Charlie Hebdo massacre and the West's response

[Buddy Bradley]

Apart from acres of column inches and TV reports, one of the most popular ways that individuals have responded to the Charlie Hebdo shootings is by sharing/posting/retweeting/changing their Facebook picture to one of Charlie's cartoons, often a Mohammed-related one since that is generally accepted as being the catalyst for the attack. Print media followed suit, with several national papers (not in the UK, but I've seen Irish and German ones at least, and I assume the French did too) showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons on their front pages.

It seems to me that doing so is based on a false premise; that the attackers shot cartoonists because they wanted to punish anyone making blasphemous cartoons. So now we'll show them, right? More Mohammed cartoons than you can shake a stick at.

But really, who benefits from it? Armchair warriors get to feel they are standing up for free speech from behind their computer screens. Muslims across the world get to feel somewhere on a scale from fine to extremely offended. And the terrorists get to point to the western world and say "look how they are mocking us, come and join us in jihad."

I'm 100% for free speech, and wouldn't dream of criticising Charlie Hebdo's decisions, but deliberately trying to offend a large number of entirely innocent people simply because they share a religion (albeit a warped variant) with gun-wielding nutjobs doesn't seem like a positive effect. Perhaps Steve Bell got it right, and the most sensible response is to mock the clownish gunmen, not those they erroneously claim to stand for?

 

[Pickman's model]

yes

 

[Treacle Toes]

From a pal...

All I am posting today - a quote from Will self regarding the tragedy yesterday:

"Well, when the issue came up of the Danish cartoons [of Muhammad] I observed that the test I apply to something to see whether it truly is satire derives from H. L. Mencken's definition of good journalism: It should 'afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.' The trouble with a lot of so-called 'satire' directed against religiously motivated 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 sort of responsibilities are implied by this right."

Seems Mr Self wants to have the same discussion as you Buddy Bradley

 

[Pickman's model]

From a pal...



Seems Mr Self wants to have the same discussion as you Buddy Bradley

that's assuming mencken's definition a useful starting point.

 

[Treacle Toes]

''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 sort of responsibilities are implied by this right."

This is something that strikes chords with me. I have thinking about it since yesterday and do so often with regard the question of Freedom of Speech.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

our society makes a fetish of 'the right to free speech' without ever questioning what sort of responsibilities are implied by this right

So we have a responsibility to be sensible and noble in our actions? I think he misses the point that we have the freedom to be stupid and ignoble. Otherwise, the idea of free speech is entirely empty.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is something that strikes chords with me. I have thinking about it since yesterday and do so often with regard the question of Freedom of Speech.

it's strange it's only at times like these that freedom of speech ever receives the elevation it deserves. but it's a good day for people to say things they don't mean about rights they don't believe in as per the manchester chief constable's blather about the role of the police in a democratick society

 

[Pickman's model]

So we have a responsibility to be sensible and noble in our actions? I think he misses the point that we have the freedom to be stupid and ignoble. Otherwise, the idea of free speech is entirely empty.

good point well made

 

[JTG]

Why would I want to risk offending my muslim work colleagues by sharing a cartoon that offends their beliefs?

 

[butchersapron]

Is this the west's response (can there even be such a thing?) when I've seen this stuff from people all around the globe from all political and religious traditions?

 

[Buddy Bradley]

So we have a responsibility to be sensible and noble in our actions? I think he misses the point that we have the freedom to be stupid and ignoble. Otherwise, the idea of free speech is entirely empty.

You don't think that everyone should strive to 'do the right thing', for want of a better way to put it? Isn't that how society works?

 

[butchersapron]

You don't think that everyone should strive to 'do the right thing', for want of a better way to put it? Isn't that how society works?

But what if they don't? Or if their best is not the one that self or others agree with? Are we going to have people like them handing out permits allowing certain speech but not others for failing to try to do the right thing as such noble educated types as them recognise as valid?

 

[Pickman's model]

Why would I want to risk offending my muslim work colleagues by sharing a cartoon that offends their beliefs?

do you think they are just their beliefs? do you think no christian ever laughed at e.g. life of brian?

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Is this the west's response (can there even be such a thing?) when I've seen this stuff from people all around the globe from all political and religious traditions?

You're right, it's a bit of a lazy title - it's more "the English-speaking Brits, Americans and Australians that are in my extended social circle, plus a few French speakers as well and other bits and pieces shared widely across social media during the hours when I was awake last night".

 

[YouSir]

Is this the west's response (can there even be such a thing?) when I've seen this stuff from people all around the globe from all political and religious traditions?

Was reading some Pakistani articles earlier, was pretty much a flame war with Hindu nationalists. 'Western' reaction barely entered into it.

 

[JTG]

do you think they are just their beliefs? do you think no christian ever laughed at e.g. life of brian?

They're free to do as they please themselves of course. I don't think it's my business though

 

[Pickman's model]

They're free to do as they please themselves of course. I don't think it's my business though

given that a lot of what we discuss here is offensive to various different groups of people you must find yourself treading carefully round people all the time.

but you show yourself quite ready to be offensive to tories or to witches - see, for example, your comment about not wanting thatchers cider associated with margaret thatcher - "that auld witch" i believe you called her. are you only concerned with not offending people you know off the internet?

 

[articul8]

good point well made

You make very liberal use of that particular freedom

 

[Geri]

Nobody on my Facebook has changed their profile picture to the cartoons, they've mostly changed it to Je Suis Charlie.

 

[JTG]

given that a lot of what we discuss here is offensive to various different groups of people you must find yourself treading carefully round people all the time.

Social media (which I no longer use fwiw) is somewhat different to forums really. I used to be more outspoken over some stuff on social media before a couple of people gently pointed out the effect it had on them. So I stopped.

 

[dylanredefined]

Why would I want to risk offending my muslim work colleagues by sharing a cartoon that offends their beliefs?

Obviously at work you shouldn't do dumb shit like that. Time and place for everything though.

 

[JTG]

Stephen Fry's a complete tit though

 

[Pickman's model]

Stephen Fry's a complete tit though

but at least he's not a bore

 

[Mr Moose]

So we have a responsibility to be sensible and noble in our actions? I think he misses the point that we have the freedom to be stupid and ignoble. Otherwise, the idea of free speech is entirely empty.

Yes. And not be executed for it.

 

[brogdale]

Apart from acres of column inches and TV reports, one of the most popular ways that individuals have responded to the Charlie Hebdo shootings is by sharing/posting/retweeting/changing their Facebook picture to one of Charlie's cartoons, often a Mohammed-related one since that is generally accepted as being the catalyst for the attack. Print media followed suit, with several national papers (not in the UK, but I've seen Irish and German ones at least, and I assume the French did too) showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons on their front pages.

It seems to me that doing so is based on a false premise; that the attackers shot cartoonists because they wanted to punish anyone making blasphemous cartoons. So now we'll show them, right? More Mohammed cartoons than you can shake a stick at.

But really, who benefits from it? Armchair warriors get to feel they are standing up for free speech from behind their computer screens. Muslims across the world get to feel somewhere on a scale from fine to extremely offended. And the terrorists get to point to the western world and say "look how they are mocking us, come and join us in jihad."

I'm 100% for free speech, and wouldn't dream of criticising Charlie Hebdo's decisions, but deliberately trying to offend a large number of entirely innocent people simply because they share a religion (albeit a warped variant) with gun-wielding nutjobs doesn't seem like a positive effect. Perhaps Steve Bell got it right, and the most sensible response is to mock the clownish gunmen, not those they erroneously claim to stand for?

Potentially a very interesting thread BB.

But.... before wading in....I'm a little uncertain about a couple of your points in the OP. You say in the first para that the cartoons are generally accepted as the 'catalyst' for the shootings, but then in the second go on to describe such causality as false. Which of those positions do you take?

And do you really believe that the magazine published such content to "deliberately try(ing) to offend a large number of entirely innocent people simply because they share a religion.."?

 

[dylanredefined]

Stephen Fry's a complete tit though

True even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You don't think that everyone should strive to 'do the right thing', for want of a better way to put it? Isn't that how society works?

I don't think people have a right not to be offended. Nor that people should have a responsibility to be sensible or constructive or sensitive. The Mohammad cartoons perfectly illustrate that, imo. There are people who follow a particular belief system who insist that Mohammad is special and should never be represented nor ridiculed. Well, what is there about their opinion that means everyone else should abide by their rules on the matter? Nothing, really. They will be offended by such cartoons, and the cartoons are at least in part done in order to offend them. So what? Do we have a responsibility not to offend? No, why should we?

 

[kabbes]

Just because I support somebody's right to say something, doesn't mean that I want to repeat what they said.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

But.... before wading in....I'm a little uncertain about a couple of your points in the OP. You say in the first para that the cartoons are generally accepted as the 'catalyst' for the shootings, but then in the second go on to describe such causality as false. Which of those positions do you take?

I didn't mean to imply that the cartoons were not the reason for the attack, they undoubtedly were. What I meant is that the attackers weren't thinking "once we've shot all these cartoonists, nobody will ever dare to make another cartoon of Mohammed."

And do you really believe that the magazine published such content to "deliberately try(ing) to offend a large number of entirely innocent people simply because they share a religion.."?

No; the subject of that sentence was meant to be 'us', the freedom-of-speech loving Westerners posting Charlie Hebdo and other cartoons across the internet because "solidarity". Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

I don't think people have a right not to be offended. Nor that people should have a responsibility to be sensible or constructive or sensitive. The Mohammad cartoons perfectly illustrate that, imo. There are people who follow a particular belief system who insist that Mohammad is special and should never be represented nor ridiculed. Well, what is there about their opinion that means everyone else should abide by their rules on the matter? Nothing, really. They will be offended by such cartoons, and the cartoons are at least in part done in order to offend them. So what? Do we have a responsibility not to offend? No, why should we?

Do we have a responsibility to prevent people saying racist things? This board thinks we do, and racism isn't tolerated here (which I think I disagree with, but I'm never sure tbh).