Charlie Hebdo massacre and the West's response

[butchersapron]

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.."?

There also seems to be an implicit assumption that a) the vast majority of muslims were/are offended by Charlie Hebdo style cartoons and b) that as a result, rather than just ignoring them, they would want them stopped somehow. I'm not sure either are straightforwardly true. But there's also the suggestion that many muslims would be 'fine'with the cartoons being circulated - which sort of undermines the idea that they will offend across the board - and if they don't offend across the board (leaving aside if offence is enough to not do it) then why prioritise one view over another? On what grounds?

 

[butchersapron]

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

But you might in certain circumstances?

 

[YouSir]

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).

This board is this board, it's never been a wholly free and open forum. I doubt many here would call for legal censorship in general though. Not until you get to the point where the Right is using it as a strong adjunct to other activities at least, but that's a different argument really.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

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?

Surely that applies to absolutely everything you might do, though? I choose not to go around naked, or shout obscenities in the street, because I don't want to upset anyone. Similarly, I don't make mocking comments about God or Jesus in front of my grandmother because I don't want to offend her. What is so wrong with extending that courtesy to any Muslims that might be offended (or some other less loaded word) by me sticking a cartoon of Mohammed on social media?

 

[Mr Moose]

You can stay true to the definition by noting that Islamic Fundamentalism is an affliction whose absurd notions, such as the need to kill people for the merest perceived slights, deserves mocking.

Many people throughout the world, other Muslims, Kurds, and many others are 'afflicted'. Maybe standing up to it does offer 'comfort' more than it offends.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

This board is this board, it's never been a wholly free and open forum. I doubt many here would call for legal censorship in general though. Not until you get to the point where the Right is using it as a strong adjunct to other activities at least, but that's a different argument really.

Fair enough. I always thought the 'no platform for racists' argument meant that people thought that racist opinions shouldn't be allowed to be expressed anywhere.

 

[JTG]

Fair enough. I always thought the 'no platform for racists' argument meant that people thought that racist opinions shouldn't be allowed to be expressed anywhere.

More that we shouldn't enable those views to be expressed if we can help it

 

[kabbes]

But you might in certain circumstances?

Yes, but this isn't one of them.

It's not even so much about whether or not they are offensive. It's about the message I think it sends. It's a blunt tool, is copying and pasting a picture. An individual might post it thinking that they are making a point about free speech. But their doing so might be interpreted by others -- particularly those who think they the world now hates them just because of a shared faith -- as being aggressive and provocative. It could easily be interpreted (particularly by those who don't know me) as blanket hate against the whole religion, of the style that we are now seeing in repeated postings even on this board.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

There also seems to be an implicit assumption that a) the vast majority of muslims were/are offended by Charlie Hebdo style cartoons and b) that as a result, rather than just ignoring them, they would want them stopped somehow. I'm not sure either are straightforwardly true. But there's also the suggestion that many muslims would be 'fine'with the cartoons being circulated - which sort of undermines the idea that they will offend across the board - and if they don't offend across the board (leaving aside if offence is enough to not do it) then why prioritise one view over another? On what grounds?

I wasn't making any assumptions apart from that "some" Muslims (out of the 1.6 billion) will find the cartoons offensive. Obviously there's a range of responses from "don't care at all" through to "willing to kill cartoonists for Allah", and I'm sure (or at least fervently hope) that the vast majority of Muslims are either at or very near to the former view.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Surely that applies to absolutely everything you might do, though? I choose not to go around naked, or shout obscenities in the street, because I don't want to upset anyone. Similarly, I don't make mocking comments about God or Jesus in front of my grandmother because I don't want to offend her. What is so wrong with extending that courtesy to any Muslims that might be offended (or some other less loaded word) by me sticking a cartoon of Mohammed on social media?

Nothing wrong with not offending. But that's very different from saying 'you mustn't do it either'.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

More that we shouldn't enable those views to be expressed if we can help it

Yes. I guess I feel like that about the cartoons of Muhammad. I wouldn't want there to be a law against publishing them, but I personally think it's disgraceful and should be frowned upon.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes. I guess I feel like that about the cartoons of Muhammad. I wouldn't want there to be a law against publishing them, but I personally think it's disgraceful and should be frowned upon.

what about poems and illustrations in a uk-based publication about a gay centurion's love for christ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes. I guess I feel like that about the cartoons of Muhammad. I wouldn't want there to be a law against publishing them, but I personally think it's disgraceful and should be frowned upon.

It would be absurd for there to be a law against publishing them, particularly in a secular country like France. Muhammad and his legacy do not belong to Muslims. It's much the same as the argument used against Christian blasphemy laws in the UK - Mary Whitehouse and others attempted to enforce a rule that essentially said 'Jesus is ours - keep off.'

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, but this isn't one of them.

It's not even so much about whether or not they are offensive. It's about the message I think it sends. It's a blunt tool, is copying and pasting a picture. An individual might post it thinking that they are making a point about free speech. But their doing so might be interpreted by others -- particularly those who think they the world now hates them just because of a shared faith -- as being aggressive and provocative. It could easily be interpreted (particularly by those who don't know me) as blanket hate against the whole religion, of the style that we are now seeing in repeated postings even on this board.

Well, you could, as many others have done, make clear that it's a defence of the right to produce that content rather than the content itself (and this is why it's the phrase je suis charlie rather than the cartoons which have seen more action i think) - and if those same people you're worried about still object then you tippy toeing around them will have come to naught.

 

[butchersapron]

I wasn't making any assumptions apart from that "some" Muslims (out of the 1.6 billion) will find the cartoons offensive. Obviously there's a range of responses from "don't care at all" through to "willing to kill cartoonists for Allah", and I'm sure (or at least fervently hope) that the vast majority of Muslims are either at or very near to the former view.

So then why should the views of those offended take priority? And why only muslims?

 

[Nancy_Winks]

what about poems and illustrations in a uk-based publication about a gay centurion's love for christ?

You know what, there's a significant difference between a culture pointing and mocking and challenging it's own faith and doing the same to anothers.

 

[Pickman's model]

You know what, there's a significant difference between a culture pointing and mocking and challenging it's own faith and doing the same to anothers.

oh dear. so we're all christians, is that what you're saying? you really think that france is a wholly xian country? get back to your right-wing rags.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You know what, there's a significant difference between a culture pointing and mocking and challenging it's own faith and doing the same to anothers.

What is the 'own faith' of France. It is a strictly secular state with something like 4 million professed Muslims. Surely Islam is one of French culture's faiths.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

So then why should the views of those offended take priority?

For the same reason that despite many people not caring about swearing in the street, I avoid doing it so as not to offend those who do care.

And why only muslims?

Because that's what we're talking about?

 

[brogdale]

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."


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.

Thanks for the response.

OK, so you think that the publication of the cartoons did motivate yesterday's attack...but you're certain that the intention was definitely not to dissuade other satirists form doing so?

 

[Nancy_Winks]

What is the 'own faith' of France. It is a strictly secular state with something like 4 million professed Muslims. Surely Islam is one of French culture's faiths.

Genuinely don't know. Doesn't seem like that to me. Seems like a society based on a very long history of Christianity, with churches not mosques in every town. And a Muslim population of the size it is now, which is relatively new.

 

[Pickman's model]

For the same reason that despite many people not caring about swearing in the street, I avoid doing it so as not to offend those who do care.

newsflash: it is unlikely anyone is interested enough in what you're saying on the street to listen to you.

 

[Pickman's model]

Genuinely don't know. Doesn't seem like that to me. Seems like a society based on a very long history of Christianity, with churches not mosques in every town. And a Muslim population of the size it is now, which is relatively new.

if you genuinely don't know perhaps you shouldn't make ignorant sweeping statements about them then.

e2a: and what about jews, who have a long history in france, or atheists (ditto) etc etc?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

oh dear. so we're all christians, is that what you're saying? you really think that france is a wholly xian country? get back to your right-wing rags.

imo this is exactly the thing that needs guarding against in the response. It was Nigel Farage's line last night that somehow Europe comprises 'Christian nations'. TIme to stand up for secularism here. Muslim French are French too.

 

[butchersapron]

For the same reason that despite many people not caring about swearing in the street, I avoid doing it so as not to offend those who do care.

Because that's what we're talking about?

Not really comparable - your example is of a a public shared place that people must pass through. Peoples facebook pages aren't. A bit like comparing what's posted on here to what goes on in the streets.

I'm not - and i don't think anyone else should really be either. Not exclusively.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

if you genuinely don't know perhaps you shouldn't make ignorant sweeping statements about them then.

e2a: and what about jews, who have a long history in france, or atheists (ditto) etc etc?

Cos it took me a minute to google?!

A study by the CSA Instituteconducted in 2003 with a sample of 18,000 people found that 27% considered themselves atheists, and 65.3% Roman Catholic, while 12.7% (8,065,000 people) belonged to some other religion.

There are an estimated 5 million Muslims,[108] one million Protestants, 600,000 Buddhists, 491,000 Jews,[109] and 150,000 Orthodox Christians as of 2000 figures[citation needed]. The US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004 .[110] estimated the French Hindu population at 181,312.

 

[brogdale]

Yes. I guess I feel like that about the cartoons of Muhammad. I wouldn't want there to be a law against publishing them, but I personally think it's disgraceful and should be frowned upon.

Really?
Mocking the absurdity of supernatural belief systems should be frowned upon?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Genuinely don't know. Doesn't seem like that to me. Seems like a society based on a very long history of Christianity, with churches not mosques in every town. And a Muslim population of the size it is now, which is relatively new.

The current society is based on a very clear, constitutionally enshrined secularism. A 1905 law formally enshrined the separation of the state from any church.

 

[Pickman's model]

Cos it took me a minute to google?!

you may in future prefer to find things out before instead of after posting.

 

[Pickman's model]

Really?
Mocking the absurdity of supernatural belief systems should be frowned upon?

it should be encouraged. if god really is on their side it shouldn't bother them.