions. On the contrary, it condemns."
He also notes that "Certain people think France oppresses muslims. I am proof of the opposite. I have a prison record that's difficult to live with. I was condemned for terrorism, it's the worst of cases. Despite that, I've not been discriminated against. On the contrary, I've been helped. People continue to believe in me." [my rough translation]
source: today's Le Monde
posted by Mister Bijou at 1:50 AM on January 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
Reformatorisch Dagblad, on the other hand, does not show the cover at all, but only links to it. Not much of a surprise there.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:01 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:01 AM on January 13, 2015
The biggest threat to French free speech isn’t terrorism. It’s the government.
Comic Dieudonné [might be prosecuted] for Charlie Hebdo gag
Apperently Dieudonné M'bala M'bala once sued Charlie Hebdo for a comic depicting him with a small brain, not the quenelle image depicted on understandingcharliehebdo.com. I've never seen that image nor found corroboration, didn't look much though.
There is sadly no understandingdieudonnembalambala.com site but my overall impression is that nothing he says constitutes hate speech, libel, etc. in the U.S., thanks to the first amendment.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:52 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Comic Dieudonné [might be prosecuted] for Charlie Hebdo gag
Apperently Dieudonné M'bala M'bala once sued Charlie Hebdo for a comic depicting him with a small brain, not the quenelle image depicted on understandingcharliehebdo.com. I've never seen that image nor found corroboration, didn't look much though.
There is sadly no understandingdieudonnembalambala.com site but my overall impression is that nothing he says constitutes hate speech, libel, etc. in the U.S., thanks to the first amendment.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:52 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
No finding info that he sued them, but here's that cover - I'm likely missing context for their "point de détail" line, but it ain't particularly memorable.
That said, there's definitely an issue to defray here...
posted by progosk at 3:34 AM on January 13, 2015
That said, there's definitely an issue to defray here...
posted by progosk at 3:34 AM on January 13, 2015
Je ne suis pas Charlie
I spoke with a woman yesterday that I interviewed for an upcoming article that I’m writing, ironically, on racism in Paris. It was a tense day for her. Surrounded by grieving, mostly White people at her job, Céline* stepped outside to whisper into her cellphone. “The White people are all mourning and I am too, but I look at this differently. Charlie Hebdo has done nothing but make fun of Black people, Islam, Algerians,” she said, rushing through her words. “This needs a nuanced look because my humanity is under assault everyday, in the French system and this press which thinks that they have to make political statements by humiliating Black people and North Africans.”
posted by blub at 3:42 AM on January 13, 2015
I spoke with a woman yesterday that I interviewed for an upcoming article that I’m writing, ironically, on racism in Paris. It was a tense day for her. Surrounded by grieving, mostly White people at her job, Céline* stepped outside to whisper into her cellphone. “The White people are all mourning and I am too, but I look at this differently. Charlie Hebdo has done nothing but make fun of Black people, Islam, Algerians,” she said, rushing through her words. “This needs a nuanced look because my humanity is under assault everyday, in the French system and this press which thinks that they have to make political statements by humiliating Black people and North Africans.”
posted by blub at 3:42 AM on January 13, 2015
I spoke with a woman yesterday that I interviewed for an upcoming article that I’m writing,
Suggest anyone who follows that link above thereafter check out this link: understandingcharliehebdo
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:53 AM on January 13, 2015
Suggest anyone who follows that link above thereafter check out this link: understandingcharliehebdo
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:53 AM on January 13, 2015
Appears the Maroon Colony is written by an American who misses the point by miles.
See understandingcharliehebdo.com for correct interpretations.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:00 AM on January 13, 2015
See understandingcharliehebdo.com for correct interpretations.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:00 AM on January 13, 2015
blub: sorry, but that blog post is infused with misunderstanding, of context, and of the issues at stake. Do take some time to look at the wealth of commentary and critique offered upthread.
posted by progosk at 4:02 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by progosk at 4:02 AM on January 13, 2015
No finding info that he sued them, but here's that cover - I'm likely missing context for their "point de détail" line, but it ain't particularly memorable.
The "point de détail" is a direct reference to Front National founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, who once referred to the gas chambers as being "just a detail (un point de détail) in the history of World War II". Dieudonné and Le Pen Sr are friends (Le Pen is the godfather of one of Dieudonné's kids) and both men have been toying with Holocaust denial for a while. Dieudonné is also a friend of serial Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson.
posted by elgilito at 4:40 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
The "point de détail" is a direct reference to Front National founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, who once referred to the gas chambers as being "just a detail (un point de détail) in the history of World War II". Dieudonné and Le Pen Sr are friends (Le Pen is the godfather of one of Dieudonné's kids) and both men have been toying with Holocaust denial for a while. Dieudonné is also a friend of serial Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson.
posted by elgilito at 4:40 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wow! You've a source for Le Pen Sr being godfather of one of Dieudonné's kids?
posted by jeffburdges at 4:47 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 4:47 AM on January 13, 2015
It's covered on wikipedia with source. I so do not understand Dieudonné.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:56 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 4:56 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Appears the Maroon Colony is written by an American who misses the point by miles.
It's perhaps an American, but they did interview people in Paris, for a piece about racism in Paris. I thought it gave an interesting perspective, even though it's not an ideal piece. The quote is from a Muslim woman who does live in Paris, and who did really not like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. It seems unhelpful when a bunch of non-Muslim non-women who don't live as a Muslim woman in Paris tell her she just doesn't understand it. That's exactly the point in a lot of those discussions about race in Europe: the dominant narrative is that you have to completely integrate in society and it's white culture, and if you don't have a perfect understanding of the cultural background, or want to retain some of your own cultural heritage, well, you can always go back to where you came from. I don't live in Paris (but I used to live there for a year, in a place with many Muslim women), I now live in another European country where casual and ironic racism is rampant. I know most people here aren't racist either and they just like dressing up in blackface for good fun, for example. That they have good intentions and tend not to be racist is not the point. That some non-white people are not offended is also not the point. It still hurts for a lot of non-white people. And it hurts perhaps even more if white people keep telling them how they don't understand why it's not hurtful.
I liked the understandingcharliehebdo site for some background. For some comics, that helped, for others it didn't. I think in general if you need an understanding of typography of political posters to understand why a picture of a black person (an elected official) as a monkey is satire, then perhaps that's not material to put on the cover of a magazine that you encounter everywhere. Also The french, just as stupid as the negroes did not gain much from the "explanation".
posted by blub at 5:00 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's perhaps an American, but they did interview people in Paris, for a piece about racism in Paris. I thought it gave an interesting perspective, even though it's not an ideal piece. The quote is from a Muslim woman who does live in Paris, and who did really not like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. It seems unhelpful when a bunch of non-Muslim non-women who don't live as a Muslim woman in Paris tell her she just doesn't understand it. That's exactly the point in a lot of those discussions about race in Europe: the dominant narrative is that you have to completely integrate in society and it's white culture, and if you don't have a perfect understanding of the cultural background, or want to retain some of your own cultural heritage, well, you can always go back to where you came from. I don't live in Paris (but I used to live there for a year, in a place with many Muslim women), I now live in another European country where casual and ironic racism is rampant. I know most people here aren't racist either and they just like dressing up in blackface for good fun, for example. That they have good intentions and tend not to be racist is not the point. That some non-white people are not offended is also not the point. It still hurts for a lot of non-white people. And it hurts perhaps even more if white people keep telling them how they don't understand why it's not hurtful.
I liked the understandingcharliehebdo site for some background. For some comics, that helped, for others it didn't. I think in general if you need an understanding of typography of political posters to understand why a picture of a black person (an elected official) as a monkey is satire, then perhaps that's not material to put on the cover of a magazine that you encounter everywhere. Also The french, just as stupid as the negroes did not gain much from the "explanation".
posted by blub at 5:00 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Le Pen declared himself godfather of Dieudonné's daughter number three in July 2008
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:03 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:03 AM on January 13, 2015
I so do not understand Dieudonné.
Most people no longer understand Dieudonné. He was one of the smartest, brightest comedians of his generation and something went really, really wrong circa 2002-2003.
posted by elgilito at 5:07 AM on January 13, 2015
Most people no longer understand Dieudonné. He was one of the smartest, brightest comedians of his generation and something went really, really wrong circa 2002-2003.
posted by elgilito at 5:07 AM on January 13, 2015
It's shows the pope gloating over coning both Africans and French with "the usual anti-homosexual, anti-condom propaganda." What's not to understand? Don't forget that Pope was a Hitler youth.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:12 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 5:12 AM on January 13, 2015
blub, I don't have any beef with that Parisian woman speaking from her own viewpoint and experience. I do have beef with the Maroon Colony author, posting nonsense like "an image of a Black man, crouching like a monkey, with what can be assumed is a banana going up his ass. And please save the argument that it’s a “quenelle.” Because it is not."
That's wilfull ignorance speaking. If that were a banana, the whole joke would be gone; it would be reduced to 'haha black people look like monkeys'. That is not the kind of jokes CH makes. And this is a quenelle.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:13 AM on January 13, 2015
That's wilfull ignorance speaking. If that were a banana, the whole joke would be gone; it would be reduced to 'haha black people look like monkeys'. That is not the kind of jokes CH makes. And this is a quenelle.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:13 AM on January 13, 2015
Plus, if an image of a crouching black man immediately makes someone think 'monkey'... well, what can I say?
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:22 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:22 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's shows the pope gloating over coning both Africans and French with "the usual anti-homosexual, anti-condom propaganda." What's not to understand? Don't forget that Pope was a Hitler youth.
No, it's not about Africans and French, it's about "Negroes" and "French people". That's an important difference. But, the comic is from 1980 and I have no idea if the word "nègre" was as charged then as it is now and how this comic would have been read back then, so it's entirely possible that this was less offensive then than it reads now. But that wasn't explained on the understandingcharliehebdo site, they didn't even mention the "nègro" word as potentially offensive. It's strange that they consistently mention "Africans" in the explanation whereas the cartoon is specifically about "negroes".
posted by blub at 5:49 AM on January 13, 2015
The target here is the sort of white French Catholic who's likely to use a term like "les nègres" to cover all Africans. And to slobber over Il Papa. France is still a Catholic country in the main.
Yes, Jean-Marc Reiser was offensive; he was quite a genius of the art of poking people in the ribs with a sharp stick.
posted by Wolof at 6:00 AM on January 13, 2015
Yes, Jean-Marc Reiser was offensive; he was quite a genius of the art of poking people in the ribs with a sharp stick.
posted by Wolof at 6:00 AM on January 13, 2015
I lived in Paris for six years during the 1970s. The term 'nègre' was just as offensive then as it is now.
But you seem to misunderstand, Charlie Hebdo has the Pope saying the equivalent of: The French are as big a jerks/morons/dickheads/cunts as the niggers."
Why? Because Charlie Hebdo is of the view that the pope is just as contemptuous of the French as he is of Africans.
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:02 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
But you seem to misunderstand, Charlie Hebdo has the Pope saying the equivalent of: The French are as big a jerks/morons/dickheads/cunts as the niggers."
Why? Because Charlie Hebdo is of the view that the pope is just as contemptuous of the French as he is of Africans.
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:02 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Recommended... Charlie Hebdo: a letter to my British friends [and American ones too]
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:05 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:05 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, Jean-Marc Reiser was offensive; he was quite a genius of the art of poking people in the ribs with a sharp stick.
I think that's kind of my point. He was offensive, knew he was offensive, and did it for a reason. I totally support his right to do that. But now, suddenly, lots of people seem to be saying: "no, you misunderstand this wasn't offensive at all!" or "if you are offended by this offensive thing, that's wrong".
posted by blub at 6:10 AM on January 13, 2015
One highly amusing detail is that the world politicians didn't participate in the march... they instead posed for a staged photograph in Paris.
Also, this note about the hypocrisy of the world politicians has been circulating on Facebook (edit: I have not checked its accuracy):
Also, this note about the hypocrisy of the world politicians has been circulating on Facebook (edit: I have not checked its accuracy):
At the front of today's march:posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:12 AM on January 13, 2015 [7 favorites]
- Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain, whose government just passed the Ley Mordaza, a gag law placing historic restrictions on the right to protest in Spain.
- Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant" .
- Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as Al Jazeera staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days.
- King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour.
- Prime Minister Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world.
- Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forced killed 17 journalists in Gaza last year (second highest after Syria).
- Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charges.
- The Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, which in 2013 held a journalist incommunicado for a month on suspicion of MB links.
- Prime Minister Jomaa of Tunisia, which recently jailed blogger Yassine Ayan for 3 years for "defaming the army".
- The Prime Ministers of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journalists.
- The Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted Washington Post reporters.
- Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year
- Secretary-General of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journalists in '99.
- President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses.
- The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them).
- Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem.
- Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013.
- Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for "defamation" in 2013.
- Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, where "blasphemy" is considered a criminal offense.
- Prime Minister Kopacz of Poland, which raided a magazine to seize recordings embarrassing for the ruling party.
- Prime Minister Cameron of the UK, where authorities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution.
- Prime Minister Orbán of Hungary, the autocrat of who Amnesty says has "put an end to the free press in Hungary"."
Also amusing, Angela Merkel's visible irritation over Bibi Netanyahu's beaming and waving to the crowd.
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:20 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:20 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think in general if you need an understanding of typography of political posters to understand why a picture of a black person (an elected official) as a monkey is satire, then perhaps that's not material to put on the cover of a magazine that you encounter everywhere.
Is there any evidence the Taubira cartoon was on the cover?
I don't think anyone was arguing that you needed an understanding of typography to read that cartoon properly, only that recognising the National Front logo and knowing the contemporary local context was necessary to do so.
That is not the kind of jokes CH makes. And this is a quenelle.
And, crucially as the cartoon was a caricature of comedian Dieudonné, this is his quenelle, described by its creator as "a kind of up yours gesture to the establishment with an in the ass dimension." Also from that Wikipedia page:
Jewish leaders, anti-racism groups and public officials—especially in France—have interpreted it as an inverted Nazi salute (illegal to perform in France) and as an expression of antisemitism. French officials have sought to ban the gesture due to its perceived subtext of antisemitism.
The name quenelle comes from a dish of elongated fish balls, said to resemble a suppository. Hence, the phrase "glisser une quenelle" ("to slide the quenelle"), with a gesture evoking fisting practice, s similar to the English insults "up yours" or "up your arse."
So the meaning of that cover isn't hard to read, once you know the context (and read the caricature as a specific person and not as "generic black man"): "Dieudonné, stick your antisemitic gesture up your arse". Some comments on the Maroon Colony post point this out, and the blog's author replies by insisting that it should be read generically and as a banana, even though the cover refers to it specifically as a quenelle. There's being wrong, and there's being wilfully wrong.
The logical extension of Maroon Colony's response is that we should read all caricature of specific persons as referring instead to their larger groups (races, nationalities, religions, gender, where do we stop?). What if the cartoon had been attacking Jean-Marie Le Pen instead?
At one point the author writes:
I think the issue is here that the French want to put comics into “context”. I understand this, but if you need to explain how pictures of human beings as monkeys aren’t racist, you need new humor and new comics, not new “context”. It’s a comic and should stand on its own. That’s like saying that you need a manual guide for a comic strip.
Nope.
You absolutely need context to understand any political cartoon. Visit the website of any newspaper from another country and try to make head or tails of any cartoons that deal with local politics: you won't be able to, unless you read up on the political context as well. You won't even be able to recognise caricatures that are instantly recognisable to their intended audience.
I'm Australian, lived there until my thirties, and follow Australian news online and some Australian political cartoonists on Twitter, and I can't make sense of all of their daily political cartoons any more, because I haven't lived there for thirteen years. But I was always aware of the limits, even when living there, because every Australian state has its own parochial politics and cartoons that don't translate well across state borders.
"It’s a comic and should stand on its own"? No it isn't, it's a one-panel political caricature, and it can't and shouldn't. Learning the language of cartooning and comics is no more trivial, and no less complex, than learning to read, or learning to understand film or television. You can do it without a manual, but a good one doesn't hurt.
posted by rory at 6:41 AM on January 13, 2015 [12 favorites]
Is there any evidence the Taubira cartoon was on the cover?
I don't think anyone was arguing that you needed an understanding of typography to read that cartoon properly, only that recognising the National Front logo and knowing the contemporary local context was necessary to do so.
That is not the kind of jokes CH makes. And this is a quenelle.
And, crucially as the cartoon was a caricature of comedian Dieudonné, this is his quenelle, described by its creator as "a kind of up yours gesture to the establishment with an in the ass dimension." Also from that Wikipedia page:
Jewish leaders, anti-racism groups and public officials—especially in France—have interpreted it as an inverted Nazi salute (illegal to perform in France) and as an expression of antisemitism. French officials have sought to ban the gesture due to its perceived subtext of antisemitism.
The name quenelle comes from a dish of elongated fish balls, said to resemble a suppository. Hence, the phrase "glisser une quenelle" ("to slide the quenelle"), with a gesture evoking fisting practice, s similar to the English insults "up yours" or "up your arse."
So the meaning of that cover isn't hard to read, once you know the context (and read the caricature as a specific person and not as "generic black man"): "Dieudonné, stick your antisemitic gesture up your arse". Some comments on the Maroon Colony post point this out, and the blog's author replies by insisting that it should be read generically and as a banana, even though the cover refers to it specifically as a quenelle. There's being wrong, and there's being wilfully wrong.
The logical extension of Maroon Colony's response is that we should read all caricature of specific persons as referring instead to their larger groups (races, nationalities, religions, gender, where do we stop?). What if the cartoon had been attacking Jean-Marie Le Pen instead?
At one point the author writes:
I think the issue is here that the French want to put comics into “context”. I understand this, but if you need to explain how pictures of human beings as monkeys aren’t racist, you need new humor and new comics, not new “context”. It’s a comic and should stand on its own. That’s like saying that you need a manual guide for a comic strip.
Nope.
You absolutely need context to understand any political cartoon. Visit the website of any newspaper from another country and try to make head or tails of any cartoons that deal with local politics: you won't be able to, unless you read up on the political context as well. You won't even be able to recognise caricatures that are instantly recognisable to their intended audience.
I'm Australian, lived there until my thirties, and follow Australian news online and some Australian political cartoonists on Twitter, and I can't make sense of all of their daily political cartoons any more, because I haven't lived there for thirteen years. But I was always aware of the limits, even when living there, because every Australian state has its own parochial politics and cartoons that don't translate well across state borders.
"It’s a comic and should stand on its own"? No it isn't, it's a one-panel political caricature, and it can't and shouldn't. Learning the language of cartooning and comics is no more trivial, and no less complex, than learning to read, or learning to understand film or television. You can do it without a manual, but a good one doesn't hurt.
posted by rory at 6:41 AM on January 13, 2015 [12 favorites]
Kenan Malik - "je suis charlie? it’s a bit late"
What is called ‘offence to a community’ is more often than not actually a struggle within communities. There are hudreds of thousands, within Muslim communities in the West, and within Muslim-majority countries across the world, challenging religious-based reactionary ideas and policies and institutions; writers, cartoonists, political activists, daily putting their lives on the line in facing down blasphemy laws, standing up for equal rights and fighting for democratic freedoms; people like Pakistani cartoonist Sabir Nazar, the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, exiled to India after death threats, or the Iranian blogger Soheil Arabi, sentenced to death last year for ‘insulting the Prophet’. What happened in the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris was viscerally shocking; but in the non-Western world, those who stand up for their rights face such threats every day.posted by audi alteram partem at 6:51 AM on January 13, 2015 [11 favorites]
I was thinking of posting that. I also thought yesterday's Assimilationism vs Multiculturalism by Malik was quite useful as well.
posted by Grangousier at 6:54 AM on January 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Grangousier at 6:54 AM on January 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think the issue is here that the French want to put comics into “context”. I understand this, but if you need to explain how pictures of human beings as monkeys aren’t racist, you need new humor and new comics, not new “context”. It’s a comic and should stand on its own. That’s like saying that you need a manual guide for a comic strip.
Nope.
You absolutely need context to understand any political cartoon. Visit the website of any newspaper from another country and try to make head or tails of any cartoons that deal with local politics: you won't be able to, unless you read up on the political context as well. You won't even be able to recognise caricatures that are instantly recognisable to their intended audience.
This is something larger, that Luz touches on in his very soul-searching thoughts on post-massacre CH:
Since the cartoons of Muhammad, the irresponsible nature of cartoons has gradually disappeared. Since 2007, our cartoons are read literally. People or cartoonists, like Plantu, believe we shouldn’t do drawings on Muhammad because they go viral on the Internet. Therefore we have to be careful what we do in France as someone may react in Kuala Lumpur or somewhere else. It’s unbearable.
Why ?
Since 2007, Charlie has been scrutinized and made to carry responsibility. Each cartoon may possibly be read as having political stakes or expressing internal politics. Those stakes are laid on our shoulders. But we’re simply a newspaper that is bought, opened then closed. If people post our cartoons on Internet, if the media highlight certain of our cartoons, that’s their responsibility. Not ours.
Does CH actually not publish online? A tricky issue...
posted by progosk at 7:00 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nope.
You absolutely need context to understand any political cartoon. Visit the website of any newspaper from another country and try to make head or tails of any cartoons that deal with local politics: you won't be able to, unless you read up on the political context as well. You won't even be able to recognise caricatures that are instantly recognisable to their intended audience.
This is something larger, that Luz touches on in his very soul-searching thoughts on post-massacre CH:
Since the cartoons of Muhammad, the irresponsible nature of cartoons has gradually disappeared. Since 2007, our cartoons are read literally. People or cartoonists, like Plantu, believe we shouldn’t do drawings on Muhammad because they go viral on the Internet. Therefore we have to be careful what we do in France as someone may react in Kuala Lumpur or somewhere else. It’s unbearable.
Why ?
Since 2007, Charlie has been scrutinized and made to carry responsibility. Each cartoon may possibly be read as having political stakes or expressing internal politics. Those stakes are laid on our shoulders. But we’re simply a newspaper that is bought, opened then closed. If people post our cartoons on Internet, if the media highlight certain of our cartoons, that’s their responsibility. Not ours.
Does CH actually not publish online? A tricky issue...
posted by progosk at 7:00 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Associated Press - ISRAEL BURIES 4 JEWISH VICTIMS OF PARIS ATTACK
European Jews are deeply ambivalent about leaving. While maintaining close ties to Israel, their community leaders have urged people to stay in their homelands and not flee in the face of terror.posted by rosswald at 7:31 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Still, instead of being buried in France, the victims' bodies were flown to Israel, where they received a funeral with many of the trappings of an official ceremony.
"Yoav, Yohan, Phillipe, Francois-Michel - this is not how we wanted to welcome you to Israel," President Reuven Rivlin said, his voice quivering. "We wanted you alive, we wanted for you, life. At moments such as these, I stand before you, brokenhearted, shaken and in pain, and with me stands and cries an entire nation."
Rivlin, though, insisted that Jews should not return to their ancestral home out of distress or fear of violence. "The land of Israel is the land of choice. We want you to choose Israel, because of a love for Israel," he said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom critics at home accuse of having an overzealous and politically motivated response to the Paris killing, defended the rights of Jews to live safely everywhere.
"I believe that they know deep in their hearts that they have one country, the state of Israel, that is their historic homeland and will always welcome them with open arms," he said. "Today, more than ever, Israel is the true home for all of us."
Ugh! This whole thing has turned very quickly from tragedy to farce.
I can't wait to see what Charlie Hebdo makes of all of this.
posted by Flashman at 7:37 AM on January 13, 2015
I can't wait to see what Charlie Hebdo makes of all of this.
posted by Flashman at 7:37 AM on January 13, 2015
I can't wait to see what Charlie Hebdo makes of all of this
You don't have to wait; their newest cover is Muhammad holding a 'Je Suis Charlie' sign
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:39 AM on January 13, 2015
You don't have to wait; their newest cover is Muhammad holding a 'Je Suis Charlie' sign
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:39 AM on January 13, 2015
Charlie Hebdo: about 1,000 copies likely to be available in UK for first edition since attack
posted by Mister Bijou at 7:44 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by Mister Bijou at 7:44 AM on January 13, 2015
Muslim mayor of Rotterdam tells extremists who 'don't like freedom' to 'fuck off'
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:01 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:01 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's not a great translation of 'oprotten'. It does mean largely the same as 'to fuck off', but without the same level of profanity. Maybe 'to piss off' would be a better equivalent.
posted by Too-Ticky at 8:17 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Too-Ticky at 8:17 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
One thing about US political cartoons, many (most?) of the mainstream ones you see in newspapers here (apparently rather condescendingly perhaps but they're just trying to maximize their cartoon's readership and avoid misunderstanding, I guess...) routinely label the elements in their cartoon to spell out what political point exactly the cartoonists are referring to...
There used to be a cartoonist in The Onion that made fun of this. You'd see people labelled as "greedy gas station owner" and "poor suffering driver", filling his car with "overpriced gasoline". Just so you couldn't misunderstand the cartoon. And there'd usually be a weeping Statue of Liberty or something there too, to provide pathos.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:25 AM on January 13, 2015
There used to be a cartoonist in The Onion that made fun of this. You'd see people labelled as "greedy gas station owner" and "poor suffering driver", filling his car with "overpriced gasoline". Just so you couldn't misunderstand the cartoon. And there'd usually be a weeping Statue of Liberty or something there too, to provide pathos.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:25 AM on January 13, 2015
That cartoonist is Kelly, and it's still going on, and it's unremittingly brilliant.
WHISKEY SOURS
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:26 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
WHISKEY SOURS
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:26 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Today: Jerusalem funeral for French Jewish victims of Paris supermarket attack
posted by Mister Bijou at 8:30 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by Mister Bijou at 8:30 AM on January 13, 2015
Ben Franklin's editor
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:30 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:30 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
"It is simply not credible that the three men were able to hatch and carry out an elaborate plan involving automatic weapons and explosives without the passive complicity, if not active involvement, of elements of the state apparatus." - World Socialist Web Site (Fourth International).
posted by colie at 8:31 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by colie at 8:31 AM on January 13, 2015
"It is simply not credible that the three men were able to hatch and carry out an elaborate plan involving automatic weapons and explosives without the passive complicity, if not active involvement, of elements of the state apparatus." - World Socialist Web Site (Fourth International).
Sigh.
posted by yoink at 8:41 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sigh.
posted by yoink at 8:41 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Beyond being completely tasteless, colie, that thesis is nakedly idiotic. Yes, how could people get their hands on cars and guns without a major power?
posted by spaltavian at 8:49 AM on January 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by spaltavian at 8:49 AM on January 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
here's that clip of mayor Aboutaleb, flapjax; nice find!
Is it too much work for the Independent to spellcheck foreign surnames in their articles? "The Koucahi brothers"... really?
posted by progosk at 8:53 AM on January 13, 2015
Is it too much work for the Independent to spellcheck foreign surnames in their articles? "The Koucahi brothers"... really?
posted by progosk at 8:53 AM on January 13, 2015
Anders Breivik fared just fine all by himself though, right? What bullshit, colie.
At this point, our state anti-terror apparatus behaves exactly like a dot.com startup with respect to data : All their effort gets spent collecting data, anything they can get their hands on, either legally or illegally, so that said data can be selectively used after the fact to provide whatever story their current political masters wish to sell.
You catch criminals by investigating the cases identified as significant by actual sources : The U.S. was warned about one of the Boston bombers. France knew one of these killers trained in Yemen. etc. A Kaczynski or Breivik gets through occasionally, but that's okay.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:57 AM on January 13, 2015
At this point, our state anti-terror apparatus behaves exactly like a dot.com startup with respect to data : All their effort gets spent collecting data, anything they can get their hands on, either legally or illegally, so that said data can be selectively used after the fact to provide whatever story their current political masters wish to sell.
You catch criminals by investigating the cases identified as significant by actual sources : The U.S. was warned about one of the Boston bombers. France knew one of these killers trained in Yemen. etc. A Kaczynski or Breivik gets through occasionally, but that's okay.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:57 AM on January 13, 2015
Beyond being completely tasteless, colie, that thesis is nakedly idiotic. Yes, how could people get their hands on cars and guns without a major power?
It's even stupider and/or more dishonest than that. They suggest that the "escape" of Hayat Boumedienne proves complicity on the part of the state (after all, how could she get out of the country in the midst of this massive manhunt?)--what they omit mentioning is that she left the country before the attacks. It's actually pretty easy to evade a manhunt before it starts.
posted by yoink at 8:58 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's even stupider and/or more dishonest than that. They suggest that the "escape" of Hayat Boumedienne proves complicity on the part of the state (after all, how could she get out of the country in the midst of this massive manhunt?)--what they omit mentioning is that she left the country before the attacks. It's actually pretty easy to evade a manhunt before it starts.
posted by yoink at 8:58 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
It doesn't say they can't get guns and cars, it says they have 'unexplained and suspicious relations with security authorities' and that 'the open and covert collaboration of intelligence and security agencies with Islamic extremist organisations has a long history'.
WSWS is just one of many voices on the left, and it's of interest to some what that group of Trotskyists think.
posted by colie at 8:58 AM on January 13, 2015
WSWS is just one of many voices on the left, and it's of interest to some what that group of Trotskyists think.
posted by colie at 8:58 AM on January 13, 2015
You catch criminals by investigating the cases identified as significant by actual sources : The U.S. was warned about one of the Boston bombers. France knew one of these killers trained in Yemen. etc
What this fails to take into account is the sheer overwhelming number of "false positives" that every security force in the world has to deal with. After the fact it's easy to say "ooh, they knew this guy was trouble." Yeah, sure, they also know that thousands of other people are potentially "trouble." What do you do with that information? It's not as if European citizens with troubling connections to radical Islamists are hard to find; the problem is that 99.9% of them are never going to do anything but talk. We'd be among the first to complain (and rightly) if someone were to suggest they should all be subject of preventive detention or any other kind of active restraint. There are too many of them to assign security details to tracking all of them (and, in any case, that, too, would be an unwarranted intrusion of state power in most instances). Absent some direct evidence of a plot actively being formed what can you do?
posted by yoink at 9:04 AM on January 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
What this fails to take into account is the sheer overwhelming number of "false positives" that every security force in the world has to deal with. After the fact it's easy to say "ooh, they knew this guy was trouble." Yeah, sure, they also know that thousands of other people are potentially "trouble." What do you do with that information? It's not as if European citizens with troubling connections to radical Islamists are hard to find; the problem is that 99.9% of them are never going to do anything but talk. We'd be among the first to complain (and rightly) if someone were to suggest they should all be subject of preventive detention or any other kind of active restraint. There are too many of them to assign security details to tracking all of them (and, in any case, that, too, would be an unwarranted intrusion of state power in most instances). Absent some direct evidence of a plot actively being formed what can you do?
posted by yoink at 9:04 AM on January 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
it says they have 'unexplained and suspicious relations with security authorities'
Great; and if I say that the World Socialist Web Site is a CIA front is that worth serious consideration unless I provide actual evidence to support the claim? They are offering nothing other than uninformed and deliberately misleading speculation. It's offensive and irresponsible nonsense.
posted by yoink at 9:06 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Great; and if I say that the World Socialist Web Site is a CIA front is that worth serious consideration unless I provide actual evidence to support the claim? They are offering nothing other than uninformed and deliberately misleading speculation. It's offensive and irresponsible nonsense.
posted by yoink at 9:06 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
The problem with that article is not that what they're suggesting is impossible; the problem is that they offer absolutely no evidence for it. Nor do they even make a case that it aligns particularly well with any reasonably imputable objectives of the vaguely defined entities they sorta kinda impute it to.
There are such things as actual conspiracies. There's also such a thing as horseshit straight from a horse's ass.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:08 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
There are such things as actual conspiracies. There's also such a thing as horseshit straight from a horse's ass.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:08 AM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
To put it slightly less rudely, I don't find it completely incredible that bad actors like the assassins might be considered useful by elements of the establishment. But what distinguishes journalism from that ranting old guy walking round my neighborhood with his dogs whom you don't want to say good morning to because he'll start telling you Michelle Obama's plan to destroy America, is that journalists actually have to deliver the goods in the form of actual facts before they go to press.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:26 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:26 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG WAKE UP SHEEPLE NAZI MOONBASE SANDY HOOK VICSIM FEMA CAMP LEOPARD-PRINT CALLIOPE DREADNOUGHT ZUMBA LEG WRESTLE FLAMBÉ HIGGLEDY-PIGGLEDY DIDGERIDOO
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:27 AM on January 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:27 AM on January 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't find it completely incredible that bad actors like the assassins might be considered useful by elements of the establishment.
Me neither, which is why I'm interested in people who are prepared to follow up that kind of hunch in whatever ways are available, and initial scepticism about what we are told by the police is just the start point.
posted by colie at 9:37 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Me neither, which is why I'm interested in people who are prepared to follow up that kind of hunch in whatever ways are available, and initial scepticism about what we are told by the police is just the start point.
posted by colie at 9:37 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
one of many voices on the left
If this is considered a respectable voice of the Left, the Left is becomimg a bad joke.
(Spoiler warnining)
@fergalkeane47:
If this is considered a respectable voice of the Left, the Left is becomimg a bad joke.
(Spoiler warnining)
@fergalkeane47:
"I've been given a copy of magazine. it features Prophet cartoon and satire on Islamic State.As a Muslim, I'm Fed Up With the Hypocrisy of the Free Speech Fundamentalists - Mehdi Hasan
Mag also features woman raising burka to reveal naked form.
There is also crude sexual content on Pope.
Back page says: 25 years of work. terrorists 25 seconds of work.
Editorial in magazine I've seen thanks millions who've shown solidarity. But mag editorial attacks "pseudo intellectual insinuations" that it was Islamophobic. Mag also says that millions who said 'Je Suis Charlie' also said "I am secularist".
I've been into small office where mag put together. Copy has 16 pages.Much of it crude sexual satire.
Spoke to Editor who defended magazine's record of causing offence. "We tease everybody."
Emotional scene inside small office where mag put together as editor hugged cartoonist "Luz" who drew the latest image.
Mag also says this week that it thanks those who genuinely defend freedom of speech "but rest can go f** themselves."
Lampooning racism by reproducing brazenly racist imagery is a pretty dubious satirical tactic. Also, as the former Charlie Hebdo journalist Olivier Cyran argued in 2013, an "Islamophobic neurosis gradually took over" the magazine after 9/11, which then effectively endorsed attacks on "members of a minority religion with no influence in the corridors of power".posted by Golden Eternity at 9:38 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's for these reasons that I can't "be", don't want to "be", Charlie - if anything, we should want to be Ahmed, the Muslim policeman who was killed while protecting the magazine's right to exist.
And why have you been so silent on the glaring double standards? Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark? Were you not aware that Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet in 2005, reportedly rejected cartoons mocking Christ because they would "provoke an outcry" ...
Muslims, I guess, are expected to have thicker skins than their Christian and Jewish brethren. Context matters, too. You ask us to laugh at a cartoon of the Prophet while ignoring the vilification of Islam across the continent (have you visited Germany lately?) and the widespread discrimination against Muslims in education, employment and public life - especially in France. You ask Muslims to denounce a handful of extremists as an existential threat to free speech while turning a blind eye to the much bigger threat to it posed by our elected leaders.
the Left is becoming a bad joke.
I thought CH was part of the left?
posted by colie at 9:44 AM on January 13, 2015
I thought CH was part of the left?
posted by colie at 9:44 AM on January 13, 2015
I missed a couple tweets from Fergal:
Mag strongly criticises those who say "we condemn terrorism but..."posted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 AM on January 13, 2015
Mag says "what made us laugh most this week is that the bells of Notre Dame rang in our honour."
Ain't the sort of story you run with zero evidence if you've an actual angle to pursue that hunch, colie.
I'm happy if anyone prints "We know Cheney, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. would've let 9/11 happen to make themselves more powerful".
I'm happy if an artist like Lupe Fiasco sings the lines "9/11 building 7 did they really pull it / Uhh, And a bunch of other cover ups" as part of his art.
I'm not happy with bullshit artists like WSWS and Fox just selling bullshit as if they were real news sources.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:57 AM on January 13, 2015
I'm happy if anyone prints "We know Cheney, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. would've let 9/11 happen to make themselves more powerful".
I'm happy if an artist like Lupe Fiasco sings the lines "9/11 building 7 did they really pull it / Uhh, And a bunch of other cover ups" as part of his art.
I'm not happy with bullshit artists like WSWS and Fox just selling bullshit as if they were real news sources.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:57 AM on January 13, 2015
I agree that the WSWS article does not make convincing reading, but it raises perfectly reasonable questions. The police are not going to tell anybody what they know without pressure being applied.
And as WSWS is the most widely read international socialist web site in the world, and the Editor of CH himself was a fully paid-up member of the French Communist Party, it doesn't seem right to me to describe them as 'bullshit artists'.
posted by colie at 10:03 AM on January 13, 2015
And as WSWS is the most widely read international socialist web site in the world, and the Editor of CH himself was a fully paid-up member of the French Communist Party, it doesn't seem right to me to describe them as 'bullshit artists'.
posted by colie at 10:03 AM on January 13, 2015
UK prime minister wants backdoors into messaging apps or he’ll ban them
In wake of Paris attacks, David Cameron targets encrypted communication services.
What David Cameron just proposed would endanger every Briton and destroy the IT industry: David Cameron says there should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" -- and no doubt many in his party will agree with him, politically. But if they understood the technology, they would be shocked to their boots.
posted by homunculus at 10:16 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
In wake of Paris attacks, David Cameron targets encrypted communication services.
What David Cameron just proposed would endanger every Briton and destroy the IT industry: David Cameron says there should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" -- and no doubt many in his party will agree with him, politically. But if they understood the technology, they would be shocked to their boots.
posted by homunculus at 10:16 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
BBC reporter Tim Wilcox was interviewing a French Jewish woman at the Paris mega rally, held after Islamist terrorists murdered 17 people in a string of attacks, including at a kosher grocery store. The latest attack on France's embattled Jewish community has left French Jews feeling understandably shaken, yet after hearing the woman's fears that Jews are being targeted in Europe, Wilcox interjected, saying: "many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well."
Old anti-Semitic trope - holding all Jews everywhere responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. We see this repeated over and over again. Clear-cut anti-Semitism of the most base kind. And Tim Wilcox is reprehensible.
And you know who else trades in this kind of tropes? Many leaders of Israel, such as Netanyahu who insist on conflating any and all criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. It would be nice if neither Tim Wilcox nor Netanyahu identified all Jews everywhere with the specific actions of the Israeli government.
I certainly do not believe Netanyahu should have been kept out of the rally in Paris. I fully support his right to be there - along with other reprehensible political figures. Sure he may have had an additional agenda, but then, so did many of the other politicians. But let us not kid ourselves that Netanyahu is above trading in the worst kind of anti-Semitic tropes. How about the notorious trope of Jews having allegedly "divided loyalties" - perhaps one of the nastiest anti-Semitic calumnies leveled at Jews in other countries. It's pure evil. And here we have Netanyahu, as quoted helpfully above:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom critics at home accuse of having an overzealous and politically motivated response to the Paris killing, defended the rights of Jews to live safely everywhere.
"I believe that they know deep in their hearts that they have one country, the state of Israel, that is their historic homeland and will always welcome them with open arms," he said. "Today, more than ever, Israel is the true home for all of us."
You see, it was not enough to state the official ideal of Israel as the always safe harbor for any Jew anywhere who faces persecution. No, he states that Jews everywhere "know deep in their hearts", because "Israel is the one true home for all of us". One true home - not France, not Britain, not the U.S., or wherever a Jewish person may have been born or live and be a citizen of, the "one true home" is of course Israel - "all of us". Benyamin Netanyahu - speaking for all Jews everywhere. What if Jews elsewhere feel that their true home is France, or the U.S. or any other country whose loyal citizens they are? What if they don't feel "in their deepest heart" that they have any loyalty to any other country including Israel? It would be nice is Netanyahu allowed that Jews don't have divided loyalties and perhaps no loyalty to Israel, and even - whoa! - perhaps some Jews can even be critical of Israel's policies... without opening themselves to accusations of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is a serious problem, including in France. I have written on the blue before about the new anti-Semitism, particularly in France, that is motivated by the politics of ME and prevalent in populations from that region and sympathizers. The reasoning is exactly the same - holding all Jews everywhere responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. It would be nice, if Israeli leaders, such as Benyamin Netanyahu didn't spread the exact same wrong propaganda as these anti-Semitic tropes which are responsible for so much hatred and bloodshed, and if he didn't do it while attending a rally to honor the innocent victims of such blind and misinformed hatred.
As ever, there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, there is anti-Semitism both the old right wing kind and the new kind motivated by the political fallout from the ME - particularly acute in France. And there are strange bedfellows trading in these hatreds.
posted by VikingSword at 10:16 AM on January 13, 2015 [16 favorites]
Old anti-Semitic trope - holding all Jews everywhere responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. We see this repeated over and over again. Clear-cut anti-Semitism of the most base kind. And Tim Wilcox is reprehensible.
And you know who else trades in this kind of tropes? Many leaders of Israel, such as Netanyahu who insist on conflating any and all criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. It would be nice if neither Tim Wilcox nor Netanyahu identified all Jews everywhere with the specific actions of the Israeli government.
I certainly do not believe Netanyahu should have been kept out of the rally in Paris. I fully support his right to be there - along with other reprehensible political figures. Sure he may have had an additional agenda, but then, so did many of the other politicians. But let us not kid ourselves that Netanyahu is above trading in the worst kind of anti-Semitic tropes. How about the notorious trope of Jews having allegedly "divided loyalties" - perhaps one of the nastiest anti-Semitic calumnies leveled at Jews in other countries. It's pure evil. And here we have Netanyahu, as quoted helpfully above:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom critics at home accuse of having an overzealous and politically motivated response to the Paris killing, defended the rights of Jews to live safely everywhere.
"I believe that they know deep in their hearts that they have one country, the state of Israel, that is their historic homeland and will always welcome them with open arms," he said. "Today, more than ever, Israel is the true home for all of us."
You see, it was not enough to state the official ideal of Israel as the always safe harbor for any Jew anywhere who faces persecution. No, he states that Jews everywhere "know deep in their hearts", because "Israel is the one true home for all of us". One true home - not France, not Britain, not the U.S., or wherever a Jewish person may have been born or live and be a citizen of, the "one true home" is of course Israel - "all of us". Benyamin Netanyahu - speaking for all Jews everywhere. What if Jews elsewhere feel that their true home is France, or the U.S. or any other country whose loyal citizens they are? What if they don't feel "in their deepest heart" that they have any loyalty to any other country including Israel? It would be nice is Netanyahu allowed that Jews don't have divided loyalties and perhaps no loyalty to Israel, and even - whoa! - perhaps some Jews can even be critical of Israel's policies... without opening themselves to accusations of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is a serious problem, including in France. I have written on the blue before about the new anti-Semitism, particularly in France, that is motivated by the politics of ME and prevalent in populations from that region and sympathizers. The reasoning is exactly the same - holding all Jews everywhere responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. It would be nice, if Israeli leaders, such as Benyamin Netanyahu didn't spread the exact same wrong propaganda as these anti-Semitic tropes which are responsible for so much hatred and bloodshed, and if he didn't do it while attending a rally to honor the innocent victims of such blind and misinformed hatred.
As ever, there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, there is anti-Semitism both the old right wing kind and the new kind motivated by the political fallout from the ME - particularly acute in France. And there are strange bedfellows trading in these hatreds.
posted by VikingSword at 10:16 AM on January 13, 2015 [16 favorites]
the take-away from that article, homunculus, once you follow his explanation of the technological implications", is this round-up:
This, then, is what David Cameron is proposing:
* All Britons' communications must be easy for criminals, voyeurs and foreign spies to intercept
* Any firms within reach of the UK government must be banned from producing secure software
* All major code repositories, such as Github and Sourceforge, must be blocked
* Search engines must not answer queries about web-pages that carry secure software
* Virtually all academic security work in the UK must cease -- security research must only take place in proprietary research environments where there is no onus to publish one's findings, such as industry R&D and the security services
* All packets in and out of the country, and within the country, must be subject to Chinese-style deep-packet inspection and any packets that appear to originate from secure software must be dropped
* Existing walled gardens (like Ios and games consoles) must be ordered to ban their users from installing secure software
* Anyone visiting the country from abroad must have their smartphones held at the border until they leave
* Proprietary operating system vendors (Microsoft and Apple) must be ordered to redesign their operating systems as walled gardens that only allow users to run software from an app store, which will not sell or give secure software to Britons
* Free/open source operating systems -- that power the energy, banking, ecommerce, and infrastructure sectors -- must be banned outright
David Cameron will say that he doesn't want to do any of this. He'll say that he can implement weaker versions of it -- say, only blocking some "notorious" sites that carry secure software. But anything less than the programme above will have no material effect on the ability of criminals to carry on perfectly secret conversations that "we cannot read". If any commodity PC or jailbroken phone can run any of the world's most popular communications applications, then "bad guys" will just use them. Jailbreaking an OS isn't hard. Downloading an app isn't hard. Stopping people from running code they want to run is. And what's more, it puts the whole nation -- individuals and industry -- in terrible jeopardy.
posted by progosk at 10:29 AM on January 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
This, then, is what David Cameron is proposing:
* All Britons' communications must be easy for criminals, voyeurs and foreign spies to intercept
* Any firms within reach of the UK government must be banned from producing secure software
* All major code repositories, such as Github and Sourceforge, must be blocked
* Search engines must not answer queries about web-pages that carry secure software
* Virtually all academic security work in the UK must cease -- security research must only take place in proprietary research environments where there is no onus to publish one's findings, such as industry R&D and the security services
* All packets in and out of the country, and within the country, must be subject to Chinese-style deep-packet inspection and any packets that appear to originate from secure software must be dropped
* Existing walled gardens (like Ios and games consoles) must be ordered to ban their users from installing secure software
* Anyone visiting the country from abroad must have their smartphones held at the border until they leave
* Proprietary operating system vendors (Microsoft and Apple) must be ordered to redesign their operating systems as walled gardens that only allow users to run software from an app store, which will not sell or give secure software to Britons
* Free/open source operating systems -- that power the energy, banking, ecommerce, and infrastructure sectors -- must be banned outright
David Cameron will say that he doesn't want to do any of this. He'll say that he can implement weaker versions of it -- say, only blocking some "notorious" sites that carry secure software. But anything less than the programme above will have no material effect on the ability of criminals to carry on perfectly secret conversations that "we cannot read". If any commodity PC or jailbroken phone can run any of the world's most popular communications applications, then "bad guys" will just use them. Jailbreaking an OS isn't hard. Downloading an app isn't hard. Stopping people from running code they want to run is. And what's more, it puts the whole nation -- individuals and industry -- in terrible jeopardy.
posted by progosk at 10:29 AM on January 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
Upthread was a link to two audio interviews where the terrorists (Chérif Kouachi then Amedy Coulibaly) discuss their motives.
It's pretty stupid to think they would lie about their motives or affiliations. They didn't have a long life expectancy at the time (January the 9th). Their network had also already showed up in the public record when Chérif was arrested. I don't see why someone would conspire to create a complicated double cross when regular terrorists exist.
On the other hand, I don't know what to make of nickyskye's link.
posted by Tobu at 10:30 AM on January 13, 2015
It's pretty stupid to think they would lie about their motives or affiliations. They didn't have a long life expectancy at the time (January the 9th). Their network had also already showed up in the public record when Chérif was arrested. I don't see why someone would conspire to create a complicated double cross when regular terrorists exist.
On the other hand, I don't know what to make of nickyskye's link.
posted by Tobu at 10:30 AM on January 13, 2015
When you say "Je suis Charlie", is that an endorsement of Charlie Hebdo's depiction of the French justice minister, Christiane Taubira, who is black, drawn as a monkey? Of crude caricatures of bulbous-nosed Arabs that must make Edward Said turn in his grave?
Lampooning racism by reproducing brazenly racist imagery is a pretty dubious satirical tactic.
If I didn't already know about Mehdi Hasan I would be rolling my eyes. He's just a rent-an-opinion, and his article is nothing more than a litany of uninformation and whaboutery.
posted by Thing at 10:53 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Lampooning racism by reproducing brazenly racist imagery is a pretty dubious satirical tactic.
If I didn't already know about Mehdi Hasan I would be rolling my eyes. He's just a rent-an-opinion, and his article is nothing more than a litany of uninformation and whaboutery.
posted by Thing at 10:53 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
This M Hasan is the "political director" of the UK HuffPo?
Can someone whip up the drinking game or somesuch to help us score journalists/opinionists losing credibility points by the number of predictable canards/strawmen/false equivalences they total, in relation to this story, please?
posted by progosk at 11:01 AM on January 13, 2015
Can someone whip up the drinking game or somesuch to help us score journalists/opinionists losing credibility points by the number of predictable canards/strawmen/false equivalences they total, in relation to this story, please?
posted by progosk at 11:01 AM on January 13, 2015
On the other hand, I don't know what to make of nickyskye's link.
Odd one, that. It would be useful for the media to follow up on that death, as much as it would be important to follow the financial and logistical trail that got the killers training and material support, even if it goes back as far as Western arms dealers, intelligence agencies, etc.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:23 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Odd one, that. It would be useful for the media to follow up on that death, as much as it would be important to follow the financial and logistical trail that got the killers training and material support, even if it goes back as far as Western arms dealers, intelligence agencies, etc.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:23 AM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
. . . and it's of interest to some what that group of Trotskyists think.
Oh man, that's funny. I'll give it to you, you've really had a lot of us wound up in this thread, but that is gold.
posted by feste at 11:37 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh man, that's funny. I'll give it to you, you've really had a lot of us wound up in this thread, but that is gold.
posted by feste at 11:37 AM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh man, that's funny. I'll give it to you, you've really had a lot of us wound up in this thread, but that is gold.
As I said, WSWS is the biggest socialist web site by readership in the world and CH was home to several communists, including the editor, so ridiculing communists or Trotskyists here is a bit odd.
posted by colie at 11:40 AM on January 13, 2015
As I said, WSWS is the biggest socialist web site by readership in the world and CH was home to several communists, including the editor, so ridiculing communists or Trotskyists here is a bit odd.
posted by colie at 11:40 AM on January 13, 2015
Great comment, VIkingSword. It is a double discourse!
posted by ipsative at 11:49 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by ipsative at 11:49 AM on January 13, 2015
> But now, suddenly, lots of people seem to be saying: "no, you misunderstand this wasn't offensive at all!"
Nobody in their right mind would say that Charlie Hebdo "wasn't offensive". Their style is often highly confrontational. What people have been objecting to is the characterization of Charlie Hebdo as a racist, right-wing, anti-immigrant publication, because it's complete misrepresentation their politics. Attacking the National Front's racism is not the same thing engaging in racism. You can repeat over and over again that it is, but repeating that doesn't make it true.
For instance, here's a well-known recent cartoon from the US. No one in the English-speaking world has objected to it as racist just because it's a cartoon that has black people in it, because they know what the cartoon's about and they get it. But English-speaking liberals have pounced on similar political cartoons from Charlie Hebdo as irrefutable evidence that the magazine's staff were and are racist, anti-immigrant bigots. You've loudly insisted that what the cartoons were about doesn't matter, context doesn't matter, references that would have been have obvious to people reading them at the time they were published don't matter. But what the cartoons were about absolutely does matter.
All of you understand that when it comes to satire in US and English-speaking political culture. Most of you are fans of the The Colbert Report, and almost all of you get what the Minneapolis Star Tribune cartoon I linked to in the previous paragraph was about.
posted by nangar at 11:53 AM on January 13, 2015 [7 favorites]
Nobody in their right mind would say that Charlie Hebdo "wasn't offensive". Their style is often highly confrontational. What people have been objecting to is the characterization of Charlie Hebdo as a racist, right-wing, anti-immigrant publication, because it's complete misrepresentation their politics. Attacking the National Front's racism is not the same thing engaging in racism. You can repeat over and over again that it is, but repeating that doesn't make it true.
For instance, here's a well-known recent cartoon from the US. No one in the English-speaking world has objected to it as racist just because it's a cartoon that has black people in it, because they know what the cartoon's about and they get it. But English-speaking liberals have pounced on similar political cartoons from Charlie Hebdo as irrefutable evidence that the magazine's staff were and are racist, anti-immigrant bigots. You've loudly insisted that what the cartoons were about doesn't matter, context doesn't matter, references that would have been have obvious to people reading them at the time they were published don't matter. But what the cartoons were about absolutely does matter.
All of you understand that when it comes to satire in US and English-speaking political culture. Most of you are fans of the The Colbert Report, and almost all of you get what the Minneapolis Star Tribune cartoon I linked to in the previous paragraph was about.
posted by nangar at 11:53 AM on January 13, 2015 [7 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed, cut it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:54 AM on January 13, 2015
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:54 AM on January 13, 2015
As I said, WSWS is the biggest socialist web site by readership in the world and CH was home to several communists, including the editor, so ridiculing communists or Trotskyists here is a bit odd.
It's not odd at all. People are not attacking Marxism qua Marxism, they are mocking stupid articles. Besides, it would be antithetical to Charlie Hebdo's existence to entitle WSWS with more deference than it deserves.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:57 AM on January 13, 2015
It's not odd at all. People are not attacking Marxism qua Marxism, they are mocking stupid articles. Besides, it would be antithetical to Charlie Hebdo's existence to entitle WSWS with more deference than it deserves.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:57 AM on January 13, 2015
A video of Ayaan Hirsi Ali clips with some thoughts that are relevant to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist situation. I think this author offers practical hope and potential solutions.
posted by nickyskye at 12:03 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nickyskye at 12:03 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
No. Hirsi Ali is a racist piece of garbage who spews hate. To combat extremism we need LESS, not more, extremism.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:40 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:40 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
People are allowed to have different opinions about religion without being called garbage. And she isn't a racist, even if she hates a religion.
posted by feste at 12:44 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by feste at 12:44 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Is this reddit? I don't call Hirsi Ali garbage because she has different opinions, I call her garbage because she says things like Islam (all Islam) needs to be crushed, that the US government should shut down all Muslim schools, and has, shall we say, not entirely uncharitable views of Anders Breveik.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:54 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:54 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hirsi Ali is a problematic figure, particularly regarding this story; she shares certain of her tenets with the CH victims, but with her own, critiquable, take on Islam and Islamism. She is radically anticlerical, yes, but "racist"? Towards which "race" would that be?
posted by progosk at 1:17 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by progosk at 1:17 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
I hope this gets nipped in the bud, this huge thread has gone remarkably well and been pretty informative. I have pretty strong opinions about Ayaan Hirsi Ali but they don't belong here.
But that video of her really isn't apposite at all, it's a curated set of stings from debates on the subject of Islam, one of many of that kind that have been kicking around youtube for years and really, really not a good thing here.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:18 PM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
But that video of her really isn't apposite at all, it's a curated set of stings from debates on the subject of Islam, one of many of that kind that have been kicking around youtube for years and really, really not a good thing here.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:18 PM on January 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
She's spoken/written about the CH attack in the media several times so I would say it's fair enough to debate her views here, just like other views that might be challenging.
posted by colie at 1:25 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by colie at 1:25 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here's her Jan 8 DB piece (previously linked by shivohum upthread); her WSJ piece is behind a paywall (perhaps readable via Google link to it).
posted by progosk at 1:37 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by progosk at 1:37 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hirsi Ali, a racist piece of garbage ? Btw, in his criticism of Charlie Hebdo as a racist newspaper, Olivier Cyran has forgotten to say that some of the articles he mentions have been written by Zineb El Rhazoui, who, as a woman of north african origin, was strongly opinionated - shall I say it - against even the "moderate" muslims of say, Morocco.
posted by nicolin at 2:12 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 2:12 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is a derail, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali was mutilated by her grandmother for religious reasons, received death threats for leaving her religion, and had her film collaborator murdered for their criticism of religion. Even if everything she says is dead wrong, I think one can understand how these sort of events would leave pretty lasting scars.
If someone who was raped by a pedophile priest and now calls for the closure of Catholic schools, I don't think you would call them "a piece of garbage", even if you thought what they said was an emotional overreaction.
posted by spaltavian at 2:15 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
If someone who was raped by a pedophile priest and now calls for the closure of Catholic schools, I don't think you would call them "a piece of garbage", even if you thought what they said was an emotional overreaction.
posted by spaltavian at 2:15 PM on January 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
and has, shall we say, not entirely uncharitable views of Anders Breveik.
And I'm sorry, but this is weaselly. This site quotes her actual words. Note that this site is "Loon Watch", and is extremely critical of Hirsi Ali, calling her a compulsive liar, a militant and radical. And yet:
Think Progress, also strongly critical of Hirsi Ali, notes that in the same speech "she denounced Breivik’s views as an 'abhorrant' form of 'neo-fascism' [sic]".
"Abhorrent neo-fascism" is pretty uncharitable, I'd say.
posted by spaltavian at 2:31 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
And I'm sorry, but this is weaselly. This site quotes her actual words. Note that this site is "Loon Watch", and is extremely critical of Hirsi Ali, calling her a compulsive liar, a militant and radical. And yet:
[T]hat one man who killed 77 people in Norway, because he fears that Europe will be overrun by Islam, may have cited the work of those who speak and write against political Islam in Europe and America – myself among them – but he does not say in his 1500 page manifesto that it was these people who inspired him to kill. He says very clearly that it was the advocates of silence. Because all outlets to express his views were censored, he says, he had no other choice but to use violence.Loon Watch would like us to interpret this as Hirsi Ali saying Breveik's actions were the fault of "the advocates of silence", but she's actually clarifying Breveik's stated motivations. She's trying to cover her ass because Breveik quoted her so much. A profile in courage? Of course not, but "not entirely uncharitable views"? Not a fair accusation.
Think Progress, also strongly critical of Hirsi Ali, notes that in the same speech "she denounced Breivik’s views as an 'abhorrant' form of 'neo-fascism' [sic]".
"Abhorrent neo-fascism" is pretty uncharitable, I'd say.
posted by spaltavian at 2:31 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Back to CH for a moment: Luz & Co on making the latest edition of CH.
One quote from Luz: "I have no worries about the cover," he said. "We have confidence in people’s intelligence and we have confidence in humour. The people who did this attack, they have no sense of humour."
Two quotes from Biard, the chief editor: "We will hope that as of 7 January 2015, the strong defence of secularity will be obvious to everyone," he writes, adding that “cultural relativism [...] opens the way to only one thing: religious totalitarianism."
posted by progosk at 2:40 PM on January 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
One quote from Luz: "I have no worries about the cover," he said. "We have confidence in people’s intelligence and we have confidence in humour. The people who did this attack, they have no sense of humour."
Two quotes from Biard, the chief editor: "We will hope that as of 7 January 2015, the strong defence of secularity will be obvious to everyone," he writes, adding that “cultural relativism [...] opens the way to only one thing: religious totalitarianism."
posted by progosk at 2:40 PM on January 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
And I would add that Luz & Co are really good at what they do. The latest cover is provoking more outrage, according to the NYT. The contrast between the seemingly benign, forgiving cover, and the outraged sensibilities, really plays into the hands of the satirists. The crying Mohammed is certainly not mere sentiment.
posted by feste at 2:47 PM on January 13, 2015
posted by feste at 2:47 PM on January 13, 2015
And: more female-removal (albeit in a third sense) - Said and Chérif's wives had no idea. (They also both condemn the attack.)
posted by progosk at 2:48 PM on January 13, 2015
posted by progosk at 2:48 PM on January 13, 2015
Here's an article by an ex CH staffer (and Frenchman) who worked there for nine years, and who talks about the magazine's "growing obsession with Islam" and general racism, sexism, and other asshole tendencies. I'm looking forward to someone explaining how this guy just doesn't understand the French satirical tradition.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:52 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:52 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Cyran's article was already posted by nangar, as was Zineb's reply (also by nicolin); did you read it? (Can we not rehash, please?)
posted by progosk at 2:58 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by progosk at 2:58 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
"I do know, Charb, that you’ve received death threats and that maybe some crazies out there want to do you violence. That saddens me. Despite all my criticisms of you - and the others - I don’t like the thought of you permanently tailed by two cops, costing your beloved Republic an arm and a leg . . . But if you’re really afraid that French Muslims are turning into serial killers of holy war, maybe you will get some small comfort in seeing the calm manner in which these people react to the real or symbolic attacks which are their daily lot."
I wonder how Cyran feels about this section.
posted by feste at 3:01 PM on January 13, 2015
I wonder how Cyran feels about this section.
posted by feste at 3:01 PM on January 13, 2015
The link provided upthread was a direct response to Olivier Cyran's article linked by Joakim Ziegler. So, here it is again : Zineb El Rhazoui, "If Charlie Hebdo is racist, then I am racist too". (Sorry, French only).
posted by nicolin at 3:03 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nicolin at 3:03 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
feste: "I wonder how Cyran feels about this section."
If you read the next section, it becomes clear that he still has a point, because he's talking about the many small attacks on and insults towards French Muslims that happen all the time there (and even more now), grafitti on mosques, attacks on veiled women in the street, etc.
And, of course Zineb El Rhazoui would say that if CH is racist, she is too, since she's an important contributor to the magazine. Would anyone care to summarize her main points, and/or address the points brought up by Cyran? Because his article seems pretty solid to me, and has many examples and direct quotes from Charb, etc.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:15 PM on January 13, 2015
If you read the next section, it becomes clear that he still has a point, because he's talking about the many small attacks on and insults towards French Muslims that happen all the time there (and even more now), grafitti on mosques, attacks on veiled women in the street, etc.
And, of course Zineb El Rhazoui would say that if CH is racist, she is too, since she's an important contributor to the magazine. Would anyone care to summarize her main points, and/or address the points brought up by Cyran? Because his article seems pretty solid to me, and has many examples and direct quotes from Charb, etc.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:15 PM on January 13, 2015
Joakim Ziegler, it's kind of rude to ask people to respond to you on the specific things you want addressed, and to ask people to go to summarize things for you, while you just disappear or refuse to engage with refutations of false accusations you've made repeatedly through this thread.
I don't know what your goal is here, but to me at least, it is not coming across as honest disagreement. You seem to have picked your stance first, and you are now shuffling between justifications for it.
posted by spaltavian at 3:20 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know what your goal is here, but to me at least, it is not coming across as honest disagreement. You seem to have picked your stance first, and you are now shuffling between justifications for it.
posted by spaltavian at 3:20 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
. . . the many small attacks on and insults . . . The man was shot dead in his office.
It seems to me that the dead journalists had much in common with victims of racists and Islamophobes.
posted by feste at 3:45 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
It seems to me that the dead journalists had much in common with victims of racists and Islamophobes.
posted by feste at 3:45 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
spaltavian: "Joakim Ziegler, it's kind of rude to ask people to respond to you on the specific things you want addressed, and to ask people to go to summarize things for you, while you just disappear or refuse to engage with refutations of false accusations you've made repeatedly through this thread."
I actually apologized for the Taubira thing you link to, and I don't think I've "disappeared", I think this is just an extremely huge thread (almost 1500 comments!) and it's easy to miss stuff, so I might not have responded to all the things people have addressed to me (just like you missed my apology).
It's somewhat true that I've "picked my stance first", in that I disliked Charlie Hebdo long before the terrorist attack. I started disliking them back in 2006, when they republished the Danish Muhammad cartoons (which I also think are racist). So yeah, I have a set opinion here since way back, I'm not forming it as I go along.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a summary or original arguments when people post an article in French only as a response. My French reading comprehension is rudimentary, and while I could rely on Google Translate, I think it's not a horrible thing to do to ask people to sum up what their responses are, especially since, as I said, the Cyran article brings up a number of (to me) valid points and very concrete examples.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:58 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
I actually apologized for the Taubira thing you link to, and I don't think I've "disappeared", I think this is just an extremely huge thread (almost 1500 comments!) and it's easy to miss stuff, so I might not have responded to all the things people have addressed to me (just like you missed my apology).
It's somewhat true that I've "picked my stance first", in that I disliked Charlie Hebdo long before the terrorist attack. I started disliking them back in 2006, when they republished the Danish Muhammad cartoons (which I also think are racist). So yeah, I have a set opinion here since way back, I'm not forming it as I go along.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a summary or original arguments when people post an article in French only as a response. My French reading comprehension is rudimentary, and while I could rely on Google Translate, I think it's not a horrible thing to do to ask people to sum up what their responses are, especially since, as I said, the Cyran article brings up a number of (to me) valid points and very concrete examples.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:58 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
JZ, try searching for 'Zineb' in this thread--the article has been excerpted and links to translations provided.
/end lmgtfy
posted by perhapsolutely at 4:07 PM on January 13, 2015
/end lmgtfy
posted by perhapsolutely at 4:07 PM on January 13, 2015
Joakim, I'm working late right now but I might have some time later. If you could give some examples of valid points you would like addressed from the Cyran article and I'll see if I can find something in Zineb El Rhazoui's response.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 4:08 PM on January 13, 2015
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 4:08 PM on January 13, 2015
zompist translated some parts of Zineb El Rhazoui's reply to Olivier Cyran earlier in the thread.
posted by nangar at 4:22 PM on January 13, 2015
posted by nangar at 4:22 PM on January 13, 2015
Would anyone care to comment on the "All is forgiven" part of the new CH cover? I don't understand it.
A report here in the NYT says, "Many viewed the cartoon image as a conciliatory message from the new editors of Charlie Hebdo after the carnage of the Paris attack."
I can't imagine the cover's intended to be conciliatory in any way, but at the same time I don't get it. "All is forgiven" carries some connotation (to me) of "we're even now" or "we're square" but surely that's not the intent?
posted by torticat at 4:23 PM on January 13, 2015
A report here in the NYT says, "Many viewed the cartoon image as a conciliatory message from the new editors of Charlie Hebdo after the carnage of the Paris attack."
I can't imagine the cover's intended to be conciliatory in any way, but at the same time I don't get it. "All is forgiven" carries some connotation (to me) of "we're even now" or "we're square" but surely that's not the intent?
posted by torticat at 4:23 PM on January 13, 2015
I think the cartoon is a dare. They are still doing the thing the fundamentalists get so riled up about--drawing Mohammed--but framed in this conciliatory way. And it's a joke, right?
posted by feste at 4:29 PM on January 13, 2015
posted by feste at 4:29 PM on January 13, 2015
torticat: "Would anyone care to comment on the "All is forgiven" part of the new CH cover? I don't understand it. "
I read it as mocking the people thoughtlessly using the "Je Suis Charlie" slogan. Even Muhammed uses it and sheds a tear, so they ironically forgive him. But I'm in no way sure of that interpretation.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:37 PM on January 13, 2015
I read it as mocking the people thoughtlessly using the "Je Suis Charlie" slogan. Even Muhammed uses it and sheds a tear, so they ironically forgive him. But I'm in no way sure of that interpretation.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:37 PM on January 13, 2015
Is it really a language issue? “All is forgiven” means I don't hold a grudge. Given the timing, the cover just means: we may have our differences, but I don't want you dead (or hate you nearly as much as the killers did), an now I'm mourning. It's a continuous theme since the earlier one (at the time of the Danish cartoons, shitstorms and killings) with Muhammad saying “it's hard being loved by morons”. The idea is that the prophet is chill, and the contrast with the popular expectation of a Muslim religious leader is intended to provoke the viewer into thinking why an image could be so bad.
The Guardian has behind the scenes info on the meeting.
And NYTimes has a short film showing how the earlier cover was made.
posted by Tobu at 4:44 PM on January 13, 2015
The Guardian has behind the scenes info on the meeting.
And NYTimes has a short film showing how the earlier cover was made.
posted by Tobu at 4:44 PM on January 13, 2015
The Guardian has behind the scenes info on the meeting.
Ah thanks, Tobu. So according to that, "all is forgiven" is directed toward the killers. I hadn't thought that could possibly be the correct interpretation.
So I guess it is conciliatory, or at least partially so--obviously the message is mixed.
Or maybe it's only conciliatory on the face of it, and the actual intent is entirely cynical.
Very interesting cover, in any case. It looks simple but it's not really.
posted by torticat at 5:09 PM on January 13, 2015
Ah thanks, Tobu. So according to that, "all is forgiven" is directed toward the killers. I hadn't thought that could possibly be the correct interpretation.
So I guess it is conciliatory, or at least partially so--obviously the message is mixed.
Or maybe it's only conciliatory on the face of it, and the actual intent is entirely cynical.
Very interesting cover, in any case. It looks simple but it's not really.
posted by torticat at 5:09 PM on January 13, 2015
Noooo, Mohammed is saying "All is forgiven" to CH, for using his image in their paper in past issues, and in this one. It's a sad and funny recursive joke.
posted by valetta at 5:27 PM on January 13, 2015
posted by valetta at 5:27 PM on January 13, 2015
> Mohammed is saying "All is forgiven" to CH, for using his image in their paper in past issues, and in this one. It's a sad and funny recursive joke.
Yeah, that's my interpretation as well.
posted by Tobu at 5:29 PM on January 13, 2015
Yeah, that's my interpretation as well.
posted by Tobu at 5:29 PM on January 13, 2015
That's what I thought too, but it's not what the CH writers say in that Guardian article.
posted by torticat at 5:43 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by torticat at 5:43 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ah, I see what you mean torticat. I didn't read the article, only watched the video of Luz speaking about it, and he didn't spell that out. Well, it's their cover, their tragedy, their forgiveness. Not sure I could be so large in spirit in the circumstances.
posted by valetta at 5:51 PM on January 13, 2015
posted by valetta at 5:51 PM on January 13, 2015
Zineb talks about Luz (the cover artist), and I think this sheds light on the cover:
"I was talking with Luz, there, who until the evening after the attacks didn't know if he could ever draw again, and finally, late at night, he sent us something, and after that he didn't stop drawing funny things. For instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he would subscribe to Charlie; well, obviously, he's going to get an eyeful in Charlie! My colleagues started to laugh at everything that had happened to us and to imagine what the dead ones would have said, what they'd have drawn. They drew about that, on what happened and on the "Je suis Charlie" campaign. The work of Charlie is always to destroy symbols and today, we had to destroy the symbol that we were beginning to be. That's what we're in the process of doing. From Friday, we started to laugh, to make jokes. Except, between two jokes, when we'd think of the dead, we'd burst into tears."
The cover reminded me a bit of the end of "Life of Brian"— the crucified singing a peppy pop song. It's the same spirit of absurdism applied to something supposed to be sacred.
posted by zompist at 6:13 PM on January 13, 2015 [9 favorites]
"I was talking with Luz, there, who until the evening after the attacks didn't know if he could ever draw again, and finally, late at night, he sent us something, and after that he didn't stop drawing funny things. For instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he would subscribe to Charlie; well, obviously, he's going to get an eyeful in Charlie! My colleagues started to laugh at everything that had happened to us and to imagine what the dead ones would have said, what they'd have drawn. They drew about that, on what happened and on the "Je suis Charlie" campaign. The work of Charlie is always to destroy symbols and today, we had to destroy the symbol that we were beginning to be. That's what we're in the process of doing. From Friday, we started to laugh, to make jokes. Except, between two jokes, when we'd think of the dead, we'd burst into tears."
The cover reminded me a bit of the end of "Life of Brian"— the crucified singing a peppy pop song. It's the same spirit of absurdism applied to something supposed to be sacred.
posted by zompist at 6:13 PM on January 13, 2015 [9 favorites]
The Charlie Hebdo cartoons no one is showing you
posted by jeffburdges at 6:43 PM on January 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 6:43 PM on January 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
jeffburdges: "The Charlie Hebdo cartoons no one is showing you"
Wow, some of these are a lot better than most of the ones that have been doing the rounds. The only thing I'm unsure about is when they're from, many of them (but not all) feel kind of 60s-70s editorial cartoony both in style and subject matter.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 6:53 PM on January 13, 2015
Wow, some of these are a lot better than most of the ones that have been doing the rounds. The only thing I'm unsure about is when they're from, many of them (but not all) feel kind of 60s-70s editorial cartoony both in style and subject matter.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 6:53 PM on January 13, 2015
An amusing cartoon about the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo by Plantu.
posted by nickyskye at 11:01 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nickyskye at 11:01 PM on January 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also: pick and choose your vibe regarding the cover here. (As always, it's instructive to note the faultlines along which positions seem to align.)
posted by progosk at 11:46 PM on January 13, 2015
posted by progosk at 11:46 PM on January 13, 2015
So much for absolute free speech, I guess, France? Notorious anti-Semitic comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala was just arrested for being an "apologist for terrorism" after writing a Facebook post saying "Tonight, as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly". Breaking news right now, but source at The Straits Times, and right now on BBC World News on TV.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:26 AM on January 14, 2015
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:26 AM on January 14, 2015
So much for absolute free speech
While liberty of expression is an absolute principle n France and the Eu, that freedom is not in itself absolute... it is not total and unlimited. It is framed within laws: laws of defamation and injury.
So, for instance, there are laws in regard to speech that is hateful. The latter includes speech which is anti-semitic, racist, hompophobic.
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:47 AM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
While liberty of expression is an absolute principle n France and the Eu, that freedom is not in itself absolute... it is not total and unlimited. It is framed within laws: laws of defamation and injury.
So, for instance, there are laws in regard to speech that is hateful. The latter includes speech which is anti-semitic, racist, hompophobic.
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:47 AM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yes, there is a difference in the limits on free speech imposed in the US and in France, but it's unclear to me what "absolute free speech" even means and if there is a country that has it. There will be laws for libel and hate speech, and the question of how strong to make these laws is difficult and has been abudantly debated. I have to admit that I tend to prefer less restrictions (US style) than more (French style).
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 1:49 AM on January 14, 2015
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 1:49 AM on January 14, 2015
With respect, I am frankly amazed at the ability of people to be stupidly reductive about other countries, and France in particular. As if the culture and politics of this ancient-ass, multicultural, principled, compromised, fascinating place couldn't possibly be as complex as that of the United States of America. Just... the number of gotcha "so much for free speech/not being racist/giving a shit about X group LOL SMH" news reports I've seen posted on Facebook and Twitter this week, as if one likely-as-not inaccurate account of one incident at one point in time just might collapse the whole fraudulent myth of French society. Like, it's a whole, real country, and it's also quite big. There are all kinds of people living there. Not everybody believes all the same things and not everybody is entirely true to all their beliefs at all times and not all the laws are completely in sync with everybody's passionate feelings in the wake of this massacre. But the editors and staff of Charlie Hebdo died for having spoken too freely and maybe that's enough of a reason for free speech to feel important to people right now without the entire population of France also having to sign off on some absolutist contract beforehand.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 1:57 AM on January 14, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 1:57 AM on January 14, 2015 [19 favorites]
In case there's any doubt about the quenelle gesture that CH mocked on one of their covers, here are some tweets I found disturbing/enlightening (via Graham Linehan).
If you’re not sure what the quenelle is, these pics might help. First, here’s its inventor performing it.
Now here’s his really quite nasty mate Alain Soral doing it at the Holocaust memorial in Berlin.
Next, some fans of Dieudonné and Soral doing it where they think it’s appropriate.
And now another fan getting extra brownshirt points for his particular choice of quenelle location.
posted by rory at 2:26 AM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you’re not sure what the quenelle is, these pics might help. First, here’s its inventor performing it.
Now here’s his really quite nasty mate Alain Soral doing it at the Holocaust memorial in Berlin.
Next, some fans of Dieudonné and Soral doing it where they think it’s appropriate.
And now another fan getting extra brownshirt points for his particular choice of quenelle location.
posted by rory at 2:26 AM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
The role of Islam in radicalisation is grossly overestimated - Anne Aly, Associate Professor, terrorism expert in the School of Media, Culture & Arts at Curtin University. Anne's research focuses on terrorism and counter terrorism with a focus on the public and policy responses.
posted by smoke at 2:28 AM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by smoke at 2:28 AM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I support the right of M'Bala M'Bala to tell anti-semitic jokes, make Nazi salutes, and generally be a dick.
posted by Thing at 3:38 AM on January 14, 2015
posted by Thing at 3:38 AM on January 14, 2015
I don't. I'm getting tired of Dieudonné's and Alain Soral's gibberish. Internet has a very unfortunate adverse effect, exposure to your contemporaries worst paranoid bits. Which, unfortunately, in their case, consist in an inexhaustible logorrhea.
posted by nicolin at 5:15 AM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 5:15 AM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
The role of Islam in radicalisation is grossly overestimated
See also The convenient myth of radicalisation. I'm sure Al-Qaeda and Daesh find it very convenient too, making the choice of Charlie Hebdo as a target all the more cynically pernicious, in that it's brazen political strategy masquerading as religious righteousness.
In other news, Al Qaeda in Yemen have fessed up to the attack, although the article indicates that this may be opportunism, with one commentator calling the claim a "huge publicity stunt". I'm wondering if this is an attempt to downplay the political significance of the action, since everyone seems so keen to make it about theology.
Speaking of which, I'm feeling a bit sorry right now for Muslims who might feel strongly about free speech but are queazy about the new Charlie Hebdo cover. I'd like to imagine that most right-thinking people of any creed would be able to parse the message of forgiveness without getting too worked up about notions of blasphemy, but judging from the stern condemnations bandied about I won't hold my breath.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 7:08 AM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
See also The convenient myth of radicalisation. I'm sure Al-Qaeda and Daesh find it very convenient too, making the choice of Charlie Hebdo as a target all the more cynically pernicious, in that it's brazen political strategy masquerading as religious righteousness.
In other news, Al Qaeda in Yemen have fessed up to the attack, although the article indicates that this may be opportunism, with one commentator calling the claim a "huge publicity stunt". I'm wondering if this is an attempt to downplay the political significance of the action, since everyone seems so keen to make it about theology.
Speaking of which, I'm feeling a bit sorry right now for Muslims who might feel strongly about free speech but are queazy about the new Charlie Hebdo cover. I'd like to imagine that most right-thinking people of any creed would be able to parse the message of forgiveness without getting too worked up about notions of blasphemy, but judging from the stern condemnations bandied about I won't hold my breath.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 7:08 AM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
So much for absolute free speech, I guess, France? Notorious anti-Semitic comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala was just arrested for being an "apologist for terrorism" after writing a Facebook post saying "Tonight, as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly".
Whatever his reputation, have people totally lost the ability to interpret a joke? It sounds to me as if he was saying "Je suis Charlie, but people treat me as if I'm Coulibaly" (because Coulibaly was also black, and because Dieudonné's comedy is widely considered objectionable). That isn't being sorry for Coulibaly, it's being sorry for himself.
posted by rory at 7:11 AM on January 14, 2015
Whatever his reputation, have people totally lost the ability to interpret a joke? It sounds to me as if he was saying "Je suis Charlie, but people treat me as if I'm Coulibaly" (because Coulibaly was also black, and because Dieudonné's comedy is widely considered objectionable). That isn't being sorry for Coulibaly, it's being sorry for himself.
posted by rory at 7:11 AM on January 14, 2015
I'm feeling a bit sorry right now for Muslims who might feel strongly about free speech but are queazy about the new Charlie Hebdo cover.
meh, i'll get over it.
posted by cendawanita at 7:31 AM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
meh, i'll get over it.
posted by cendawanita at 7:31 AM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
It sounds to me as if he was saying "Je suis Charlie, but people treat me as if I'm Coulibaly"
Given his history, it's more likely he was identifying with the supermarket killer.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:46 AM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Given his history, it's more likely he was identifying with the supermarket killer.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:46 AM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
In an approving way, I mean.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:52 AM on January 14, 2015
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:52 AM on January 14, 2015
Dieudonné, an outcast ? Please... his most recent endeavours are all about earning even more money and evading taxation, while pretending he's Robin Hood. He's the epitome of a fucked up system.
posted by nicolin at 8:01 AM on January 14, 2015
posted by nicolin at 8:01 AM on January 14, 2015
And now Dieudonné M'bala M'bala becomes world famous :
France arrests a comedian for his facebook comments, showing the sham of the west’s “free speech” celebration LOL
posted by jeffburdges at 8:37 AM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
France arrests a comedian for his facebook comments, showing the sham of the west’s “free speech” celebration LOL
posted by jeffburdges at 8:37 AM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I wonder whether Dieudonné would be nearly as prominent under a system in which his bigotry was perfectly legal.
posted by Area Man at 8:41 AM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Area Man at 8:41 AM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Anyone know if Ismail Sowan was working under orders from the PLO or for Mossad when he assassinated Naji al-Ali in London in 1987?
Appears his wikipedia article suggests PLO ordered it, but they aren't terribly clear. And "Naji received dozens of threats from the Israeli Mossad, and the PLO alike." Is maybe "both" the right answer?
posted by jeffburdges at 8:47 AM on January 14, 2015
Appears his wikipedia article suggests PLO ordered it, but they aren't terribly clear. And "Naji received dozens of threats from the Israeli Mossad, and the PLO alike." Is maybe "both" the right answer?
posted by jeffburdges at 8:47 AM on January 14, 2015
Lost in translation: Charlie Hebdo, free speech and the unilingual left
"How can we trust these leftists’ critical analyses of other events in foreign lands such as Ukraine, Syria or Mali if it turns out they haven’t done their due diligence as researchers when it comes to the far more accessible French context? These otherwise well-meaning but non-French-speaking knights-in-social-media-armour have embarrassed themselves by spouting off about things they know not quite enough about. This is not clear-headed thinking. This is not leftist or anti-racist thinking.
It is an illogical, self-destructive, identity politics mess where all accusations of racism are instantly believed and anyone who raises questions is racist themselves. Accusations of racism (indeed any accusations) must be substantiated by the accuser, not automatically presumed to be true. Automatic presumption of racism without substantiation is not anti-racism; it is cowardice and vanity, as it suggests the individual is more interested in ensuring he or she does not appear racist rather than in actually countering racism."
posted by Freyja at 8:53 AM on January 14, 2015 [28 favorites]
"How can we trust these leftists’ critical analyses of other events in foreign lands such as Ukraine, Syria or Mali if it turns out they haven’t done their due diligence as researchers when it comes to the far more accessible French context? These otherwise well-meaning but non-French-speaking knights-in-social-media-armour have embarrassed themselves by spouting off about things they know not quite enough about. This is not clear-headed thinking. This is not leftist or anti-racist thinking.
It is an illogical, self-destructive, identity politics mess where all accusations of racism are instantly believed and anyone who raises questions is racist themselves. Accusations of racism (indeed any accusations) must be substantiated by the accuser, not automatically presumed to be true. Automatic presumption of racism without substantiation is not anti-racism; it is cowardice and vanity, as it suggests the individual is more interested in ensuring he or she does not appear racist rather than in actually countering racism."
posted by Freyja at 8:53 AM on January 14, 2015 [28 favorites]
We don't go on a march for anyone. Dieudonné's ideas are poor incentives.
posted by nicolin at 9:17 AM on January 14, 2015
posted by nicolin at 9:17 AM on January 14, 2015
We don't go on a march for anyone. Dieudonné's ideas are poor incentives.
"Defend to the death."
posted by Thing at 10:01 AM on January 14, 2015
"Defend to the death."
posted by Thing at 10:01 AM on January 14, 2015
France arrests a comedian for his facebook comments, showing the sham of the west’s “free speech” celebration LOL
My favorite part of that piece comes at the end:
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:02 AM on January 14, 2015
My favorite part of that piece comes at the end:
Correction: This post originally identified Dieudonné as Muslim. That was in error, and the article has been edited to reflect that correction.Given what the piece is actually about that's one hell a thing to get wrong, and doesn't leave him a lot of cred here. I appreciate Greenwald's work in other topics but he's f*&%ing wack on this whole subject area.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:02 AM on January 14, 2015
It's maybe worth noticing that Dieudonné isn't under death threat.
posted by nicolin at 10:20 AM on January 14, 2015
posted by nicolin at 10:20 AM on January 14, 2015
If only Dieudonné had an ExplainingDieudonné.com site, he'd have been able to enjoy the fruits of the JeSuisCharlie free speech movement, maybe.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:34 AM on January 14, 2015
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:34 AM on January 14, 2015
Scientists predict that Artificial Intelligence will provide us with tools explaining some of Dieudonné's thoughts and paradoxes by the year 2030. Google has just launched a research program.
posted by nicolin at 10:50 AM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nicolin at 10:50 AM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's maybe worth noticing that Dieudonné isn't under death threat.
His freedom is under threat, though, for the crime of saying incorrect things. It isn't a death threat, but it is a threat, nonetheless. We've already put to rest the idea that free speech is an ideal in itself, and we can chuckle about it from the distance afforded by an Internet connection, I suppose. But his incarceration does give the depressing suggestion that the free speech march was a pompous, hypocritical affair reserved for supporting people who espoused populist, neoconservative views that moderates are comfortable with.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:18 AM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
His freedom is under threat, though, for the crime of saying incorrect things. It isn't a death threat, but it is a threat, nonetheless. We've already put to rest the idea that free speech is an ideal in itself, and we can chuckle about it from the distance afforded by an Internet connection, I suppose. But his incarceration does give the depressing suggestion that the free speech march was a pompous, hypocritical affair reserved for supporting people who espoused populist, neoconservative views that moderates are comfortable with.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:18 AM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Freyja's link is great, and this page of Arabic cartoons about the massacre is worth highlighting.
posted by zompist at 11:35 AM on January 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by zompist at 11:35 AM on January 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Well, we don't kill stand up comedians, in France. He's far from jail, he hasn't given back to the treasury all the taxes he's escaped, he hasn't payed his fines when he's been condemned... he's still able to casually state that a journalist (named "cohen") has unfortunately escaped gas chambers or that people are wrong to say that the "quenelle" is a symbol of sodomy inflicted to jewish martyrs, since you can't fuck ashes or soap. This is the kind of free speech I can do without. He's a friend of negationists, and has clearly turned into a caricature.
posted by nicolin at 12:05 PM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 12:05 PM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
In a way Dieudonné seems to be the comedy equivalent of a certain type of American right wing pundit, who, having discovered he/she is too second rate to make a living through thoughtful, informed and useful comment, discovers there are customers who will pay very well indeed for shit-stirring and demonizing selected classes of person.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:40 PM on January 14, 2015
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:40 PM on January 14, 2015
This is the kind of free speech I can do without.
Hmm.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:52 PM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hmm.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:52 PM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Ricochet article Freyja links to is a cogent analysis and notes a variety of other anti-free-speech actions that have occurred in Western democracies in recent years.
Something not mentioned in that article, which I found particularly chilling, was a statement by a U.S. government prosecutor during the trial of Tarek Mehanna. The NYT put it this way:
Something not mentioned in that article, which I found particularly chilling, was a statement by a U.S. government prosecutor during the trial of Tarek Mehanna. The NYT put it this way:
...in his opening statement to the jury one prosecutor suggested that “it’s not illegal to watch something on the television. It is illegal, however, to watch something in order to cultivate your desire, your ideology.” In other words, viewing perfectly legal material can become a crime with nothing other than a change of heart. When it comes to prosecuting speech as support for terrorism, it’s the thought that counts.posted by XMLicious at 1:39 PM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Seriously, those of you defending Dieudonné would really do well to research things he's said over the years. He is indeed a strong and outspoken example of the worst of anti-Semitism. He is serious about his bullshit and uses stand-up as the weakest of weak "covers". He's not exercising free speech, he's promoting anti-Semitic speech and hatred. AKA hate speech. There are laws against that in France. If you don't like that and don't live in France, I would suggest that you don't really need to argue about it.
Going back into privacy now because this whole Charlie thing has seriously affected many friends and all my emotional energy is going to them.
posted by fraula at 2:03 PM on January 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
Going back into privacy now because this whole Charlie thing has seriously affected many friends and all my emotional energy is going to them.
posted by fraula at 2:03 PM on January 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
This is the kind of free speech I can do without.
Maybe the more relevant question is how much free speech are you willing to allow and from whom.
He's not exercising free speech, he's promoting anti-Semitic speech and hatred.
That's the same lame excuse the murderers used to justify killing cartoonists, only replacing anti-Semitism with Islamophobia.
If you don't like that and don't live in France, I would suggest that you don't really need to argue about it.
Freedom of speech is a bigger issue than France, sorry. If it wasn't, all those hypocrite politicians from outside of France wouldn't have shown up to make a pretense of supporting it, for a start.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:29 PM on January 14, 2015
Maybe the more relevant question is how much free speech are you willing to allow and from whom.
He's not exercising free speech, he's promoting anti-Semitic speech and hatred.
That's the same lame excuse the murderers used to justify killing cartoonists, only replacing anti-Semitism with Islamophobia.
If you don't like that and don't live in France, I would suggest that you don't really need to argue about it.
Freedom of speech is a bigger issue than France, sorry. If it wasn't, all those hypocrite politicians from outside of France wouldn't have shown up to make a pretense of supporting it, for a start.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:29 PM on January 14, 2015
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists never promoted islamophobia not racial hatred. This is clearly an interpretation.
This isn't the case with Mr. Dieudonné. He's explicit about it : Jews everywhere, Israel are the problem, they've always been and will continue to be if nothing is done.
The analogy doesn't work. You can't really compare them.
Is your point that there should be no limits to freedom of speech ?
posted by nicolin at 2:44 PM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
This isn't the case with Mr. Dieudonné. He's explicit about it : Jews everywhere, Israel are the problem, they've always been and will continue to be if nothing is done.
The analogy doesn't work. You can't really compare them.
Is your point that there should be no limits to freedom of speech ?
posted by nicolin at 2:44 PM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Is your point that there should be no limits to freedom of speech ?
I think one has to be really careful about not curtailing speech on the simple basis that one doesn't like it. You have to show speech causing real harm, not just emotional distaste. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre causes harm, for instance. Calling Donald Rumsfeld a lizard person on live radio doesn't really cause any harm, though, etc.
Above all else, I think if you're going to throw people in jail for saying the wrong thing, you learned nothing from these deaths. The terrorist victims would have died for nothing other than empty, mealy-mouthed platitudes spoken at the equivalent of their funeral. That would be as much a tragedy as their murder — and if they were alive to say so, I suspect they would agree, as much.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:03 PM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think one has to be really careful about not curtailing speech on the simple basis that one doesn't like it. You have to show speech causing real harm, not just emotional distaste. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre causes harm, for instance. Calling Donald Rumsfeld a lizard person on live radio doesn't really cause any harm, though, etc.
Above all else, I think if you're going to throw people in jail for saying the wrong thing, you learned nothing from these deaths. The terrorist victims would have died for nothing other than empty, mealy-mouthed platitudes spoken at the equivalent of their funeral. That would be as much a tragedy as their murder — and if they were alive to say so, I suspect they would agree, as much.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:03 PM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
From my point of view it is exactly those cases of free speech you could do without which need protection the most. Inoffensive and unproblematic speech needs no particular protection for the very reason that it is inoffensive and unproblematic.
posted by Justinian at 3:17 PM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:17 PM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I've heard distinctively Dieudonné asking members of his audience (on Youtube) to make sure that one of his Jewish detractors knows that he should shut up by giving his address (his neighbourhood) and telling them to drop by. Where do you draw the line ?
posted by nicolin at 3:18 PM on January 14, 2015
posted by nicolin at 3:18 PM on January 14, 2015
I think one has to be really careful about not curtailing speech on the simple basis that one doesn't like it
It isn't the reason why I wish not to hear from him again : it is because he is promoting racial hatred. In this country, it isn't legal.
posted by nicolin at 3:23 PM on January 14, 2015
It isn't the reason why I wish not to hear from him again : it is because he is promoting racial hatred. In this country, it isn't legal.
posted by nicolin at 3:23 PM on January 14, 2015
Where do you draw the line ?
Did he give people his own address? I don't see the harm there. If he somehow gave out the address of a critic and told his fans to go to that person and assault them, then that seems an obvious case of harm. Given your description I don't think that's what happened, though, so, again, I'd draw the line at speech that causes actual, real, substantive harm.
You're just arguing to put him in jail because he said something you didn't like. Not substantially different than what goes on in Iran, Pakistan and other Islamic states, really, except the punishments range in severity, from similar imprisonment to physical torture and death. Where do you draw that line, between simple imprisonment and more extreme punishment? Why stop at imprisonment?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:27 PM on January 14, 2015
Did he give people his own address? I don't see the harm there. If he somehow gave out the address of a critic and told his fans to go to that person and assault them, then that seems an obvious case of harm. Given your description I don't think that's what happened, though, so, again, I'd draw the line at speech that causes actual, real, substantive harm.
You're just arguing to put him in jail because he said something you didn't like. Not substantially different than what goes on in Iran, Pakistan and other Islamic states, really, except the punishments range in severity, from similar imprisonment to physical torture and death. Where do you draw that line, between simple imprisonment and more extreme punishment? Why stop at imprisonment?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:27 PM on January 14, 2015
I think if you're going to throw people in jail for saying the wrong thing, you learned nothing from these deaths.
Are you kidding ? Dieudonné is still free as the wind even after his many "misdemeanors", and now he should be protected as he blows the embers ? We've have enough manipulative persons at work for a while.
posted by nicolin at 3:30 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Are you kidding ? Dieudonné is still free as the wind even after his many "misdemeanors", and now he should be protected as he blows the embers ? We've have enough manipulative persons at work for a while.
posted by nicolin at 3:30 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
And : I don't want to put him in jail. He has been condemned a number of times. I want him to pay what he's supposed to, to go to jail if he has to, to respect the law as much as possible and stop giving the feeling that you can do whatever you want in our society without facing the consequences.
You are right, he didn't ask to assault that person, just to tell him that he should leave him alone. Does that qualify as intimidation ?
posted by nicolin at 3:36 PM on January 14, 2015
You are right, he didn't ask to assault that person, just to tell him that he should leave him alone. Does that qualify as intimidation ?
posted by nicolin at 3:36 PM on January 14, 2015
Can anybody think of a Dieudonné-equivalent celebrity in the US? Mel Gibson sorta, Michael Richards sorta, but not to the same degree. Is the US better at ignoring small-time bigots, so they never become big celebrities?
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:40 PM on January 14, 2015
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:40 PM on January 14, 2015
The specific charge against Dieudonné is "apologie du terrorisme", isn't it? This brings to mind the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, in which the government of France was willing to carry out an act of terrorism (as so many governments around the world are willing to) for the sake of preventing a protest against French nuclear weapons tests.
I wonder if anyone ever gets fined or otherwise punished for speaking positively about the French government's own acts of terrorism. If not, this would seem to highlight the hazards in making exceptions to principles of free speech—that what remains isn't free speech, but simply speech the government agrees with.
posted by XMLicious at 3:49 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I wonder if anyone ever gets fined or otherwise punished for speaking positively about the French government's own acts of terrorism. If not, this would seem to highlight the hazards in making exceptions to principles of free speech—that what remains isn't free speech, but simply speech the government agrees with.
posted by XMLicious at 3:49 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
for a taste of how fine-grained the regulations of freedom of expression are in France, Le Monde has put together a useful checklist/discussion in respone to a lot of queries they've had these days on the subject. (In French, désolé.)
posted by progosk at 4:10 PM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by progosk at 4:10 PM on January 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't think this has been linked here: the Daily Mail, of all papers, shares some touching reflections from surviving cartoonists, as well as some frightening images out of Pakistan, and various other perspectives.
posted by mdn at 5:12 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by mdn at 5:12 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
a lungful of dragon
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 5:21 PM on January 14, 2015
I think one has to be really careful about not curtailing speech on the simple basis that one doesn't like it. You have to show speech causing real harm, not just emotional distaste. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre causes harm, for instance. Calling Donald Rumsfeld a lizard person on live radio doesn't really cause any harm, though, etc.and Justinian
From my point of view it is exactly those cases of free speech you could do without which need protection the most. Inoffensive and unproblematic speech needs no particular protection for the very reason that it is inoffensive and unproblematic.Yes, but as I said above this is mostly a debate on different positions concerning freedom of speech and hate speech laws (not speech that one doesn't like). If you look at the wikipedia page you'll see that France is far from alone in its choice of stronger limits and it is more the US which is an outsider. While I think the US position is correct, this is NOT throw[ing] people in jail for saying the wrong thing. If you agree that there has to be some limits on free speech then you might understand that everyone will not converge to the same standards.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 5:21 PM on January 14, 2015
I understand that, sure, I just think those other people are wrong.
posted by Justinian at 5:52 PM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:52 PM on January 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
And I agree :) But this debate, while interesting, is much more general than just France/Dieudonné. Ah well, bonne nuit.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 5:58 PM on January 14, 2015
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 5:58 PM on January 14, 2015
Police raid press of Turkish daily publishing selection of Charlie Hebdo’s new issue
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:02 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Police raided the printing press of Turkish daily Cumhuriyet on Jan. 14, as it prepared to distribute a four-page selection of Charlie Hebdo’s new issue in an act of solidarity with the French satirical magazine targeted last week in a deadly attack that claimed 12 victims.As the editor-in-chief remarked, "Prime Minister [Ahmet Davutoğlu] himself went to march for free speech in Paris last week".
The police also took extreme security measures ahead of the scheduled publication of the supplement.
Police cars were sent to the printer of the daily in Istanbul early on Jan. 14 and halted trucks to prevent the distribution of the Jan. 14 edition. The distribution was eventually allowed after the prosecution made sure that cartoons representing the Prophet Muhammad were not included in the selection.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:02 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I love Freyja's link Lost in translation: Charlie Hebdo, free speech and the unilingual left. And absolutely agree these morons who cannot read a cartoon have damaged the left's credibility and that "[Any] accusations [including racism] must be substantiated by the accuser, not automatically presumed to be true."
posted by jeffburdges at 7:02 PM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 7:02 PM on January 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean, members of the staff of the magazine have argued it's racist. Kinda getting sick of all the, "Ignorant lefties stop calling them racist!" stuff. It's clearly damn near the border of offensive speech at best.
If you want to defend the right to offensive speech, you are in the right. Just be damn sure that's actually what you are defending and not the right to the offensive speech you are sympathetic to.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:11 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you want to defend the right to offensive speech, you are in the right. Just be damn sure that's actually what you are defending and not the right to the offensive speech you are sympathetic to.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:11 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
but wasn't that oliver cyran article was responded to by an actual still-working staff of CH, who is herself of North African heritage? I think the response is somewhere up above.
posted by cendawanita at 7:26 PM on January 14, 2015
posted by cendawanita at 7:26 PM on January 14, 2015
of course, that response was in french, still untranslated.
posted by cendawanita at 7:26 PM on January 14, 2015
posted by cendawanita at 7:26 PM on January 14, 2015
I disagree with Olivier Cyran's position, Drinky Die. Way too lost in theory. In fact, Cyran would criticize that New Yorker cover along with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's recreation.
Satire favors the left because the right does not consider their positions as carefully. And most left-wing opinions in the American main stream media depend in whole or in part upon satire. If you oppose satire, like CH, Colbert, etc., then you've de facto eliminated all left-wing voices in our main stream media. That's idiocy.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:28 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Satire favors the left because the right does not consider their positions as carefully. And most left-wing opinions in the American main stream media depend in whole or in part upon satire. If you oppose satire, like CH, Colbert, etc., then you've de facto eliminated all left-wing voices in our main stream media. That's idiocy.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:28 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
We should only restrict speech of individuals if and when we can prove imminent danger to individuals. In other words, the U.S.'s permissive First Amendment speech protections where yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is still illegal, not our executive branch's bullshit imminent danger excuse for the assassinations it carries out abroad. Individuals' speech just cannot create much harm. Dieudonné M'bala M'bala's comedy show itself cannot endanger individuals, thugs assault patrons exiting the show, but that's them creating the danger, not his speech itself.
We must necessarily be more open to restricting the speech of powerful organizations, either de jure, like companies or political parties, or de facto, like religions, secret political activists, etc. We should prevent companies from lying in advertising. And Europe could outlaw Nazi parties via this organizational loop hole as well.
Imho, France should've never prosecuted Dieudonné for holocaust denial because he was never part of an organization with provable illegal speech goals. I donno if today they could argue that his current holocaust denial is illegal through a RICO-like case involving his connections with Jean-Marie Le Pen and the Front National. I doubt however that Dieudonné would've ever attached himself to them if all his earlier prosecutions had been thrown out on the ground that he was not speaking on behalf of or conspiring with any organization.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:32 PM on January 14, 2015
We must necessarily be more open to restricting the speech of powerful organizations, either de jure, like companies or political parties, or de facto, like religions, secret political activists, etc. We should prevent companies from lying in advertising. And Europe could outlaw Nazi parties via this organizational loop hole as well.
Imho, France should've never prosecuted Dieudonné for holocaust denial because he was never part of an organization with provable illegal speech goals. I donno if today they could argue that his current holocaust denial is illegal through a RICO-like case involving his connections with Jean-Marie Le Pen and the Front National. I doubt however that Dieudonné would've ever attached himself to them if all his earlier prosecutions had been thrown out on the ground that he was not speaking on behalf of or conspiring with any organization.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:32 PM on January 14, 2015
"Even after knowing it's satire, I have a hard time believing it isn't true."
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Feminist Newspaper Photoshops Male World Leaders Out Of Paris March
Sngh. Sngh. Sngh.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:50 PM on January 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Sngh. Sngh. Sngh.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:50 PM on January 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Feminist Newspaper Photoshops Male World Leaders Out Of Paris March
Now that's funny.
posted by JackFlash at 7:52 PM on January 14, 2015
Now that's funny.
posted by JackFlash at 7:52 PM on January 14, 2015
Vox : Days after free-speech rally, France arrests a comedian for this Facebook post
It's worth mentioning that Dieudonné's shows were banned by France's Conseil d'Etat, which is apparently an unheard of measure and gives him no legal recourse through the courts.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:54 PM on January 14, 2015
It's worth mentioning that Dieudonné's shows were banned by France's Conseil d'Etat, which is apparently an unheard of measure and gives him no legal recourse through the courts.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:54 PM on January 14, 2015
Er, just want to note that the final paragraph of the Independent article you link to says,
posted by XMLicious at 8:18 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]Earlier this month, the French government asked local officials around France to ban Dieudonne’s stage show, Le Mur (the wall), which contains sketches mocking the Holocaust and accusing Jews of running the world. After the ban was overturned by a local court in Nantes, it was declared legal by the government watchdog, the Conseil d’Etat.
Oops, duh, I'm the one who misread, it's the ban which was declared legal.
posted by XMLicious at 8:20 PM on January 14, 2015
posted by XMLicious at 8:20 PM on January 14, 2015
They love whodunnit ‘Clue’ games, so everyone can now debate it.
Wow!
posted by clavdivs at 8:23 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wow!
posted by clavdivs at 8:23 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
"The production on Wednesday of a state-sponsored edition of Charlie Hebdo became the latest test of a “with us or against us” commitment to “our values”, as French MPs voted by 488 votes to one to press on with the military campaign in Iraq. To judge by the record of the past 13 years, it will prove a poisonous combination, and not just for France." - Seumas Milne.
posted by colie at 11:47 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by colie at 11:47 PM on January 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seriously, those of you defending Dieudonné would really do well to research things he's said over the years.
Is anyone here defending Dieudonné in general or the things he's said over the years? I have big, big problems with that gesture of his, and how it's been taken up (as in those photos I linked above). The stuff in his stage show sounds highly objectionable.
But I also have a problem with his being charged for saying "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly" on Facebook, when it's open to an entirely different interpretation than "I support what Coulibaly did", especially when read in the context of his entire post (as translated at Vox). Granted, it was a stupid thing to say, given that his history also invites the supportive interpretation, but arresting him, charging him, sending him to trial? For saying something ambiguous on Facebook?
Worse, I have in front of me a UK newspaper (today's Metro, p.7) which misrepresents his comment in a way that makes him look guilty as charged:
'Tonight, as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Coulibaly,' he wrote referring to gunman Amedy Coulibaly.
I wonder how many other papers have done the same. Omitting that little word "Charlie" makes a big difference to how one might read that line. So did including it in the first place.
But even if he meant it in the most offensive way possible: so what? Heckle him. Boycott his shows. Picket his shows. Or ignore him, as I will gladly do from here on. Responding to offence with force is what started all this, and it's no more reassuring if it's the state that does it.
posted by rory at 3:44 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is anyone here defending Dieudonné in general or the things he's said over the years? I have big, big problems with that gesture of his, and how it's been taken up (as in those photos I linked above). The stuff in his stage show sounds highly objectionable.
But I also have a problem with his being charged for saying "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly" on Facebook, when it's open to an entirely different interpretation than "I support what Coulibaly did", especially when read in the context of his entire post (as translated at Vox). Granted, it was a stupid thing to say, given that his history also invites the supportive interpretation, but arresting him, charging him, sending him to trial? For saying something ambiguous on Facebook?
Worse, I have in front of me a UK newspaper (today's Metro, p.7) which misrepresents his comment in a way that makes him look guilty as charged:
'Tonight, as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Coulibaly,' he wrote referring to gunman Amedy Coulibaly.
I wonder how many other papers have done the same. Omitting that little word "Charlie" makes a big difference to how one might read that line. So did including it in the first place.
But even if he meant it in the most offensive way possible: so what? Heckle him. Boycott his shows. Picket his shows. Or ignore him, as I will gladly do from here on. Responding to offence with force is what started all this, and it's no more reassuring if it's the state that does it.
posted by rory at 3:44 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Today's Le Monde cites a report in the Spanish Catalan daily La Vanguardia that Amedy Coulibaly (the one who murdered four Jews in the kosher hypermarket at La porte de Vincennes) was in Madrid from 30 December 2014 to 2 January 2015. That's at the same time as his companion Hayat Boumeddiene, who flew from Madrid to Istanbul on 2 January.
Again, according to the report, Coulibaly returned to France on that same day in January in the company of someone as yet not publicly identified. Enquiries continue. "Coulibaly's presence in [Madrid] suggests at least the existence of a support cell in the Spanish capital."
source
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:45 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Again, according to the report, Coulibaly returned to France on that same day in January in the company of someone as yet not publicly identified. Enquiries continue. "Coulibaly's presence in [Madrid] suggests at least the existence of a support cell in the Spanish capital."
source
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:45 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
The threat to France’s Jews, Natasha Lehrer, The Guardian.
posted by nangar at 5:47 AM on January 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nangar at 5:47 AM on January 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
I haven't noticed any defense of Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala here, fraula, but two salient facts :
First, Americans are "annoyed" with how Dieudonné is being treated by the French government because Dieudonné has done nothing that'd be illegal under U.S. law. It's exactly like Americans being annoyed about either headscarf ban : no cultural context. Just fyi, the first school only headscarf ban made sense imho, but the second broader one was Sarkozy being an evil twit.
Second, Dieudonné is not afaik a particularly important public figure in France, really only one French person I know even brings him up. If either Le Pen says anything racist, everyone talks about it because the FN has power, but Dieudonné gets ignored, until the French government prosecutes him. And now they've abused their constitution by using the Conseil d’Etat to ban his shows and put him in prison with no conceivable charge, thus making him a wold celebrity.
Imho, France fucked up by prosecuting him for holocaust denials. Appears it just earned him attention, so he kept doing it. I suppose they prosecuted him because it's the law. And I explained upthread how their laws should've been written to allow them to ignore cases of holocaust denial better dealt with via more speech.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:55 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
First, Americans are "annoyed" with how Dieudonné is being treated by the French government because Dieudonné has done nothing that'd be illegal under U.S. law. It's exactly like Americans being annoyed about either headscarf ban : no cultural context. Just fyi, the first school only headscarf ban made sense imho, but the second broader one was Sarkozy being an evil twit.
Second, Dieudonné is not afaik a particularly important public figure in France, really only one French person I know even brings him up. If either Le Pen says anything racist, everyone talks about it because the FN has power, but Dieudonné gets ignored, until the French government prosecutes him. And now they've abused their constitution by using the Conseil d’Etat to ban his shows and put him in prison with no conceivable charge, thus making him a wold celebrity.
Imho, France fucked up by prosecuting him for holocaust denials. Appears it just earned him attention, so he kept doing it. I suppose they prosecuted him because it's the law. And I explained upthread how their laws should've been written to allow them to ignore cases of holocaust denial better dealt with via more speech.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:55 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I generally like this pope, but this seems really wrong-headed.
I can kind of understand saying that you shouldn't insult people's faith. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for a person of faith to say, but couching it in terms of violent response, and saying "this is what you get" is just grotesque and dangerous and pretty un-christian thing to say.
posted by empath at 8:03 AM on January 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
I can kind of understand saying that you shouldn't insult people's faith. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for a person of faith to say, but couching it in terms of violent response, and saying "this is what you get" is just grotesque and dangerous and pretty un-christian thing to say.
posted by empath at 8:03 AM on January 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Via Harry's Place, watch a woman terrorise a Sky News broadcaster by showing her a magazine cover.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:30 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:30 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
From empath's link:
*oops
posted by desjardins at 8:55 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," [Pope] Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."Sorry but the idea of a pope punching someone is just too goddamn* hilarious.
*oops
posted by desjardins at 8:55 AM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
For someone who's immortal and omnipotent, God sure needs a lot of defending from and by his weak, mortal creations.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:42 AM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:42 AM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
We should only restrict speech of individuals if and when we can prove imminent danger to individuals. In other words, the U.S.'s permissive First Amendment speech protections where yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is still illegal...
Unfortunately, we use the word "speech" to mean different things. This is why the First Amendment is so often paraphrased as "freedom of expression". Anytime there is a discussion in the differences between freedom of speech in America and Europe, someone will always trot out libel or crying out "fire" in a theater and insist that that America has limits on free speech so they should just shut up about Europe.
What's happening here is that they are taking one meaning of "speech" and applying it to regulation based on another. "Freedom of speech" does not mean an unlimited right to make sounds; if it did it would be legal to scream in someone's ear. "Freedom of expression" really explains that idea better: it is a freedom from regulation of content. Libel laws don't restrict content, they restrict a specific harm on another person. Similarly, the right to control your body isn't restricted by the ban on punching people in the face.
The sort of laws they have in the EU do regulate content; it's not a difference of degree but of kind from American laws about libel or incitement. You do sometimes hear (as in this thread) Europeans justify those laws on the grounds of incitement, but I suspect that is an argument tailored to American tastes. As vile as some of these remarks might be, most of them are not "incitement" in a reasonable sense of the term.
The French attitude is different, borne out by their different history. I respect that, and I wouldn't try to tell the French how to run their country (especially when they frequently do a better job).
Ultimately, this is probably not a divide that's going to be bridged. Most Americans truly see the right as sacred. There's sort of a "what's the big deal" vibe I get from nicolin's comments. Personally, as cynical as I am about my countrymen chauvinistically talking about all their freedom while they so casually give it up, and as many terrible problems we have, this is one area from where I will not budge. For as far short of our ideals as we fall, I really do believe The First Amendment is one of humanity's greatest achievements. Most nations are mostly horrible and mostly do horrible things; but most nations also offer some things of great importance and beauty. That's ours.
posted by spaltavian at 10:17 AM on January 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
Unfortunately, we use the word "speech" to mean different things. This is why the First Amendment is so often paraphrased as "freedom of expression". Anytime there is a discussion in the differences between freedom of speech in America and Europe, someone will always trot out libel or crying out "fire" in a theater and insist that that America has limits on free speech so they should just shut up about Europe.
What's happening here is that they are taking one meaning of "speech" and applying it to regulation based on another. "Freedom of speech" does not mean an unlimited right to make sounds; if it did it would be legal to scream in someone's ear. "Freedom of expression" really explains that idea better: it is a freedom from regulation of content. Libel laws don't restrict content, they restrict a specific harm on another person. Similarly, the right to control your body isn't restricted by the ban on punching people in the face.
The sort of laws they have in the EU do regulate content; it's not a difference of degree but of kind from American laws about libel or incitement. You do sometimes hear (as in this thread) Europeans justify those laws on the grounds of incitement, but I suspect that is an argument tailored to American tastes. As vile as some of these remarks might be, most of them are not "incitement" in a reasonable sense of the term.
The French attitude is different, borne out by their different history. I respect that, and I wouldn't try to tell the French how to run their country (especially when they frequently do a better job).
Ultimately, this is probably not a divide that's going to be bridged. Most Americans truly see the right as sacred. There's sort of a "what's the big deal" vibe I get from nicolin's comments. Personally, as cynical as I am about my countrymen chauvinistically talking about all their freedom while they so casually give it up, and as many terrible problems we have, this is one area from where I will not budge. For as far short of our ideals as we fall, I really do believe The First Amendment is one of humanity's greatest achievements. Most nations are mostly horrible and mostly do horrible things; but most nations also offer some things of great importance and beauty. That's ours.
posted by spaltavian at 10:17 AM on January 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
"French culture understands the power of the sign. Paris built much of its (dwindling) reputation as an intellectual centre on a prolific study of ‘discourse’: during the heyday of structuralism and its long, creative decay, language and representation were teeming sites of intellectual labour, so it isn’t as if cartoonists reach for their pencils like angels reaching for their harps."
Another interesting view, from the London Review of Books blog.
posted by colie at 10:58 AM on January 15, 2015
Another interesting view, from the London Review of Books blog.
posted by colie at 10:58 AM on January 15, 2015
Since its massive march for “free speech," France has opened 54 criminal cases against French residents for statements “condoning terrorism.” Even fairly obviously satirical ones.
posted by blankdawn at 11:02 AM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by blankdawn at 11:02 AM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Via Harry's Place, watch a woman terrorise a Sky News broadcaster by showing her a magazine cover.
Pathetic (SkyNews, that is.)
posted by homunculus at 11:15 AM on January 15, 2015
Pathetic (Sky
posted by homunculus at 11:15 AM on January 15, 2015
I see that Harry's Place now has its own display of 'security theatre' by making you wait while it 'checks your browser' before entering!
posted by colie at 11:20 AM on January 15, 2015
posted by colie at 11:20 AM on January 15, 2015
Kiran Opal - "Kuffarsplaining – A How-To Guide For Talking About Islam"
Ignore your own privilege when you ‘otherize’ Muslim and Ex-Muslim women. Just because you would not want to live in an environment ruled by Islamic laws and norms doesn’t mean they don’t want to, right?posted by audi alteram partem at 12:33 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Kuffar being the plural of the word kafir, the intarwebs tell me.
posted by XMLicious at 1:24 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by XMLicious at 1:24 PM on January 15, 2015
Ron Paul Institute: Charlie Hebdo Massacre, Like 9/11, Was a False Flag Operation
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:39 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:39 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Kiran Opal - "Kuffarsplaining – A How-To Guide For Talking About Islam"
That's a weird and borderline-offensive page. To start with, I think the term "kuffarsplaining" is patterned after "mansplaining", which is specifically the act of a man explaining things to non-men. But the page implies that "kuffarsplaining" is partially carried out by Muslims. So I get the idea, which is that people are denying the experience of Muslims and ex-Muslims, but the author is combining everybody they dislike into one group: atheists, non-Muslim theists, and white converts to Islam are all lumped together. "Brown" converts and white Muslims that aren't converts seem to be excluded, and I can't see why. More significantly, the word "kuffar" is sort-of offensive when applied to non-Muslims, but it's very close to a highly-offensive word used in South Africa. The author's going on about white people and brown people, which makes me think that the confusion may be deliberate.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:42 PM on January 15, 2015
That's a weird and borderline-offensive page. To start with, I think the term "kuffarsplaining" is patterned after "mansplaining", which is specifically the act of a man explaining things to non-men. But the page implies that "kuffarsplaining" is partially carried out by Muslims. So I get the idea, which is that people are denying the experience of Muslims and ex-Muslims, but the author is combining everybody they dislike into one group: atheists, non-Muslim theists, and white converts to Islam are all lumped together. "Brown" converts and white Muslims that aren't converts seem to be excluded, and I can't see why. More significantly, the word "kuffar" is sort-of offensive when applied to non-Muslims, but it's very close to a highly-offensive word used in South Africa. The author's going on about white people and brown people, which makes me think that the confusion may be deliberate.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:42 PM on January 15, 2015
What if armed citizens had been at the Charlie Hebdo massacre?
And that's when they knew gunmen were coming.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:57 PM on January 15, 2015
And that's when they knew gunmen were coming.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:57 PM on January 15, 2015
I think it's important to note that the U.S. does exempt some speech from protection based on content alone: child pornography, to the degree that even drawings and other art, where no victim is specified, and teenagers taking pictures of themselves can be illegal. And copyright, of course, in which particular content is construed to be a form of property for which the government grants and enforces a monopoly to private interests.
In 2009 two people were sentenced to a year in jail for obscenity, in a case begun during the Bush Administration, which didn't involve child pornography.
Not saying that there isn't a material difference between those things and a government that carries out terrorism itself prosecuting citizens for being apologists for terrorism, just that these aspects of free speech should be mentioned too lest we imagine that implementing freedom of speech is a simple and straightforward thing.
posted by XMLicious at 1:59 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
In 2009 two people were sentenced to a year in jail for obscenity, in a case begun during the Bush Administration, which didn't involve child pornography.
Not saying that there isn't a material difference between those things and a government that carries out terrorism itself prosecuting citizens for being apologists for terrorism, just that these aspects of free speech should be mentioned too lest we imagine that implementing freedom of speech is a simple and straightforward thing.
posted by XMLicious at 1:59 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
France has opened 54 criminal cases against French residents for statements “condoning terrorism.”
#JeSuisDétenu
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:02 PM on January 15, 2015
#JeSuisDétenu
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:02 PM on January 15, 2015
Salon has a pretty good article which comes close to my own ambivalence, and it links to this page, with examples of racist or problematic Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Now, that page makes a couple of mistakes, like the same mistake about the Taubira monkey image that I made earlier (Salon calls this out), but it also has a couple of examples I hadn't seen before, like the three bearded, big-nosed muslims with literal flies buzzing around them (by Tignous), which is so similar to 30s antisemitic drawings that I find it very, very uncomfortable, and yes, racist. That page in general is worth a look, despite a couple of misses. From the way it's written, it also seems to be by a native French speaker, albeit one who identifies as a social justice warrior (or, jokingly, social justice fire mage).
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:43 PM on January 15, 2015
Now, that page makes a couple of mistakes, like the same mistake about the Taubira monkey image that I made earlier (Salon calls this out), but it also has a couple of examples I hadn't seen before, like the three bearded, big-nosed muslims with literal flies buzzing around them (by Tignous), which is so similar to 30s antisemitic drawings that I find it very, very uncomfortable, and yes, racist. That page in general is worth a look, despite a couple of misses. From the way it's written, it also seems to be by a native French speaker, albeit one who identifies as a social justice warrior (or, jokingly, social justice fire mage).
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:43 PM on January 15, 2015
Lost in translation: Charlie Hebdo, free speech and the unilingual left
posted by I-baLL at 2:54 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by I-baLL at 2:54 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, but those are so selective, Joakim; if they just cast their net a little wider they could find everyone getting nicely abused, not just those on whose behalf they prefer to take offense. For example, I did a quick google image search, and personally I like this one, which reads "But WHO wants the English in Europe?"
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:58 PM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:58 PM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Joakim, I agree that many of them seem offensive out of context, but it seems clear that context matters a great deal here. This makes me very reluctant to criticise them: would I still find them offensive if I knew what they were talking about?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:01 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:01 PM on January 15, 2015
George_Spiggott: "Oh, but those are so selective, Joakim; if they just cast their net a little wider they could find everyone getting nicely abused, not just the ones on whose behalf they prefer taking offense. For example, I did a quick google image search, and personally I like this one, which reads "But WHO wants the English in Europe?""
If you don't think racial caricatures of Muslims are qualitatively different from racial caricatures of the English, of all people, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess it's like the old "we make fun of everyone" excuse: If you make fun of everyone equally, then you're hitting weak and disadvantaged groups disproportionately, because those groups are just that, weak and disadvantaged. That's what people have been talking about in this thread when they talk about "kicking upwards" vs, "kicking downwards".
See also Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:03 PM on January 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you don't think racial caricatures of Muslims are qualitatively different from racial caricatures of the English, of all people, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess it's like the old "we make fun of everyone" excuse: If you make fun of everyone equally, then you're hitting weak and disadvantaged groups disproportionately, because those groups are just that, weak and disadvantaged. That's what people have been talking about in this thread when they talk about "kicking upwards" vs, "kicking downwards".
See also Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:03 PM on January 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm not in a position to prove that when they use these outrageously over-the-top stereotypes that it is always the form of bigotry that the stereotype represents that's being satirized rather than the thing being stereotyped, but that's been the case in all the ones I've had explained to me or that I'm in a position to understand myself.
I'm certainly not arrogant enough to insist that my uninformed suspicions are the truth until someone painstakingly proves me wrong on a case by case basis.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:13 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm certainly not arrogant enough to insist that my uninformed suspicions are the truth until someone painstakingly proves me wrong on a case by case basis.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:13 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
But I can tell you this much. In that one I linked, it is not actually the English people who are being satirized there. What is in fact being satirized is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:17 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:17 PM on January 15, 2015
The universally-applied house style at CH is charicature. If they suspended house style in favor of photorealism in the cases of groups you (apparently on a case by case basis) as arbiter found worthy of exception, would that not be sending a problematic message? I don't think I'd be comfortable with that.
posted by perhapsolutely at 3:18 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by perhapsolutely at 3:18 PM on January 15, 2015
" racial caricatures of Muslims"
Uh, that's their drawing style. It's how some of their artists draw humans in general.
posted by I-baLL at 3:29 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Uh, that's their drawing style. It's how some of their artists draw humans in general.
posted by I-baLL at 3:29 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
The cartoonist Manu, in his cartoon essay They Killed My Idols linked upthread, notes Tignous's "signature flies around all bad guys, racists, extremists".
posted by rory at 4:25 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by rory at 4:25 PM on January 15, 2015
If you don't think racial caricatures of Muslims are qualitatively different from racial caricatures of the English, of all people, then I don't know what to tell you.
You're begging the question with the presumption that these are racial caricatures (or you didn't see last week's cover with Houellebecq).
Or are there identifiable groups of people whose individual members, because of the prejudicial mistreatment they receive from society, it's unacceptable to lampoon when they do or say stupid things? And if so, where is that line drawn?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 4:39 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
You're begging the question with the presumption that these are racial caricatures (or you didn't see last week's cover with Houellebecq).
Or are there identifiable groups of people whose individual members, because of the prejudicial mistreatment they receive from society, it's unacceptable to lampoon when they do or say stupid things? And if so, where is that line drawn?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 4:39 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I-baLL: "" racial caricatures of Muslims"
Uh, that's their drawing style. It's how some of their artists draw humans in general."
The noses Tignous draws on Arabs (and Jews) do seem to be particularly huge, from what I can see from just doing a Google Image search. He also drew black people similarly stereotyped, as seen in the second image here, while his caricatures of white people all have varied facial features, some big noses, some small, some pug noses, etc.
The problem here isn't that he's drawing caricatures of people, it's that the caricatures of specific racial groups are really, really similar to the typical caricatures used by racists both historical and current. That's also kind of the problem with the rhetoric in general, all the "muslims buy their wives" and "Mohammad was a pedophile" stuff might be funny in context (I snickered at the "Innocence of Muslims" cartoon with the pig's head), but there's just so much of it that echoes very typical racist talking points, and basically all their stuff about Muslims and/or Arabs is like that.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:54 PM on January 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Uh, that's their drawing style. It's how some of their artists draw humans in general."
The noses Tignous draws on Arabs (and Jews) do seem to be particularly huge, from what I can see from just doing a Google Image search. He also drew black people similarly stereotyped, as seen in the second image here, while his caricatures of white people all have varied facial features, some big noses, some small, some pug noses, etc.
The problem here isn't that he's drawing caricatures of people, it's that the caricatures of specific racial groups are really, really similar to the typical caricatures used by racists both historical and current. That's also kind of the problem with the rhetoric in general, all the "muslims buy their wives" and "Mohammad was a pedophile" stuff might be funny in context (I snickered at the "Innocence of Muslims" cartoon with the pig's head), but there's just so much of it that echoes very typical racist talking points, and basically all their stuff about Muslims and/or Arabs is like that.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:54 PM on January 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
one more dead town's last parade: "Or are there identifiable groups of people whose individual members, because of the prejudicial mistreatment they receive from society, it's unacceptable to lampoon when they do or say stupid things? And if so, where is that line drawn?"
Most of the cartoons of Muslims or Arabs do not lampoon a specific Arab or Muslim who's done or said something stupid. They're more along the lines of "Arabs/Muslims do this thing in general". Like the one where one Arab says to another that he shouldn't pay 40 euros for a prostitute, because he could buy a wife for that money.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 5:02 PM on January 15, 2015
Most of the cartoons of Muslims or Arabs do not lampoon a specific Arab or Muslim who's done or said something stupid. They're more along the lines of "Arabs/Muslims do this thing in general". Like the one where one Arab says to another that he shouldn't pay 40 euros for a prostitute, because he could buy a wife for that money.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 5:02 PM on January 15, 2015
(or you didn't see last week's cover with Houellebecq)
He did, if you check up-thread. He just seemed to think being "featured" was an endorsement.
posted by spaltavian at 6:05 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
He did, if you check up-thread. He just seemed to think being "featured" was an endorsement.
posted by spaltavian at 6:05 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
i just wanted to say thanks to audi alteram partem for that kuffarsplain article. i really needed a sign i wasn't alone at this moment.
posted by cendawanita at 6:39 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cendawanita at 6:39 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
French TV show Le Petit Journal visits Fox News' "no-go" zones.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:57 PM on January 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:57 PM on January 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
There is nothing preventing a legal system from providing individuals all the freedom of expression available under the American First Amendment, while still regulating organizational expression, spaltavian.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:22 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 7:22 PM on January 15, 2015
Asylum Seeker Murdered Amid Anti-Immigrant Sentiment Across Germany
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:25 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:25 PM on January 15, 2015
All those miss-interpretations you link are thoroughly debunked by understandingcharliehebdo.com, Joakim Ziegler.
Also, the salon article is designed to be miss-read by proffering up a bunch of accusations of racism early using temporal qualifier's that're harder to decipher than those for the initial reactions bit, while burying the more correct interpretation of the cartoon.
There is a much better if excessively long article at ricochet about the credibility problems this creates for the left :
"How can we trust these leftists’ critical analyses of other events in foreign lands such as Ukraine, Syria or Mali if it turns out they haven’t done their due diligence as researchers when it comes to the far more accessible French context? .. This is not clear-headed thinking. This is not leftist or anti-racist thinking."
"It is an illogical, self-destructive, identity politics mess where all accusations of racism are instantly believed and anyone who raises questions is racist themselves. Any accusations [including racism] must be substantiated by the accuser, not automatically presumed to be true. Automatic presumption of racism without substantiation is not anti-racism; it is cowardice and vanity .."
posted by jeffburdges at 7:48 PM on January 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Also, the salon article is designed to be miss-read by proffering up a bunch of accusations of racism early using temporal qualifier's that're harder to decipher than those for the initial reactions bit, while burying the more correct interpretation of the cartoon.
There is a much better if excessively long article at ricochet about the credibility problems this creates for the left :
"How can we trust these leftists’ critical analyses of other events in foreign lands such as Ukraine, Syria or Mali if it turns out they haven’t done their due diligence as researchers when it comes to the far more accessible French context? .. This is not clear-headed thinking. This is not leftist or anti-racist thinking."
"It is an illogical, self-destructive, identity politics mess where all accusations of racism are instantly believed and anyone who raises questions is racist themselves. Any accusations [including racism] must be substantiated by the accuser, not automatically presumed to be true. Automatic presumption of racism without substantiation is not anti-racism; it is cowardice and vanity .."
posted by jeffburdges at 7:48 PM on January 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Philosophers and Theorists on the Charlie Hebdo Attacks
Why You Won’t See Me Posting “Je Suis Charlie”
I loved this This American Life interview with Janet McDonald about being African American in Paris.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:33 PM on January 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
Why You Won’t See Me Posting “Je Suis Charlie”
There is a strong tradition in the last twenty years of French politics of selective alliance with progressive causes. Mainstream French support for some of these causes pretty reliably tracks whether they are associated with Muslims and/or blacks. This was apparent in the French headscarf ban in public schools; suddenly everyone was a feminist when it was an opportunity to stigmatize Muslims. (Not that this is specifically French–remember Laura Bush’s speech about Muslim women immediately after September 11?) As Joan Scott persuasively argues, mainstream discussions of veiling made clear that patriarchal dress practices engaged in by white French women—high heels, for instance—were impervious to criticism, veiling became the symbol of patriarchy par excellence. [...](more whataboutery I suppose).
Underpinning this selective support for progressive causes in France is also a certain way of framing the importance of women’s rights, rights to free speech, rights to education, and so on. Another name for France is “le pays des droits de l’homme.” According to this framing, human rights are part of (white) French culture. Attacks on human rights are attacks on French culture, and those who do not have French culture are opponents of human rights. This makes the slip from “those who oppose freedom of speech are our enemies” to “cultural others are our enemies” all too easy to make.
The fulcrum in this argument that “others” are opponents of human rights is religion. As French opposition to immigration has swelled, so too has the popularity of arguments from laïcité. These arguments say that religion—especially public displays of it—are inconsistent with support for human rights. Displays of religiosity that are part of white French culture are not recognized as such—it’s fine to have a public Easter vacation and to wear a “small cross” to school. But French Muslims are often seen as attacking human rights by virtue of having a religion, and having one that many of them seem intent on visibly marking their adherence to.
I loved this This American Life interview with Janet McDonald about being African American in Paris.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:33 PM on January 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
Rare good news: Kosher supermarket attack ‘hero’ gets French nationality
I think the word "hero" is in quotation marks because they're quoting the French Interior Minister, not because they dispute his bravery.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:28 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the word "hero" is in quotation marks because they're quoting the French Interior Minister, not because they dispute his bravery.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:28 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
French Rein In Speech Backing Acts of Terror
The arrests have raised questions about a double standard for free speech here, with one set of rules for the cartoonists who freely skewered religions of all kinds, even when Muslims, Catholics and others objected, and yet were defended for their right to do so, and another set for the statements by Muslim supporters of the gunmen, which have led to their prosecution.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:27 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
The arrests have raised questions about a double standard for free speech here, with one set of rules for the cartoonists who freely skewered religions of all kinds, even when Muslims, Catholics and others objected, and yet were defended for their right to do so, and another set for the statements by Muslim supporters of the gunmen, which have led to their prosecution.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:27 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Free speech for me but not for thee!
posted by Justinian at 10:32 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 10:32 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also from that NYT piece:
“A lot of people say that it’s unjust to support Charlie Hebdo and then allow Dieudonné to be censored,” said Mathieu Davy, a lawyer who specializes in media rights. “But there are clear limits in our legal system. I have the right to criticize an idea, a concept or a religion. I have the right to criticize the powers in my country. But I don’t have the right to attack people and to incite hate.”
posted by Mister Bijou at 10:34 PM on January 15, 2015
“A lot of people say that it’s unjust to support Charlie Hebdo and then allow Dieudonné to be censored,” said Mathieu Davy, a lawyer who specializes in media rights. “But there are clear limits in our legal system. I have the right to criticize an idea, a concept or a religion. I have the right to criticize the powers in my country. But I don’t have the right to attack people and to incite hate.”
posted by Mister Bijou at 10:34 PM on January 15, 2015
But I don’t have the right to attack people and to incite hate.
No one is questioning what is law, or even the legal expertise of Mr. Davy. I think the questions are about exceptions made to meet the dictates of the group dynamic in France, where Muslims are an acceptably-targeted minority.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:49 PM on January 15, 2015
No one is questioning what is law, or even the legal expertise of Mr. Davy. I think the questions are about exceptions made to meet the dictates of the group dynamic in France, where Muslims are an acceptably-targeted minority.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:49 PM on January 15, 2015
Belgian Police Thwart 'Major', 'Imminent' Terror Attack, 2 Suspects Killed
posted by longbaugh at 11:23 PM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by longbaugh at 11:23 PM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mister Bijou: "But I don’t have the right to attack people and to incite hate.”"
I fail to see how his FB post did any of that. Or incited terrorism, for that matter.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:40 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I fail to see how his FB post did any of that. Or incited terrorism, for that matter.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:40 PM on January 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Rien à cacher - Jérémie Zimmermann et la Parisienne Libérée
posted by jeffburdges at 12:39 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 12:39 AM on January 16, 2015
L’enfance misérable des frères Kouachi
posted by jeffburdges at 1:33 AM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 1:33 AM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
My takeaway from the Cyran letter: it's a response to Charb's piece in Le Monde in 2013, "No, Charlie Hebdo Is Not Racist, " which he quotes at the beginning: "And that those who claim and argue that tomorrow Charlie is racist at least have the courage to say it out loud, and under their name. We will know what to tell them." This tells us that a public debate about racism in Charlie Hebdo has been an ongoing conversation in French media and society for some time and didn't just pop up last week. One can certainly take the position that the rebuttal to Cyran's letter destroys his claims pretty thoroughly. But if this topic necessitated argument in Le Monde and elsewhere several years ago, then it is clearly untrue that only a non-French-speaking, jumping-to-conclusions American could see possibly racism, and anyone familiar with the French context would know better.
posted by naoko at 7:11 AM on January 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by naoko at 7:11 AM on January 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
How images of the prophet Muhammad became ‘forbidden’
The Koran, in fact, does not directly forbid the portrayal of Muhammad. And the second most important Islamic text, the Hadith, “presents us with an ambiguous picture at best,” wrote Christine Gruber of the University of Michigan. “At turns we read of artists who dared to breathe life into their figures and, at others, of pillows ornamented with figural imagery.” The most explicit fatwa banning the portrayal of Muhammad, she notes, isn’t tucked into some ancient text. It arrived in 2001. And its creator was the Taliban. The ban is a very modern construct.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:25 AM on January 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
The Koran, in fact, does not directly forbid the portrayal of Muhammad. And the second most important Islamic text, the Hadith, “presents us with an ambiguous picture at best,” wrote Christine Gruber of the University of Michigan. “At turns we read of artists who dared to breathe life into their figures and, at others, of pillows ornamented with figural imagery.” The most explicit fatwa banning the portrayal of Muhammad, she notes, isn’t tucked into some ancient text. It arrived in 2001. And its creator was the Taliban. The ban is a very modern construct.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:25 AM on January 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
The ban is a very modern construct.
People have this idea of Islam as being this particularly static, unified religion whose precepts were all set in stone 1400 years ago, but it's been evolving for centuries. At times it's been particularly progressive, intellectual, tolerant and inclusive, far more than Christian Europe was.
"Islam" as a religion or a concept or a culture or whatever isn't the problem. The problem is particular cultural constructs and ideas that have attached themselves to it from time to time, the same as with any other religion. Christians murdered each other by the thousands and millions for centuries and claimed it was in the name of God. And now the pope says that you shouldn't even denigrate other people's religion with speech, let alone kill anyone over it. Same religion, same organization, same holy texts, radically different interpretations.
posted by empath at 7:47 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
People have this idea of Islam as being this particularly static, unified religion whose precepts were all set in stone 1400 years ago, but it's been evolving for centuries. At times it's been particularly progressive, intellectual, tolerant and inclusive, far more than Christian Europe was.
"Islam" as a religion or a concept or a culture or whatever isn't the problem. The problem is particular cultural constructs and ideas that have attached themselves to it from time to time, the same as with any other religion. Christians murdered each other by the thousands and millions for centuries and claimed it was in the name of God. And now the pope says that you shouldn't even denigrate other people's religion with speech, let alone kill anyone over it. Same religion, same organization, same holy texts, radically different interpretations.
posted by empath at 7:47 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Am I misunderstanding the fact that the most recent Charlie Hebdo cover doesn't actually mention Mohammed, and that it's only external sources that lead someone to do so? It seems to me that its critics aren't objecting to the image; they're objecting to the views imputed to Mohammed or to the fact that the cartoonists feel free to use references to him in their humour.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:22 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:22 AM on January 16, 2015
Free speech for me but not for thee!
Well, it's rather "you're allowed free speech but could you please allow us to wrap our mind around what just happened before stating that the person who has murdered 4 people (either shooting unarmed ones or shooting them in the back) and heavily wounded 5 - who never made heavy use of that freedom of speech we're talking about - while his friends slaughtered 12 other persons is the one who's right" ?
posted by nicolin at 8:27 AM on January 16, 2015
Well, it's rather "you're allowed free speech but could you please allow us to wrap our mind around what just happened before stating that the person who has murdered 4 people (either shooting unarmed ones or shooting them in the back) and heavily wounded 5 - who never made heavy use of that freedom of speech we're talking about - while his friends slaughtered 12 other persons is the one who's right" ?
posted by nicolin at 8:27 AM on January 16, 2015
it is clearly untrue that only a non-French-speaking, jumping-to-conclusions American could see possibly racism
I think that's fair. As a non-French person, I've been trying to pay particular attention to French voices in this, and the overwhelming majority I've seen, here and elsewhere, have decried and debunked accusations that CH was racist. On the other hand, we have Cyran's ex-insider/longtime observer's take, and I wouldn't dismiss every point he makes out of hand, because (a) I just don't know the specific cartoons and writings to which he objects, or the wider context, let alone the internal politics of CH, and (b) even if there's a response to specific accusations (such as his "flies around Muslims" one, which another cartoonist points out are "flies around bad guys, racists, extremists"), there's no denying that the negative cumulative impression of such imagery could extend beyond the overt target ("extremists") to all members of their wider group, in the eyes of some readers. That seems to be what the Maroon Colony author was reporting from her discussions with some French Muslims.
However, that point has been completely overshadowed by red herring after red herring, from the Taubira-as-monkey cartoon to the Diedonné cover, which have been raised again and again to suggest, not that "CH may think they're anti-racist but the wider racism of the post-9/11 age has crept into their imagery and jokes, which their focus on being staunchly anti-religion has blinded them to", but instead that they're unabashed, overt racists.
The contextualised responses to the Taubira cartoon, Diedonné cover etc. demolish the "unabashed, overt racists" charge, to my mind. Cyran's charge of "you may think your aims are different, but you're contributing to a general racist mood" is less easily dismissed. It's something that a great many more people than the Charlie Hebdo team could be accused of, and have to grapple with, and could probably never say that they've addressed perfectly, because human beings aren't perfect.
But the whole debate seems to imply that Charlie Hebdo's attackers somehow cared whether the magazine contributed to a general post-9/11 racist mood, or even was explicitly racist (why not attack Minute, in that case, or the headquarters of the FN?), when what they explicitly objected to was simply that the paper had portrayed Muhammad. The debate about racism seems to have skirted around this: what was at issue wasn't how offensive or inoffensive the imagery was, it was that any images were published at all. Charlie Hebdo could have published a cover image of Muhammad with Chuck Close-like levels of photorealism and still been at fault. Which brings us right back to their professed anti-religious and anti-extremist stance, because
The most explicit fatwa banning the portrayal of Muhammad, she notes, isn’t tucked into some ancient text. It arrived in 2001. And its creator was the Taliban. The ban is a very modern construct.
A pretty spectacular point, that.
So, all those media organisations who refrain from posting images of Muhammad out of professed respect for their Muslim readers and viewers are actually doing it out of respect for, and to avoid causing offence to, the Taliban. Thereby inadvertently implying that their own countries' Muslim populations, and any Muslim readers or viewers anywhere, are entirely under the intellectual sway of the extreme wing of modern Islam. Wasn't that Cyran's problem with Charlie Hebdo in the first place?
posted by rory at 9:09 AM on January 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
I think that's fair. As a non-French person, I've been trying to pay particular attention to French voices in this, and the overwhelming majority I've seen, here and elsewhere, have decried and debunked accusations that CH was racist. On the other hand, we have Cyran's ex-insider/longtime observer's take, and I wouldn't dismiss every point he makes out of hand, because (a) I just don't know the specific cartoons and writings to which he objects, or the wider context, let alone the internal politics of CH, and (b) even if there's a response to specific accusations (such as his "flies around Muslims" one, which another cartoonist points out are "flies around bad guys, racists, extremists"), there's no denying that the negative cumulative impression of such imagery could extend beyond the overt target ("extremists") to all members of their wider group, in the eyes of some readers. That seems to be what the Maroon Colony author was reporting from her discussions with some French Muslims.
However, that point has been completely overshadowed by red herring after red herring, from the Taubira-as-monkey cartoon to the Diedonné cover, which have been raised again and again to suggest, not that "CH may think they're anti-racist but the wider racism of the post-9/11 age has crept into their imagery and jokes, which their focus on being staunchly anti-religion has blinded them to", but instead that they're unabashed, overt racists.
The contextualised responses to the Taubira cartoon, Diedonné cover etc. demolish the "unabashed, overt racists" charge, to my mind. Cyran's charge of "you may think your aims are different, but you're contributing to a general racist mood" is less easily dismissed. It's something that a great many more people than the Charlie Hebdo team could be accused of, and have to grapple with, and could probably never say that they've addressed perfectly, because human beings aren't perfect.
But the whole debate seems to imply that Charlie Hebdo's attackers somehow cared whether the magazine contributed to a general post-9/11 racist mood, or even was explicitly racist (why not attack Minute, in that case, or the headquarters of the FN?), when what they explicitly objected to was simply that the paper had portrayed Muhammad. The debate about racism seems to have skirted around this: what was at issue wasn't how offensive or inoffensive the imagery was, it was that any images were published at all. Charlie Hebdo could have published a cover image of Muhammad with Chuck Close-like levels of photorealism and still been at fault. Which brings us right back to their professed anti-religious and anti-extremist stance, because
The most explicit fatwa banning the portrayal of Muhammad, she notes, isn’t tucked into some ancient text. It arrived in 2001. And its creator was the Taliban. The ban is a very modern construct.
A pretty spectacular point, that.
So, all those media organisations who refrain from posting images of Muhammad out of professed respect for their Muslim readers and viewers are actually doing it out of respect for, and to avoid causing offence to, the Taliban. Thereby inadvertently implying that their own countries' Muslim populations, and any Muslim readers or viewers anywhere, are entirely under the intellectual sway of the extreme wing of modern Islam. Wasn't that Cyran's problem with Charlie Hebdo in the first place?
posted by rory at 9:09 AM on January 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
Algerians rally over Charlie Hebdo's Muhammad cartoons
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:35 AM on January 16, 2015
Chanting "I am not Charlie, I am Muhammad," protesters left their mosques after Friday prayers and gathered in downtown Algiers' May 1 square where they were met by hundreds of riot police.@FRANCE24: "#BREAKING - French cultural centre in Niger set ablaze in anti-Charlie Hebdo protest, director says"
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:35 AM on January 16, 2015
(I've just realised that my reference to "Charlie Hebdo's attackers" in my last comment could be read ambiguously; I meant the Kouachi brothers.)
posted by rory at 9:39 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by rory at 9:39 AM on January 16, 2015
So, all those media organisations who refrain from posting images of Muhammad out of professed respect for their Muslim readers and viewers are actually doing it out of respect for, and to avoid causing offence to, the Taliban.
That's pushing the pendulum a little too far the other way. This has been an issue on which Muslims have taken a range of opinions for a long time, and it's false to suggest that the idea that depictions of the Prophet are inherently offensive is some modern invention of the Taliban. Just recently (I'm sure it's linked somewhere in the megathread above) the NYT published an account of a previous case, in 1974, when they apologized to their Muslim readers for publishing an image of Muhammad. And that article also mentions a 1955 article in which they referred to the general ban on such images (in reference to a story of a statue of Muhammad being removed from the State Supreme Court in response to complaints from Muslims in 1955.
But of course, the prohibition goes back much, much further than the C20th. Indeed it has a centuries old presence in Christianity as well as in Islam; Byzantine Christians slaughtered each other over the issue in large numbers around the same time that Islam was establishing itself in the Middle East, and early Protestants went on rampages of destruction in Catholic churches, smashing paintings and sculptures representing saints.
It is certainly true that it was never an absolute prohibition (that is, it was never the case that all Muslims everywhere agreed that the Prophet should never be represented), but it is undoubtedly the case that large number of Muslims since the beginning of Islam have held that it is wrong to do so.
One irony about all this, of course, that no one seems to ever comment on is that this ban has never singled out Muhammad specifically. That is, if you're a Muslim who believes it is wrong to depict the Prophet, you also believe it is worse to depict God and just as bad to depict any of the other prophets. So, really, Muslims have no more reason to be offended by the depiction of Muhammad than they do by ubiquitous depictions of Jesus (explicitly recognized as a prophet by Muslims), God, Abraham, Moses etc. etc. etc. etc. Which is a pretty decent argument for why it is unreasonable for Muslims in a pluralistic society to ask that non-Muslims be required to observe their religious taboos.
posted by yoink at 9:40 AM on January 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
That's pushing the pendulum a little too far the other way. This has been an issue on which Muslims have taken a range of opinions for a long time, and it's false to suggest that the idea that depictions of the Prophet are inherently offensive is some modern invention of the Taliban. Just recently (I'm sure it's linked somewhere in the megathread above) the NYT published an account of a previous case, in 1974, when they apologized to their Muslim readers for publishing an image of Muhammad. And that article also mentions a 1955 article in which they referred to the general ban on such images (in reference to a story of a statue of Muhammad being removed from the State Supreme Court in response to complaints from Muslims in 1955.
But of course, the prohibition goes back much, much further than the C20th. Indeed it has a centuries old presence in Christianity as well as in Islam; Byzantine Christians slaughtered each other over the issue in large numbers around the same time that Islam was establishing itself in the Middle East, and early Protestants went on rampages of destruction in Catholic churches, smashing paintings and sculptures representing saints.
It is certainly true that it was never an absolute prohibition (that is, it was never the case that all Muslims everywhere agreed that the Prophet should never be represented), but it is undoubtedly the case that large number of Muslims since the beginning of Islam have held that it is wrong to do so.
One irony about all this, of course, that no one seems to ever comment on is that this ban has never singled out Muhammad specifically. That is, if you're a Muslim who believes it is wrong to depict the Prophet, you also believe it is worse to depict God and just as bad to depict any of the other prophets. So, really, Muslims have no more reason to be offended by the depiction of Muhammad than they do by ubiquitous depictions of Jesus (explicitly recognized as a prophet by Muslims), God, Abraham, Moses etc. etc. etc. etc. Which is a pretty decent argument for why it is unreasonable for Muslims in a pluralistic society to ask that non-Muslims be required to observe their religious taboos.
posted by yoink at 9:40 AM on January 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yoink, your last point is one I've reflected on in the past week, but hadn't brought up as there's been so much else to address.
True, I was seeing how far one could push the pendulum. But it does seem that this has all come to a head since the Taliban fatwa, at least compared with the 20th century. There's a big difference between apologising or removing an image in response to complaints, out of politeness, and self-censoring for fear of violent reprisals. The post-2001 atmosphere seems to have brought out the latter.
posted by rory at 9:49 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
True, I was seeing how far one could push the pendulum. But it does seem that this has all come to a head since the Taliban fatwa, at least compared with the 20th century. There's a big difference between apologising or removing an image in response to complaints, out of politeness, and self-censoring for fear of violent reprisals. The post-2001 atmosphere seems to have brought out the latter.
posted by rory at 9:49 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
That article on the Kouachi's youth is a rare species of reporting that actually fills in the blanks where so direly needed. A sobering glimpse into the preconditions of extremism, and into the compassion that some still manage (or at least attempt) in the face of the elements.
A must-read; thanks jeffb. Wonder whether we'll see a translation published anywhere...
posted by progosk at 2:17 PM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
A must-read; thanks jeffb. Wonder whether we'll see a translation published anywhere...
posted by progosk at 2:17 PM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I was doing one of my (deeply unviral lol) tumblr link posts* (with great thanks to Mefites), and I finally found a full translation of Zineb el-Rhouazi's response to Oliver Cyran.
*i was feeling a lot of anger at the general anglophone sj tumblr's insistence that i must be racist too for trying to contextualise things. /self-hating racist checking out
posted by cendawanita at 5:31 PM on January 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
*i was feeling a lot of anger at the general anglophone sj tumblr's insistence that i must be racist too for trying to contextualise things. /self-hating racist checking out
posted by cendawanita at 5:31 PM on January 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Thanks for finding and posting that translation, cendawanita.
posted by nangar at 6:31 PM on January 16, 2015
posted by nangar at 6:31 PM on January 16, 2015
Also, I hope by "checking out" you don't mean leaving here.
posted by nangar at 6:43 PM on January 16, 2015
posted by nangar at 6:43 PM on January 16, 2015
I believe this theoretical take was linked upthread, progosk.
The role of Islam in radicalisation is grossly overestimated
In fact, I do blame belief systems for the violence they support, like American Christianity's murders, kidnappings, bombings, etc. aimed at abortion providers, but that's more nuanced than just blaming the believers. It's just dumb ignore all the other factors contributing to violence.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:26 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The role of Islam in radicalisation is grossly overestimated
In fact, I do blame belief systems for the violence they support, like American Christianity's murders, kidnappings, bombings, etc. aimed at abortion providers, but that's more nuanced than just blaming the believers. It's just dumb ignore all the other factors contributing to violence.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:26 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
oh i'm around, i just have to check out of tumblr's scheduled outrage because it's hitting me right where it hurts, and by people whom i thought had my back.
posted by cendawanita at 1:30 AM on January 17, 2015
posted by cendawanita at 1:30 AM on January 17, 2015
Texas gun rights group reenacts with armed civilian, and everyone still dies
posted by mdn at 11:52 AM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by mdn at 11:52 AM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Really intelligent article in Jacobin (not the same one that was linked earlier) about Charlie Hebdo: "Community Standards: The Right is trying to essentialize Muslims. The Left should not fall into the same trap."
Here's a link to the English translation of Zineb el-Rhouazi's response to Oliver Cyran on the Jacobin author's personal blog (might be a different translation than the one posted earlier).
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:17 PM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Here's a link to the English translation of Zineb el-Rhouazi's response to Oliver Cyran on the Jacobin author's personal blog (might be a different translation than the one posted earlier).
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:17 PM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
In fact, I do blame belief systems for the violence they support
I think crazies are drawn to Revealed Truth, particularly the kind that is so voluminous and self-contradictory in both its formal documents and centuries of interpretation, that you can use it as righteous cover and holy sanctification for pretty much any batshit scenario you want to live out.
Both Islam and Christianity provide inexhaustibly rich seams for this sort of thing. If Islamic crazies seem far worse right now I'm assuming it's for geopolitical and socioeconomic reasons.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:07 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think crazies are drawn to Revealed Truth, particularly the kind that is so voluminous and self-contradictory in both its formal documents and centuries of interpretation, that you can use it as righteous cover and holy sanctification for pretty much any batshit scenario you want to live out.
Both Islam and Christianity provide inexhaustibly rich seams for this sort of thing. If Islamic crazies seem far worse right now I'm assuming it's for geopolitical and socioeconomic reasons.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:07 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
French Jewry’s accelerating exodus is painful, promising and irreversible.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:01 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:01 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Weird: another terrorist attack in France, and it barely even made the news:
Moroccan man in France killed at home in front of wife in 'horrible Islamophobic attack'
Moroccan man in France killed at home in front of wife in 'horrible Islamophobic attack'
The father of one, 47, was killed in the quiet village of Beaucet, near Avignon in southern France, while his 31-year-old wife Nadia tried to save him. She suffered wounds to her hands before she fled the scene with their child to call the police.posted by Golden Eternity at 3:29 PM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Thanks Noisy Pink Bubbles, clear-headed analyses such as this are really hard to come by these days.
Here's a link to the English translation of Zineb el-Rhouazi's response to Oliver Cyran on the Jacobin author's personal blog (might be a different translation than the one posted earlier).
In the link cendawanita posted, the author sourced the same translation from Seth Ackerman (saying it's only "slightly modified"; I've had a look and can't find anything notably different).
posted by progosk at 3:33 PM on January 17, 2015
Here's a link to the English translation of Zineb el-Rhouazi's response to Oliver Cyran on the Jacobin author's personal blog (might be a different translation than the one posted earlier).
In the link cendawanita posted, the author sourced the same translation from Seth Ackerman (saying it's only "slightly modified"; I've had a look and can't find anything notably different).
posted by progosk at 3:33 PM on January 17, 2015
Laurent Cantet's informed opinion, including some recent, rather dispiriting reactions in schools in France.
Some (timid?) proposals by Rachida Dati, former Justice minister.
And on that pretty outrageous comment from the Pope (which has sadly caused nary a ripple here...): "Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence."
posted by progosk at 4:12 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Some (timid?) proposals by Rachida Dati, former Justice minister.
And on that pretty outrageous comment from the Pope (which has sadly caused nary a ripple here...): "Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence."
posted by progosk at 4:12 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Secret US cybersecurity report: encryption vital to protect private data. Newly uncovered Snowden document contrasts with British PM’s vow to crack down on encrypted messaging after Paris attacks
posted by homunculus at 4:45 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 4:45 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Patriot Act Idea Rises in France, and Is Ridiculed
posted by homunculus at 6:02 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 6:02 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Paris attacks: Gunman Said Kouachi given unmarked grave
The report does not indicate whether the dirt was tramped down.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:34 PM on January 17, 2015
The report does not indicate whether the dirt was tramped down.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:34 PM on January 17, 2015
Jim Clancy Leaves CNN After 34 Years - apparently after a weird and confusing Twitter row over the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:36 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:36 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
A week inside Charlie Hebdo: how the 'survival issue' was made
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:10 AM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:10 AM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
How images of the prophet Muhammad became ‘forbidden’
As an accompanyment to that link, here's a gallery of Islamic Depictions of Mohammed in Full, though the ages, and from various countries, from 14th century miniatures to 1920's postcards.
Judging by the vehemence of the last few days' public protests in Nigeria, Pakistan and elsewhere, it's pretty shocking how fast and how far the semantic shift has affirmed itself, and how readily a symbol (in this case the absence of a symbol) can be dogmatized into a rallying-cry/warring banner.
posted by progosk at 6:40 AM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
As an accompanyment to that link, here's a gallery of Islamic Depictions of Mohammed in Full, though the ages, and from various countries, from 14th century miniatures to 1920's postcards.
Judging by the vehemence of the last few days' public protests in Nigeria, Pakistan and elsewhere, it's pretty shocking how fast and how far the semantic shift has affirmed itself, and how readily a symbol (in this case the absence of a symbol) can be dogmatized into a rallying-cry/warring banner.
posted by progosk at 6:40 AM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
In this comment on the Pope's quip, Luca Sofri makes an interesting little point:
"If the Pope had instead said: "If I insult Dott. Gasbarri's mom, I can expect to get a punch from him", he would have been more convincing in what he intendeed - whether we agree with it or not - and would have avoided associating his person - the Holy Pope, an example to admire and imitate - to the idea that it's OK to punch someone in response to insult, to react violently to a mere offence. He would have associated himself with the victim of an exaggerated, violent, condemnable reaction, which wisdom and respect would have helped to avoid. Instead, between the disrespectful and the violent, he chose to don the role of the latter."
posted by progosk at 6:52 AM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
"If the Pope had instead said: "If I insult Dott. Gasbarri's mom, I can expect to get a punch from him", he would have been more convincing in what he intendeed - whether we agree with it or not - and would have avoided associating his person - the Holy Pope, an example to admire and imitate - to the idea that it's OK to punch someone in response to insult, to react violently to a mere offence. He would have associated himself with the victim of an exaggerated, violent, condemnable reaction, which wisdom and respect would have helped to avoid. Instead, between the disrespectful and the violent, he chose to don the role of the latter."
posted by progosk at 6:52 AM on January 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, I thought it was a weird thing for him to say. What did he actually mean? Was it "he should expect a punch ...
- ... because that would be a common response"; or
- ... because that would be an appropriate response"; or
- ... because that's how I would respond"?
One analysis that's gained credit here is that he's aiming for a (perhaps unexpected) conciliatory take vis-à-vis islamic sensitivities: of course nobody should offend your faith, just as we wish that nobody offend ours. His repeated "è normale" means both "to be expected" and "normal, human", stopping just short of deeming it appropriate. Later commentary from his circle of advisers noted his tendency to prefer to put things in layman's terms - but this one really stands out as a slip of personal papal ethic reflexes...
posted by progosk at 10:27 AM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by progosk at 10:27 AM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Obama Was Right to Skip Paris
By Amil Khan
Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov is organizing a million man anti-Charlie Hebdo march in Grozny on Monday
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
By Amil Khan
Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov is organizing a million man anti-Charlie Hebdo march in Grozny on Monday
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The A Khan article is excellent, thanks for posting.
"The lesson the United States needs to take from Europe’s experience—and what Europe needs to learn itself—is that the best counter-extremism policy is built around letting citizens feel they belong."
posted by progosk at 1:37 PM on January 18, 2015
"The lesson the United States needs to take from Europe’s experience—and what Europe needs to learn itself—is that the best counter-extremism policy is built around letting citizens feel they belong."
posted by progosk at 1:37 PM on January 18, 2015
An exceptionally insightful talk about the differences between Islam and Western belief systems given by Aayan Hirsi Ali, which is helpful in understanding the mindset of those who commit terrorist acts. Really worth watching.
posted by nickyskye at 3:17 PM on January 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by nickyskye at 3:17 PM on January 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
An Afghan Cartoonist's World
Hozhaber Shinwary, an Afghan cartoonist, has braved communist prisons and threats from Islamist warlords for his provocative cartoons since the 1980s. Fifty-year-old Shinwary (real name Homayoon Shinwary) says the lines and drawings of his cartoons help him express what he sees and feels. His cartoons are often a stark reminder of the seemingly unending violence in Afghanistan.posted by Golden Eternity at 7:57 PM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
helpful in understanding the mindset of those who commit terrorist acts
For an un-ideological take on that specific point, there's an exceptionally insightful article that describes the actual forming of the Kouachi's "mindset" in detail linked by jeffb here (French only, unfortunately; anyone up to do a translation?).
posted by progosk at 1:43 AM on January 19, 2015
For an un-ideological take on that specific point, there's an exceptionally insightful article that describes the actual forming of the Kouachi's "mindset" in detail linked by jeffb here (French only, unfortunately; anyone up to do a translation?).
posted by progosk at 1:43 AM on January 19, 2015
It should be noted that Aayan Hirsi Ali is a politician and writer and certainly not a scholar. Many people who study Islam for a living would chuckle at her facile description of Islamic 'belief systems', (as if that is a thing).
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:24 AM on January 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:24 AM on January 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
An exceptionally insightful talk about the differences between Islam and Western belief systems
Brilliant and riveting.
posted by shivohum at 6:30 AM on January 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Brilliant and riveting.
posted by shivohum at 6:30 AM on January 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
France begins jailing people for ironic comments.
posted by rory at 3:59 AM on January 20, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by rory at 3:59 AM on January 20, 2015 [5 favorites]
rory's linked story above is incredible.
"Anything mocking and denigrating Islam and Muslims is venerated as courageous free speech, while anything mocking those who engage in such denigration – even using precisely the same techniques – can get you locked up."
posted by colie at 5:16 AM on January 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Anything mocking and denigrating Islam and Muslims is venerated as courageous free speech, while anything mocking those who engage in such denigration – even using precisely the same techniques – can get you locked up."
posted by colie at 5:16 AM on January 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
That France has an issue on its hands with the niceties of what's going to be allowed and what's hatespeech is undoubtable - the glee and gloss in these commentaries, however, are neither exactly honest, nor helpful to explain the issues at stake.
Anything mocking and denigrating Islam and Muslims is venerated as courageous free speech
Given the wealth of context that's been provided in this thread alone, you know that's a misrepresentation of the actual cartoons.
It's so depressing to see that in all likelihood, after the massively paraded intentions, the state's reaction in France will be exactly those that most favour more extremism - not to mention what's happening around the globe.
posted by progosk at 6:20 AM on January 20, 2015
Anything mocking and denigrating Islam and Muslims is venerated as courageous free speech
Given the wealth of context that's been provided in this thread alone, you know that's a misrepresentation of the actual cartoons.
It's so depressing to see that in all likelihood, after the massively paraded intentions, the state's reaction in France will be exactly those that most favour more extremism - not to mention what's happening around the globe.
posted by progosk at 6:20 AM on January 20, 2015
News agency France Matin gets its Je Suis Charlie app fast-tracked; and C-H release their own mobile app, including the latest issue's cover.
posted by progosk at 6:38 AM on January 20, 2015
posted by progosk at 6:38 AM on January 20, 2015
Apologies if I missed it and this has already been posted; did a quick survey and didn't find it, but you never know.
A friend on Facebook posted this article today; written by Nabil Wakim, journalist with Le Monde and Nieman fellow in 2015: The Charlie Hebdo Shootings Explained to my American Friends. It has excellent insight and also a compassionate critique of how they did go a wee bit far in recent years – as I just wrote, it is compassionate:
posted by fraula at 9:34 AM on January 20, 2015 [13 favorites]
A friend on Facebook posted this article today; written by Nabil Wakim, journalist with Le Monde and Nieman fellow in 2015: The Charlie Hebdo Shootings Explained to my American Friends. It has excellent insight and also a compassionate critique of how they did go a wee bit far in recent years – as I just wrote, it is compassionate:
My personal opinion is probably not shared by the majority in France. I think it’s wrong to say Charlie Hebdo is racist. But I do think they made stupid choices. In a country where racism against Muslims and Arabs is high, and at a time when a lot of political parties are using fear and hate against Muslims to gain political power, it was definitely not a very good idea to ride that horse.FWIW I actually do share his opinion. And I subscribed to Charlie until I could no longer afford it. It is possible to critique and appreciate at the same time. Any "error" was on the side of heavy-handedness, not racism; anyone familiar with the paper knows how close to their heart anti-racism was.
When Charlie Hebdo published these cartoons, I was upset because I thought it really wouldn’t help Muslims and Arabs in France. I was ashamed they did it, because as a journalist, and also as an Arab living in France, I know how hard it is to fight stereotypes and racism in this country. And I thought Charlie Hebdo should be, as it had always been, on the side of solidarity and cleverness. But I didn’t think that these mistakes meant they are a bunch of racists. (Needless to say it doesn’t allow anyone to violently attack them or to threaten them).
posted by fraula at 9:34 AM on January 20, 2015 [13 favorites]
The ideal continuation of this thread is here, infini's new FPP of Pankaj Mishra's long, excellent article After the Paris attacks: It’s time for a new Enlightenment.
posted by progosk at 9:55 AM on January 20, 2015
posted by progosk at 9:55 AM on January 20, 2015
anyone up to do a translation?
Sure, why not. Again rough translation (caveats about room for interpretation, me not being able to think of English words and what not).
Title : The Terrible Childhood of the Kouachi Brothers
Preamble : How was the childhood of Chérif and Saïd Kouachi, the two men who assassinated the journalists and police at Charlie Hebdo? It was a miserable one, with an absent father and a prostitute mother, in community housing in the 19th district of Paris. Evelyne knew them and this is her testimony. This is an exclusive piece to Reporterre.
Introduction : She was dreaming, it was her social housing unit. She moved her furniture, her children, and husband into an F4 (apartment) at 156 d’Aubervilliers street, in Paris. With her CAP (qualification) in accounting Evelyne goes to work every morning near the city, right in the middle of the 19th district. We are speaking of the 1980's. Where mixité sociale (social / society blending) was still only a theory, a mere concept.
"Here, we lived among the poor. And still, most of the people, after a few years, left for elsewhere. The community was very worried. We decided to stay, to change our environment for ourselves. Us, the tenants of 156. We wanted to save our community."
A childhood like the others
So, Evelyne created associations. One of them, Jeunes et locataires (Youth and renters), came to light in the 1990's. It's goal was to get the children out, to let them discover there was more "than the getto". Her association is one of the rare ones to endure, it has lasted more than ten years. She manages to squeeze out a few subventions, which she then uses to take the kids from the community by the hand and visit somewhere else. To a picnic in a park or to visit a beautiful part of Paris, and even one day : EuroDisney.
We see him in this group of children, he is particularly precocious, or rather turbulent. His name is Chérif. He always wanders around with his older brother Said, who is very discrete. To a point you would think the young one was the eldest. Said would whine and complain but follow his brother none the less. Evelyne had to keep an eye on the little one, "comme du lait sur le feu" (like milk (being heated) on a fire = very closely).
"I adored this child. It only took a few soothing words, or just holding and hugging him for him to calm down. Me, I found him touching, and as blown away as all the other kids at the sight of Mickey" (Mouse and friends) A child just like the others, who believed in Disney magic, and who would calm down with a soft touch. "We would take them to the movies, Chérif loved to go."
Mother in distress
Their mother doesn't have money to pay for the canteen, and she isn't the type to ask for help. Evelyne, who helps everyone with their paperwork, never saw her in her office. We know nothing of the father, and they are possibly from different fathers. They have always lived here, born here in 1980 and 1982. Two of the five children had already been placed elsewhere by social services, when Evenlyn begins following Chérif and Said.
A few months after the outing at EuroDisney, Chérif comes home from school, as he always does at noon. Accompanied as always by his big brother Said, he discovers that noon day, in the middle of the apartment, his mother dead. Dead from what cause? She apparently swallowed too many medications. For many, it was (considered) a suicide.
Finally, everyone knew the daily routines of this single mother. And the tongues of local inhabitants wagged. She could no longer meet the needs of her five children, and was forced to streetwalk to try round out the ends of the month. She died, according to the babysitter, who was the only one she would talk to, expecting a sixth child.
The children are orphans. Saïd is twelve, Chérif is ten years old. They leave their home, the 156, to spend their adolescence in Corrèze, in an establishment of the Claude Pompidou Foundation.
"We should have helped this mother"
Evelyne recognized him on the television Wednesday, January 7. "I called my son in law, who also grew up in the community. He confirmed it for me. I cried. I said I am the one who is responsible. I should have helped that mother. I should have never taken the children to EuroDisney, with that money, we should have helped this mother. Chérif was ten years old, not more. Finally, by not seeing, we killed this mother and were incapable of saving her children".
Evelyne is inconsolable in front of the television. "Chérif was a child just like the others. But he didn't receive love ... He found in a religious fantasy, the family he never had. They knew how to lift his head. At the same time, it is easy to blame these children who are isolated and fragile. Nobody was there to put them on the right road."
"If they had of had a happy childhood, would they have become terrorists?"
Evelyne holds city politics responsible. "The goal was to corral the poor. And then nobody took care of them. Social workers resigned one by one. They had too much work here and preferred to transfer elsewhere. So every month, we had a new person who took up our file, and at the end, nothing advanced".
Evelyne is quite mad at the lack of support structure for these children. "It wasn't rare to see children, five and six years old, just hanging out in front of the building at midnight. Chérif, he was basically abandoned. I remember one day when we had organized an afternoon snack. We didn't have a room, so we went to the cellar. I went back up to get glasses, and then, I saw a guard ask Chérif, who was very skinny, to get on his knees and ask for forgiveness, because he had done some ill considered action. But as he didn't have a father, and an absent mother, he was a bit of a scapegoat. Alas, I don't want you to think I am defending him. I just want to say, if he had had a happier childhood, would he have become a terrorist?"
She tells as well, to explain the context of this trouble, the story of another youth, well known to the system, that she let sleep at her place, because he was beaten by his mother. One day he ran away, the first nights he spent on the roof. Evelyne finally gathered him up and put him in her sons bed. In the morning she takes him to the police. It is routine, the forth time he has come. The first time was because of a third degree burn caused by a clothes iron. Evelyne gets outraged, "How many times do I need to bring him before you take him away from his mother?"
But the police want to know above all else how the child lived during eight days of wandering. They understand everything, when the child is speaking of a certain man. "The children were so abandoned that the 156 became a hangout for pedophiles. They would pass by in the evening, the kids would be delivered directly to them in the parking lot. The parents wouldn't go looking for them ... "
"We were surrounded by violence"
Evelyne is frustrated "We have four social centers, there being, La maison des copains (the house of friends), de La Villette (the Villette), Action fraternelle (Action brotherhood), ou encore Espace 19 (Space 19), but the educators and workers were not much older than the delinquents and gave them meetings at cafes to smoke cigarettes and drink a few glasses. Me, I applied the method of a sort of volunteer 'mama' and have never had problems with these young people. Are they totally responsible for what they become? Delinquent, drug user, and for the Kouachi brothers, incomprehensible monsters?"
Marise (false name) asks the same question. At the time, she too lived in the neighbourhood. Militant, she multiplied the associations to come to the help of neighbourhood in difficulty. "I lived some good times. But before the 1990's, and the idea of social diversity as indispensable took hold, we never talked about it at our political meetings. (editor note : Marise was firstly militant for PC, then for PS). The society ignored and passed over the poor, made them angry, made them violent, and sometimes hate filled."
"The only people who accepted to live at 156 were the homeless. We were surrounded by violence" Evelyn adds detail "I remember these little kids whose father was always drunk, and passed out before they got back from school. He would lock the door and the kids would sleep in the stairway. We made the reports, but even the teachers said nothing ... It is society as a whole that needs to be condemned for having let children grown up in such misery."
"Fertile soil"
Evelyne, a christian who thinks it is better to laugh before all else, knows that gently Islam is winning over more in the community. " I see more and more women wearing a veil and saying things that are less and less against laity." Marise accepts : "At the start, in the 90's, one of the practitioners of the mosque on Tanger street was part of the District Council. We liked him a lot, he was very normal and very open. We held our meetings in the mosque. I found that wonderful. Then one day our friend said he was leaving the mosque, that he no longer felt himself in the imam's speeches. And from that point, the doors to the mosque have been forever closed to us, we see the changes in the behaviour. The Salafists have little by little taken possession of the place, all the way to the arrest of the Buttes Chaumont cell."
Marise thinks that fundamentalism can't take root except in this fertile soil where precariousness, insecurity and abandonment have taken over the place normally necessary for integration. "But I am an optimist, since the advent of social diversity, things are going better. I remain persuaded that diversity was the right solution. On the other hand, these children born into a triple abandonment, by a society, sometimes by their roots (family), and worse yet the education system, not being able to learn the limits, not able to integrate ... And they found refuge in delinquency, violence, prison and sometimes in fundamentalist religion. There remains meanwhile, numerous structures that need to be created to prevent, to integrate and surround and give support. Look, for integration, I very much like hosting the knitting workshop at the Riquet Social Center, but I say to the women to stop talking in a language among themselves that I can't understand, because I think they are talking about me. That makes them laugh. But finally, speaking the same language when we are together, would it not be more simple?"
For Marise, "we are responsible for not having offered a balanced /stable upbringing to these little tykes, having never seen the suffering of their mother, their disarray as orphans ... But this isn't an excuse to kill others and to not back away (in horror / fear) from the face of an absurd fanaticism ... "
Evelyne, she has retired and now lives in a regional Center, concedes "I shouldn't say this, you are going to take me for a crazy person, but somewhere, to me those kids there, I pity them ..."
posted by phoque at 2:17 PM on January 20, 2015 [7 favorites]
Sure, why not. Again rough translation (caveats about room for interpretation, me not being able to think of English words and what not).
Title : The Terrible Childhood of the Kouachi Brothers
Preamble : How was the childhood of Chérif and Saïd Kouachi, the two men who assassinated the journalists and police at Charlie Hebdo? It was a miserable one, with an absent father and a prostitute mother, in community housing in the 19th district of Paris. Evelyne knew them and this is her testimony. This is an exclusive piece to Reporterre.
Introduction : She was dreaming, it was her social housing unit. She moved her furniture, her children, and husband into an F4 (apartment) at 156 d’Aubervilliers street, in Paris. With her CAP (qualification) in accounting Evelyne goes to work every morning near the city, right in the middle of the 19th district. We are speaking of the 1980's. Where mixité sociale (social / society blending) was still only a theory, a mere concept.
"Here, we lived among the poor. And still, most of the people, after a few years, left for elsewhere. The community was very worried. We decided to stay, to change our environment for ourselves. Us, the tenants of 156. We wanted to save our community."
A childhood like the others
So, Evelyne created associations. One of them, Jeunes et locataires (Youth and renters), came to light in the 1990's. It's goal was to get the children out, to let them discover there was more "than the getto". Her association is one of the rare ones to endure, it has lasted more than ten years. She manages to squeeze out a few subventions, which she then uses to take the kids from the community by the hand and visit somewhere else. To a picnic in a park or to visit a beautiful part of Paris, and even one day : EuroDisney.
We see him in this group of children, he is particularly precocious, or rather turbulent. His name is Chérif. He always wanders around with his older brother Said, who is very discrete. To a point you would think the young one was the eldest. Said would whine and complain but follow his brother none the less. Evelyne had to keep an eye on the little one, "comme du lait sur le feu" (like milk (being heated) on a fire = very closely).
"I adored this child. It only took a few soothing words, or just holding and hugging him for him to calm down. Me, I found him touching, and as blown away as all the other kids at the sight of Mickey" (Mouse and friends) A child just like the others, who believed in Disney magic, and who would calm down with a soft touch. "We would take them to the movies, Chérif loved to go."
Mother in distress
Their mother doesn't have money to pay for the canteen, and she isn't the type to ask for help. Evelyne, who helps everyone with their paperwork, never saw her in her office. We know nothing of the father, and they are possibly from different fathers. They have always lived here, born here in 1980 and 1982. Two of the five children had already been placed elsewhere by social services, when Evenlyn begins following Chérif and Said.
A few months after the outing at EuroDisney, Chérif comes home from school, as he always does at noon. Accompanied as always by his big brother Said, he discovers that noon day, in the middle of the apartment, his mother dead. Dead from what cause? She apparently swallowed too many medications. For many, it was (considered) a suicide.
Finally, everyone knew the daily routines of this single mother. And the tongues of local inhabitants wagged. She could no longer meet the needs of her five children, and was forced to streetwalk to try round out the ends of the month. She died, according to the babysitter, who was the only one she would talk to, expecting a sixth child.
The children are orphans. Saïd is twelve, Chérif is ten years old. They leave their home, the 156, to spend their adolescence in Corrèze, in an establishment of the Claude Pompidou Foundation.
"We should have helped this mother"
Evelyne recognized him on the television Wednesday, January 7. "I called my son in law, who also grew up in the community. He confirmed it for me. I cried. I said I am the one who is responsible. I should have helped that mother. I should have never taken the children to EuroDisney, with that money, we should have helped this mother. Chérif was ten years old, not more. Finally, by not seeing, we killed this mother and were incapable of saving her children".
Evelyne is inconsolable in front of the television. "Chérif was a child just like the others. But he didn't receive love ... He found in a religious fantasy, the family he never had. They knew how to lift his head. At the same time, it is easy to blame these children who are isolated and fragile. Nobody was there to put them on the right road."
"If they had of had a happy childhood, would they have become terrorists?"
Evelyne holds city politics responsible. "The goal was to corral the poor. And then nobody took care of them. Social workers resigned one by one. They had too much work here and preferred to transfer elsewhere. So every month, we had a new person who took up our file, and at the end, nothing advanced".
Evelyne is quite mad at the lack of support structure for these children. "It wasn't rare to see children, five and six years old, just hanging out in front of the building at midnight. Chérif, he was basically abandoned. I remember one day when we had organized an afternoon snack. We didn't have a room, so we went to the cellar. I went back up to get glasses, and then, I saw a guard ask Chérif, who was very skinny, to get on his knees and ask for forgiveness, because he had done some ill considered action. But as he didn't have a father, and an absent mother, he was a bit of a scapegoat. Alas, I don't want you to think I am defending him. I just want to say, if he had had a happier childhood, would he have become a terrorist?"
She tells as well, to explain the context of this trouble, the story of another youth, well known to the system, that she let sleep at her place, because he was beaten by his mother. One day he ran away, the first nights he spent on the roof. Evelyne finally gathered him up and put him in her sons bed. In the morning she takes him to the police. It is routine, the forth time he has come. The first time was because of a third degree burn caused by a clothes iron. Evelyne gets outraged, "How many times do I need to bring him before you take him away from his mother?"
But the police want to know above all else how the child lived during eight days of wandering. They understand everything, when the child is speaking of a certain man. "The children were so abandoned that the 156 became a hangout for pedophiles. They would pass by in the evening, the kids would be delivered directly to them in the parking lot. The parents wouldn't go looking for them ... "
"We were surrounded by violence"
Evelyne is frustrated "We have four social centers, there being, La maison des copains (the house of friends), de La Villette (the Villette), Action fraternelle (Action brotherhood), ou encore Espace 19 (Space 19), but the educators and workers were not much older than the delinquents and gave them meetings at cafes to smoke cigarettes and drink a few glasses. Me, I applied the method of a sort of volunteer 'mama' and have never had problems with these young people. Are they totally responsible for what they become? Delinquent, drug user, and for the Kouachi brothers, incomprehensible monsters?"
Marise (false name) asks the same question. At the time, she too lived in the neighbourhood. Militant, she multiplied the associations to come to the help of neighbourhood in difficulty. "I lived some good times. But before the 1990's, and the idea of social diversity as indispensable took hold, we never talked about it at our political meetings. (editor note : Marise was firstly militant for PC, then for PS). The society ignored and passed over the poor, made them angry, made them violent, and sometimes hate filled."
"The only people who accepted to live at 156 were the homeless. We were surrounded by violence" Evelyn adds detail "I remember these little kids whose father was always drunk, and passed out before they got back from school. He would lock the door and the kids would sleep in the stairway. We made the reports, but even the teachers said nothing ... It is society as a whole that needs to be condemned for having let children grown up in such misery."
"Fertile soil"
Evelyne, a christian who thinks it is better to laugh before all else, knows that gently Islam is winning over more in the community. " I see more and more women wearing a veil and saying things that are less and less against laity." Marise accepts : "At the start, in the 90's, one of the practitioners of the mosque on Tanger street was part of the District Council. We liked him a lot, he was very normal and very open. We held our meetings in the mosque. I found that wonderful. Then one day our friend said he was leaving the mosque, that he no longer felt himself in the imam's speeches. And from that point, the doors to the mosque have been forever closed to us, we see the changes in the behaviour. The Salafists have little by little taken possession of the place, all the way to the arrest of the Buttes Chaumont cell."
Marise thinks that fundamentalism can't take root except in this fertile soil where precariousness, insecurity and abandonment have taken over the place normally necessary for integration. "But I am an optimist, since the advent of social diversity, things are going better. I remain persuaded that diversity was the right solution. On the other hand, these children born into a triple abandonment, by a society, sometimes by their roots (family), and worse yet the education system, not being able to learn the limits, not able to integrate ... And they found refuge in delinquency, violence, prison and sometimes in fundamentalist religion. There remains meanwhile, numerous structures that need to be created to prevent, to integrate and surround and give support. Look, for integration, I very much like hosting the knitting workshop at the Riquet Social Center, but I say to the women to stop talking in a language among themselves that I can't understand, because I think they are talking about me. That makes them laugh. But finally, speaking the same language when we are together, would it not be more simple?"
For Marise, "we are responsible for not having offered a balanced /stable upbringing to these little tykes, having never seen the suffering of their mother, their disarray as orphans ... But this isn't an excuse to kill others and to not back away (in horror / fear) from the face of an absurd fanaticism ... "
Evelyne, she has retired and now lives in a regional Center, concedes "I shouldn't say this, you are going to take me for a crazy person, but somewhere, to me those kids there, I pity them ..."
posted by phoque at 2:17 PM on January 20, 2015 [7 favorites]
Nick Cohen's article in Standpoint is good and worth reading, although it has a stupid title that doesn't reflect its content: The Great Betrayal: How Liberals Appease Islam
His actual position is that he is concerned by a government crackdown on Islamism (and the examples he cites are genuinely worrying). This crackdown, he says, is the consequence of the traditional left wing's failure to address misogyny and repression and the misuse of public institutions by Islamists. So, despite the title he's not concerned with "how liberals appease Islam"; he doesn't even make such a stupid reification. I think these two paragraphs exemplify his position:
His actual position is that he is concerned by a government crackdown on Islamism (and the examples he cites are genuinely worrying). This crackdown, he says, is the consequence of the traditional left wing's failure to address misogyny and repression and the misuse of public institutions by Islamists. So, despite the title he's not concerned with "how liberals appease Islam"; he doesn't even make such a stupid reification. I think these two paragraphs exemplify his position:
Government inspectors put the Sir John Cass Church of England school under "special measures" a few weeks ago. Its teachers and governors will face extraordinary scrutiny and can be dismissed at short notice, not because they were plotting to indoctrinate children — they are by all accounts admirable people running an admirable school — but because they failed to spot that Muslim pupils were linking to extremist sites on Facebook.posted by Joe in Australia at 4:29 PM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
For what would have been a forgivable lapse only last year, a good school has lost its autonomy. Every school in the country now knows it must treat radical Islam in much the same way as it treats extreme white racism or suffer. The liberal failure to be honest about political Islam in Birmingham is having national consequences.
Great, let's enroll the teachers in the police state. Nothing bad will come of that.
posted by brokkr at 12:40 AM on January 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by brokkr at 12:40 AM on January 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Explaining the Japanese meme mocking ISIS
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:43 AM on January 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:43 AM on January 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
That Nick Cohen article is fantastic, Joe in A - thanks for posting it.
posted by progosk at 2:26 PM on January 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by progosk at 2:26 PM on January 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
French hate speech laws are less simplistic than you think (WaPo). A rather good explanation of French hate speech laws and how they actually work in the French context.
posted by elgilito at 2:48 AM on January 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by elgilito at 2:48 AM on January 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I was a bit disappointed by that article because I still don't understand how "apologie du terrorisme" fits into the hate speech laws... the Brigitte Bardot quote makes sense, calling someone a "dirty Jew" makes sense as a violation of hate speech laws, but even though he mentions the "apologie du terrorisme" arrests and Dieudonné specifically and then says "these statements are not what Americans traditionally think of as hate speech" the author doesn't seem to make a connection with the other stuff explained subsequently.
posted by XMLicious at 4:44 AM on January 23, 2015
posted by XMLicious at 4:44 AM on January 23, 2015
I still don't understand how "apologie du terrorisme" fits into the hate speech laws...
Coulibaly killed Jews for being Jews. People with "I am Charlie" signs support "Charlie", whatever that means for them. Dieudonné said "I am Charlie Coulibaly", ergo "I am/I support that person who killed Jews for being Jews". That's a clear endorsement of Coulibaly's killing of Jews, and thus hate speech, and that's not far-fetched considering Dieudonné's flirting with hardcore anti-semitism (endorsement of Holocaust deniers, linking James Foley's death to the "Rothschild mafia", the Shoananas song etc.). If there's another interpretation, he'll be able to explain it in court, just like the CH crew or Houellebecq defended themselves (successfully) when they were sued for islamophobia by Muslim organisations.
Now, using the "apology" law for random drunken idiots who failed to read the room, that may be an abuse of the law, which is supposed to target actual and active supporters of terrorism, but it's a different issue.
posted by elgilito at 7:20 AM on January 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Coulibaly killed Jews for being Jews. People with "I am Charlie" signs support "Charlie", whatever that means for them. Dieudonné said "I am Charlie Coulibaly", ergo "I am/I support that person who killed Jews for being Jews". That's a clear endorsement of Coulibaly's killing of Jews, and thus hate speech, and that's not far-fetched considering Dieudonné's flirting with hardcore anti-semitism (endorsement of Holocaust deniers, linking James Foley's death to the "Rothschild mafia", the Shoananas song etc.). If there's another interpretation, he'll be able to explain it in court, just like the CH crew or Houellebecq defended themselves (successfully) when they were sued for islamophobia by Muslim organisations.
Now, using the "apology" law for random drunken idiots who failed to read the room, that may be an abuse of the law, which is supposed to target actual and active supporters of terrorism, but it's a different issue.
posted by elgilito at 7:20 AM on January 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
So the law prohibiting apology of terrorism only applies to racially-motivated terrorism, like he could have endorsed a bombing in a general public market or something like that to his heart's content and not run afoul of it?
posted by XMLicious at 9:31 AM on January 23, 2015
posted by XMLicious at 9:31 AM on January 23, 2015
Media Finally Tunes In To US Rap Artist With Who Faces Life In Prison For Album Lyrics
posted by jeffburdges at 7:24 PM on January 23, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 7:24 PM on January 23, 2015
British Muslim school children suffering a backlash of abuse following Paris attacks
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:25 AM on January 24, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:25 AM on January 24, 2015
Satire from Israel: Latma TV's Tribal Update has blackface Obama singing, "I truly hate those dirty Jews ... when will you cease to exist so the Quran can rule the world?"
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:03 AM on January 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:03 AM on January 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
> The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them).
A Spy in the Machine: How a brutal government used cutting-edge spyware to hijack one activist's life
posted by homunculus at 3:19 PM on January 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
A Spy in the Machine: How a brutal government used cutting-edge spyware to hijack one activist's life
posted by homunculus at 3:19 PM on January 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
This Paris rally is golden. The ambassador for Saudi Arabia is attending even though his country is currently whipping Raif Badawi for writing a blog.
Saudi blogger's flogging postponed: Rights group says planned flogging of Raif Badawi delayed for second straight week on the advice of doctors.
Q&A: Jailed Saudi blogger's wife calls for his release
posted by homunculus at 4:38 PM on January 24, 2015
Saudi blogger's flogging postponed: Rights group says planned flogging of Raif Badawi delayed for second straight week on the advice of doctors.
Q&A: Jailed Saudi blogger's wife calls for his release
posted by homunculus at 4:38 PM on January 24, 2015
Charlie Hebdo attacks shine spotlight on Paris's neglected suburbs
posted by homunculus at 4:40 PM on January 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 4:40 PM on January 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
UK Legislators Hoping To Rush Through New 'Snooper's Charter' In The Wake Of The Charlie Hebdo Attacks
posted by jeffburdges at 3:38 AM on January 26, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 3:38 AM on January 26, 2015
XMLicious: So the law prohibiting apology of terrorism only applies to racially-motivated terrorism, like he could have endorsed a bombing in a general public market or something like that to his heart's content and not run afoul of it?I think understanding the finer points of hypothetical French law is not best achieved on an English-speaking, non-law-oriented website.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:59 AM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Scary: PM greets thousands chanting for Hizbullah in Charlie Hebdo protest in southeast Turkey
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:38 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has greeted around 100,000 people who protested French magazine Charlie Hebdo in Diyarbakır, while also cheering for Hizbullah.It could be worse. He might have said "I greet each and every brother who defends the Prophet Muhammad there."
“The region suddenly has a reaction whenever a shameless act happens toward the Prophet Muhammad. I greet each and every brother who defends the Prophet Muhammad here,” Davutoğlu said during his speech at the ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) provincial congress in Diyarbakır.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:38 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why isn't he greeting people when they have a reaction against the corruption in his government?
This is something that I was thinking about in the anti-Semitism thread, specifically when you were talking about how Israel was the most condemned, ergo worst, nation from the view of the U.N. My initial reaction was like, yeah, but everyone knows that's 90 percent disingenuous bullshit to distract from the appalling domestic record (and it's tied up with other U.N. structural shit). But it's really striking how the political ideology of Islamic Nationalism seems so transparent and cynical when it's considered in the context of the domestic (especially economic) politics — this empty gesture of offense over cartoons about Mohammed is popular, but it's not fucking governing. Turkey could use a bit more actual government and a lot less empty gestures. I mean, outside of a few reporters, whose mouths did that speech put food in? Is the goal just to keep people shouting so they don't miss eating?
posted by klangklangston at 6:39 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is something that I was thinking about in the anti-Semitism thread, specifically when you were talking about how Israel was the most condemned, ergo worst, nation from the view of the U.N. My initial reaction was like, yeah, but everyone knows that's 90 percent disingenuous bullshit to distract from the appalling domestic record (and it's tied up with other U.N. structural shit). But it's really striking how the political ideology of Islamic Nationalism seems so transparent and cynical when it's considered in the context of the domestic (especially economic) politics — this empty gesture of offense over cartoons about Mohammed is popular, but it's not fucking governing. Turkey could use a bit more actual government and a lot less empty gestures. I mean, outside of a few reporters, whose mouths did that speech put food in? Is the goal just to keep people shouting so they don't miss eating?
posted by klangklangston at 6:39 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
@zaidbenjamin: "#Turkey: Anchor Mohamed Nassir to Egyptian Protesters: Kill the officers & kidnap their kids. We have their addresses"
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:20 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:20 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
(Not satire).
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:39 PM on January 26, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:39 PM on January 26, 2015
Klangklangston: I have no idea what's going on with Turkey's ruling party. I think they're just trying to ride to ride the tiger of Islamism, but they might be sincerely neo-Ottoman or even Islamist. Whatever their motive, this looks like a call-out supporting terrorism against "offensive" cartoons.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:14 PM on January 26, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:14 PM on January 26, 2015
I think understanding the finer points of hypothetical French law is not best achieved on an English-speaking, non-law-oriented website.
The question of whether the charge "apologie du terrorisme" specifically involves a racial or bias dimension and is actually categorized as a hate crime, or whether for example any sort of crime can also be designated as a hate crime in addition to being another basic sort of offense if that's the case, actually seems pretty straightforward to me and not at all hypothetical.
But if for some reason the answer would only be intelligible in French I'm not fluent but I can probably muddle through. I've browsed through radiofrance.fr on this topic for example and read through several of the French articles linked in this thread, I just can't read fast enough to efficiently search for the answer to this question.
posted by XMLicious at 4:58 AM on January 27, 2015
Rather than face ban in Turkey, Facebook blocks “anti-Islamic” pages
Turkish prime minister recently said: "We don’t allow insults to the Prophet."
Turkish prime minister recently said: "We don’t allow insults to the Prophet."
According to Turkish media, the Gölbaşı Criminal Court of Peace in Ankara issued the order on Sunday, and it threatened to order a complete ban of the social network if Facebook did not comply. This same court has led previous bans or blocks of other sites, including YouTube and Twitter.posted by XMLicious at 5:05 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here's an interesting issue: the Houthis have been in the news recently. Their flag has the lines “Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews” on it, and it appears in many films and photos of them. The Houthi advances in Yemen are obviously very newsworthy, and you can't depict them without depicting their flag. But this flag is not merely offensive, it's an actual call to murder.
Supposing you support the1 position of many journalists,2 that the cover of Charlie Hebdo should not be shown; how are you to deal with the Houthi flag? Show it? Blur it out? Avoid it altogether? I think the NY Times, remarkably, managed to have an article devoted to the flag - without showing it! The BBC, on the other hand, shows the flag without describing its contents. The Charlie Hebdo incident has reminded us very clearly that the news media are a portrait, not a window: they depict events only as filtered through the reporters' prejudices.
1 Craven and pusillanimous.
2 So-called.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:50 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Supposing you support the1 position of many journalists,2 that the cover of Charlie Hebdo should not be shown; how are you to deal with the Houthi flag? Show it? Blur it out? Avoid it altogether? I think the NY Times, remarkably, managed to have an article devoted to the flag - without showing it! The BBC, on the other hand, shows the flag without describing its contents. The Charlie Hebdo incident has reminded us very clearly that the news media are a portrait, not a window: they depict events only as filtered through the reporters' prejudices.
1 Craven and pusillanimous.
2 So-called.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:50 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
@dimireider: "Israeli cartoonists are quick to the draw. Netanyahu to Nassrallah: 'Help me help you here.'"
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:23 PM on January 29, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:23 PM on January 29, 2015
"I have no idea what's going on with Turkey's ruling party. I think they're just trying to ride to ride the tiger of Islamism, but they might be sincerely neo-Ottoman or even Islamist. Whatever their motive, this looks like a call-out supporting terrorism against "offensive" cartoons."
So, IIRC they came to power after a long, long time of having explicitly Islamist parties banned, and a big part of that was that their predecessors were just corrupt as shit. But despite being Islamist, they're also rightist and pro-capitalism, and hoped that allowing the US to use their bases would allow them to exert more power against the PKK on their border. That led to a massive backbench popular revolt, and while the US still got Turkey's assistance, they weren't a real participant in the "Coalition of the Willing." In order to shore up domestic power in the face of another terrible recession (since the AKP Party came to power after the 2001 global recession, and feared another populist revolt), since 2008 they've been seeking to burnish their credibility as champions of the Turkish and Muslim people against Western (and Jewish) influence. So they perform theater like the anti-Hebdo comments in order to appeal to popular prejudice and mitigate any chances of Arab Spring being Turkish Spring while simultaneously keeping their military cronies rich enough to stave off another coup.
At least, that's my take from America. Which is why a lot of the complaints about how Turkey wasn't helping us enough in Syria seemed pretty disconnected from the reality of Turkish politics.
posted by klangklangston at 3:42 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, IIRC they came to power after a long, long time of having explicitly Islamist parties banned, and a big part of that was that their predecessors were just corrupt as shit. But despite being Islamist, they're also rightist and pro-capitalism, and hoped that allowing the US to use their bases would allow them to exert more power against the PKK on their border. That led to a massive backbench popular revolt, and while the US still got Turkey's assistance, they weren't a real participant in the "Coalition of the Willing." In order to shore up domestic power in the face of another terrible recession (since the AKP Party came to power after the 2001 global recession, and feared another populist revolt), since 2008 they've been seeking to burnish their credibility as champions of the Turkish and Muslim people against Western (and Jewish) influence. So they perform theater like the anti-Hebdo comments in order to appeal to popular prejudice and mitigate any chances of Arab Spring being Turkish Spring while simultaneously keeping their military cronies rich enough to stave off another coup.
At least, that's my take from America. Which is why a lot of the complaints about how Turkey wasn't helping us enough in Syria seemed pretty disconnected from the reality of Turkish politics.
posted by klangklangston at 3:42 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
You may be right, but it seems to me that similar claims are made for every reactionary, populist party: "they don't actually believe it, they're just keeping their constituents happy." But then it turns out that they do believe it, or at least behave as though they believed it. This is why I'm generally happy to see a little bit of hypocrisy in politicians; I hope that their deeds will eventually match their words. The problem is that Turkey's politicians seem to be going the other way.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:33 PM on January 29, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:33 PM on January 29, 2015
Well, I do think that people forget that the vast, vast majority of politics — including international relations — is aimed at domestic audiences. And the majority of reactionary populist parties that actually achieve mass success are often not actually all that effective in enacting policies that would reflect their ostensible ideologies, e.g. abortion in America. That's because while a fervent core tend to believe in it strongly, for most people it's more that they don't not believe it and it benefits them to go along with the true believers.
I mean, really, the people of Turkey have at least the nominal power to remove the PM from power — the French and Hebdo have what? There's no downside for the AKP to attack them. Cartoons of Mohammed are a scapegoat.
From there, it doesn't really matter if the belief is sincere or deeply held, versus being convenient. Enough Turks sincerely believe it for it to be popular and want to see it enacted as policy, and so instead of dealing with legitimate complaints about the government, Davutoğlu gets to shadowbox for poor Mohammed. It's easier and cheaper (and more in line with AKP interests) to reaffirm the theology of a loud chunk of the Turkish public than to push for reforms that would alleviate some of the appeal of reactionary theology to begin with.
posted by klangklangston at 5:19 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mean, really, the people of Turkey have at least the nominal power to remove the PM from power — the French and Hebdo have what? There's no downside for the AKP to attack them. Cartoons of Mohammed are a scapegoat.
From there, it doesn't really matter if the belief is sincere or deeply held, versus being convenient. Enough Turks sincerely believe it for it to be popular and want to see it enacted as policy, and so instead of dealing with legitimate complaints about the government, Davutoğlu gets to shadowbox for poor Mohammed. It's easier and cheaper (and more in line with AKP interests) to reaffirm the theology of a loud chunk of the Turkish public than to push for reforms that would alleviate some of the appeal of reactionary theology to begin with.
posted by klangklangston at 5:19 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Marine Le Pen Leads French Presidential Poll With 30% of Vote
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:30 PM on January 30, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:30 PM on January 30, 2015
Exclusive Interview with 'Charlie Hebdo' Cartoonist Luz
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:29 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:29 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
Via the Elder of Ziyon:
German carnival drops Charlie Hebdo-inspired float after Paris attack
Charlie Hebdo cartoon banned from Refreshers’ Fair
CNN: French Terrorist Taped Rampage in Kosher Grocery Store with Chest-Mounted GoPro
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:42 PM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
German carnival drops Charlie Hebdo-inspired float after Paris attack
A German carnival has dropped plans to build a "Charlie Hebdo" float with a cartoonist forcing a pencil into the barrel of a terrorist's gun, after receiving messages from locals worried about safety if the float went on show.Mumbai police arrest editor for publishing Charlie Hebdo cover
Charlie Hebdo cartoon banned from Refreshers’ Fair
The University of Manchester Students’ Union has been accused of unfair censorship for disallowing the Charlie Hebdo front cover on Students’ Union premises during the Refreshers’ fairIn further news on the supermarket murders:
CNN: French Terrorist Taped Rampage in Kosher Grocery Store with Chest-Mounted GoPro
[...] The world watched Coulibaly’s hostage crisis, in which he killed four hostages just two days after the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Now, the video of Coulibaly’s attack has made it to the Internet.The murderers who killed people in a Jewish school in Toulouse and the one who killed people in a Jewish museum in Brussels also videoed their attacks.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:42 PM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
Rogue Lords shamelessly sneak Snooper's Charter back in AGAIN
posted by jeffburdges at 12:32 AM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 12:32 AM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
jeffburdges, what is that about? Where in the world is it happening, what are Lords, what who where?
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:15 AM on February 1, 2015
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:15 AM on February 1, 2015
The Vice interview with Luz is intense (and fills in some of his thoughts regarding the cover of their post-attack issue), thanks for the link, GE. Their next issue is delayed - currently indefinitely so - and seeing/hearing him, you can understand why.
"French investigators have not released the recipients of the video, but it is believed that Coulibaly spent time editing and emailing the video while in the market that he held many French Jews hostage."
The mind continues to boggle...
posted by progosk at 6:26 AM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
"French investigators have not released the recipients of the video, but it is believed that Coulibaly spent time editing and emailing the video while in the market that he held many French Jews hostage."
The mind continues to boggle...
posted by progosk at 6:26 AM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
That article aggressively and indignantly goes out of its way to avoid nuance.
posted by Corinth at 2:17 PM on February 1, 2015
posted by Corinth at 2:17 PM on February 1, 2015
Murdered Charlie Hebdo authors to be honoured at this year's Angoulême Comic Book Festival.
Meanwhile, Iran's House of Cartoons is holding a contest to "challenge perceived Western double standards on free speech".
posted by progosk at 12:24 AM on February 2, 2015
Meanwhile, Iran's House of Cartoons is holding a contest to "challenge perceived Western double standards on free speech".
posted by progosk at 12:24 AM on February 2, 2015
There have been similar contests in Iran before. The last big one resulted in the Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoon Contest: "We'll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!"
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:55 AM on February 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:55 AM on February 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
French soldiers wounded in Nice Jewish centre attack - A man wielding a knife has attacked three soldiers patrolling outside a Jewish community centre in Nice, in the south of France.
posted by rosswald at 9:35 AM on February 3, 2015
posted by rosswald at 9:35 AM on February 3, 2015
It took me an embarrassing second to realize that Nice was the location.
posted by klangklangston at 1:27 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 1:27 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
So just a couple of weeks after joining the massive march in Paris, Palestinian president Abbas orders an inquiry into a newspaper’s ‘Muhammad cartoon’. The image in question is here.
posted by progosk at 2:01 PM on February 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by progosk at 2:01 PM on February 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hah. I was just going to post that. I'd be interested in seeing a list of the world leaders present at the march who have since criticised or prosecuted cartoonists for printing cartoons of Mohammed.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:04 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:04 PM on February 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Saudi Arabia Holds All Male Women’s Rights Conference
posted by jeffburdges at 2:47 PM on February 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 2:47 PM on February 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mark Ames, The Geometry of Censorship and Satire
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:52 PM on February 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:52 PM on February 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
That article by Mark Ames is great and deserves an FPP, but he's wrong about there being no place for satire. I mean, just look at the Saudi Arabia's massive troll in Jeffburdges' link.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:34 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:34 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
That article by Mark Ames is great and deserves an FPP
Feel free, I have a bunch saved up I want to through.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:19 PM on February 4, 2015
Feel free, I have a bunch saved up I want to through.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:19 PM on February 4, 2015
BTW, the "I Am Kenji" sign holders were protesting because they wanted the Japanese PM to pay $200 million in ransom money to ISIS. You get all kinds.
posted by shii at 6:01 PM on February 4, 2015
posted by shii at 6:01 PM on February 4, 2015
The Al-Qaeda member that claimed the responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo attacks was killed in a drone strike.
posted by Berend at 2:00 AM on February 6, 2015
posted by Berend at 2:00 AM on February 6, 2015
The Ames article nails a chilling dynamic present in this very thread - on balance, I'm not sure whether this rich long tail of the conversation, though a sign of MeFi's immunity/antibodies, amounts to a diagnosis of full health. An FPP would be interesting to watch play out, it would of itself be very meta; thanks for posting tmotat.
posted by progosk at 12:04 AM on February 7, 2015
posted by progosk at 12:04 AM on February 7, 2015
« Older Of Mahatma Gandhi’s few possessions, his watches... | Bao Bao's Big Snow Day Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Berend at 7:29 AM on January 7, 2015 [39 favorites]