Je Suis Charlie?

[Tyrone Biggums]

My sympathy was fairly thin anyway.
Seriously, who publishes a picture of Prophet Mohamed and thinks they will get away with it?
Not saying they deserved to be killed for doing it, but if I was the top guy at a magazine publication and my workers said they were going to put Prophet Mohamed on the front of the magazine, I would have sacked each and everyone of them.

Then you have already admitted defeat to that shitful religion and want no part in forcing them to drag their archaic arses into the 21st centrury.

They win so long as people like you cower away from being able to openly take the piss out of them and everything about their religion.

 

[¡Cereal Killer!]

Would there have been killings if Jesus was on the front page of the magazine do you think?

Probably not as it is not forbidden to depict Jesus. The attack on them would not have happened if they didn't use a picture of Prophet Mohamed.
Saying that though, it may not have stopped the attackers striking another target anyway.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

Whilst their faux-outrage is touching to see. Is this cartoon not a representation of what Soulman and Alfredmizen actually believe? That views towards woman held by these refugees are so deeply ingrained in the culture of the Arab world, and so different to ours, that had this child grown up and made it to Germany that he would be joining the crowds of thousands of refugees hounding women? Or have I misunderstood what you have been banging on about for the past weeks and months?

 

[beorhthelm]

Seriously, who publishes a picture of Prophet Mohamed and thinks they will get away with it?

someone not living in a country that doesnt have to observe islamic laws or traditions? its their religion to follow, not others, their rule to not create images, not non-muslims.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Not any more I'm not.

View attachment 71459

Take the piss out of imaginary friends, I'm there.

Insinuate the child, Aylan?, found drowned on a Turkish beach would have grown up to feel German girls arses as a sex pest is over my line.

I guess they are being deliberately provocative and and are little pissed of at their headquarters being wiped out. It is neither right or wrong imo

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Then you have already admitted defeat to that shitful religion and want no part in forcing them to drag their archaic arses into the 21st centrury.

They win so long as people like you cower away from being able to openly take the piss out of them and everything about their religion.

I have to agree with this

 

[Hillian1]

I guess they are being deliberately provocative and and are little pissed of at their headquarters being wiped out. It is neither right or wrong imo

How in any way can satirising the death of a three year old child be anything other than wrong Uncle?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

How in any way can satirising the death of a three year old child be anything other than wrong Uncle?

"Wrong" doesn't actually mean anything though. It's a self determination based on personal opinions and emotions.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

How in any way can satirising the death of a three year old child be anything other than wrong Uncle?

It is not but I feel we are in times now when previous acceptable order is gone. It is a daily war now. Sadly

 

[portlock seagull]

How in any way can satirising the death of a three year old child be anything other than wrong Uncle?

Gillian, you sound like your emotions are easily hi jacked. Were you Je Suis 12 months ago? But now a provocative cartoon is enough to swing you to the polar opposite? What, are they asking for it? You're condoning the deaths of journalists? Giving reason to a senseless cowardly act that has none? For expressing their views? In their own country? How about finding some middle ground and showing a bit more understanding? It's a bit insulting to, back then, be "I'm right with you frere" then to ditch your solidarity now. Sounds a bit 'on trend'. Frankly I find it all a bit sickophantic this social media outpouring and knee jerk gesturing. Like all the people that tricoloured their avatars last month. Why? What difference does all this bullshit do? How many have any real understanding of such a complex situation? Especially if people jump from A to Z depending on what the next thing to get outraged by is. Sorry if I've got you wrong but your postings appear to be an example of so many at the moment and it gets right up my nose! I want to shout "Stop being so bloody easily manipulated, get a grip everyone and calm the feck down!!"

Rant over.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Probably not as it is not forbidden to depict Jesus. The attack on them would not have happened if they didn't use a picture of Prophet Mohamed.
Saying that though, it may not have stopped the attackers striking another target anyway.

It's not forbidden to depict Mohammed. No law against as far as I'm aware

 

[cheshunt seagull]

The cartoon makes me really uncomfortable and I initially thought they had crossed a line but if it had been a 100 anonymous corpses rather than one poor young boy with a name I would have felt less troubled so what does that say about me. I think the point of satire is to highlight contradictions and hypocrisy and the shifting sands of press coverage and public opinion on this issue, which these two perspectives represent, is a legitimate target. Maybe we don’t have the right not to be offended sometimes.

 

[mikeyjh]

I quietly made the point a year ago, (not here), that the producers of Charlie Hebdo were being held up as pillars of free speech when they suddenly became everyone's favourite publication despite the fact the virtually no-one had ever seen or read any of their content. I admire their stance on the far right and their supporters etc but I can't abide their deliberately provocative publications. Much of it serves no purpose other than to offend or to show that they can publish whatever they want, it's free speech right?

There should be a proverb - "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

 

[alfredmizen]

My sympathy was fairly thin anyway.
Seriously, who publishes a picture of Prophet Mohamed and thinks they will get away with it?
Not saying they deserved to be killed for doing it, but if I was the top guy at a magazine publication and my workers said they were going to put Prophet Mohamed on the front of the magazine, I would have sacked each and everyone of them.

were you neville chamberlain in a previous life ?

 

[Flex Your Head]

Is it not an attempt to show the public's hypocrisy, or to point out the stupidity of generalisations?

By and large there was an enormous wave of sympathy and grief when the toddler's body was discovered on the beach, and the plight of the refugees was highlighted. But some of those same people are then involved in sexual assault in European cities, and the plight of the refugees becomes the blight of the refugees. Many people - including some of the posters on this board - paint these refugees and migrants as 'all the same', so using that logic Alyn the toddler would have ended up a wrong 'un.

Hebdo did something similar with the schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The public cries out for the girls to be rescued and brought to safety in one breath, but in the next they shake their fist in rage at young girls of African heritage receiving state benefits.

 

[BigGully]

I quietly made the point a year ago, (not here), that the producers of Charlie Hebdo were being held up as pillars of free speech when they suddenly became everyone's favourite publication despite the fact the virtually no-one had ever seen or read any of their content. I admire their stance on the far right and their supporters etc but I can't abide their deliberately provocative publications. Much of it serves no purpose other than to offend or to show that they can publish whatever they want, it's free speech right?

There should be a proverb - "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

I dont think the producers really were 'held up' as anything in particular, it was the unadulterated violence that responded to a cartoon that prompted the outrage and comment on free speech.

 

[knocky1]

Je ne suis pas Charlie mais jamais etait.

It is inflammatory. Interesting how racists are shocked because it is a boy but would think nothing if it was a number of refugee adults. That is the supposed satire.

 

[nwgull]

This is looking a bit like a case of people being all for free speech, providing that it's free speech that they agree with and doesn't offend them.

I think the above posters that identify the satire as intending to show the hypocrisy of the views towards refugees have hit the nail on the head.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Je ne suis pas Charlie mais jamais etait.

It is inflammatory. Interesting how racists are shocked because it is a boy but would think nothing if it was a number of refugee adults. That is the supposed satire.

Because the adults know what they are doing and the dangers involved in the journey, that poor little boy didnt.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

What a shocking lapse in editorial judgement. Those sleazeballs in Germany on NYE deserve both barrels, both satirically and literally, but that innocent little kid most certainly does not.