[Closed] Charlie Hebdo at it again....

Ooof. I'm not sure that machine gunning them is the right thing to do, but that is near the knuckle.

The original photo was shocking enough. If they wanted to make a point then the best thing to do would have been to reprint it without any annotation.

Bad taste maybe but not as bad taste as wishing someone to be gunned down in cold murder.

The cartoons are not mocking the dead child.

what MSP said - I don't think they mean what people think they do.

The cartoons are not mocking the dead child.

I didn't think they were either. Mind you I'm not sure what their point is exactly.

That's the trouble with publications like charly hebdo - a lot of people just react rather than understanding their point

probably will get them some unwelcome attention though, hopefully not the same as last time

[i]Mind you I'm not sure what the point is exactly either. [/i]

The first one, maybe the vacuity of European life and culture and is it worth risking your childs life to reach?

I'm not wishing anyone to be gunned down...but going off the last time they insulted the muslim world...some nutcases decided to do just that. All I'm saying is that you would have thought they would have learnt from the last time that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed even if it is supposed to be satirical...if they havent learnt and decide that they need to further insult the muslim world and the family of that popr boy...then they inly have themselves to blame if some other nutcases come and carry out a repeat of last time
I dont agree with what happened last time but neither do i agree with insulting racial and religious hatred being spouted by such publications whilst hiding behind a thin excuse that its satire...

Good Lord! That's not mocking the poor boy. It's tough to look at, but I think it is about the stark contrast between a sort of decadent affluence, and the losses that have been suffered to reach it.

To be honest, I think Charlie Hebdo, filled as it is with left-of-centre intelligencia/artistic-types is highly unlikely to take the piss out of a dead child, especially in light of their own horrible losses.

of course their at it again, its their thing, hardly a surprise

these jackasses

Eh? You don't think they're allowed a voice, an opinion, a comment?

Long live free speech is what I say, and a reduction in limited views..

...and that's the whole point of the Charlie Hebdo brand of satire. They want to challenge you to see beyond the obvious. You can certainly argue that this is insensitive but in this case, it's our reaction that is being mocked, not the migrants/refugees/Aylan.

They aren't satirising a dead child they are satirising the situation that created a dead child. Pretty valid IMO and well done to them.

The photo in the paper seemed to stir a few people into action and bring the issues to a wider public but kids are still dying, the subject hasn't gone away.

I'm not wishing anyone to be gunned down.

Ah! Sorry. You just think they deserve it. Well that's a lot better then.

.some nutcases

Exactly. Nutcase they could be from any background and triggered from anything they decide to 'mock'.

Still don't think they deserve to be gunned down though.

MSP is right the critics are missing the target here spectacularly.

The cartoon features Aylan lying face down on the sand near a publicity board of a 2-for-1 McDonald Happy Meal saying what translates into: “Two menus of children for the price of one.”

That's the trouble with publications like charly hebdo - a lot of people just react rather than understanding their point

Eh? You don't think they're allowed a voice, an opinion, a comment?

So Eh? You don't think they're allowed a voice, an opinion, a comment?

Entitled “The Proof that Europe is Christian,” the cartoon shows the little child drowning in the waters. On the left side, a man, supposedly Jesus, stands on the water while saying “Christians walk on waters… Muslims kids sink

I'm with MSP, both cartoons are 100pc sympathetic, and not mocking the lad at all. Someone's misunderstood, probably deliberatly.

“Two menus of children for the price of one.”

the critics are missing the target here spectacularly

Never mind that! All aboard the outrage bus!

It seems to be willfully vague to me, could be look how our shallow consumerism lured the poor boy to his death or is it suggesting they are economic migrants and whether a big mac is worth dying for when the reality is anything better than being barrel bombed or 3 years in a refugee camp.

I'm reminded of the tabloid reaction to Brass Eye's paedophilia special which was, all at the same time, infuriating, stupid, inevitable, and the perfect denouement for the whole thing.

I'm glad it's offensive. That's their shtick. It's the only French topical political cartooning getting discussed on stw today, or ever. And in a few posts people are discussing the heavy, heavy issues.

Brilliant. Oh, and they know they're risking morons with machine guns murdering then, and they've got a pretty real grasp on what that looks like. Brilliant, and courageous.

I think they're taking the mick out of the attitude some of the west have; that these people are coming over for a holiday, not to escape cruel hardships. Remember all those newspaper stories about how refugees are coming here for the luxuries (like, er a theme park for example)? They're mocking US not the tragic child.

To say we should learn our lessons from terrorists and change how we act is a little retarded and more than a little un-English, if I may say so. Up Charlie! And may we all think a little harder before choosing to be offended.

I'm with MSP, both cartoons are 100pc sympathetic, and not mocking the lad at all. Someone's misunderstood, probably deliberatly.

I don't know about deliberately, it wouldn't surprise me that a Moroccan news outlet could miss the intention of the message. I am a little more surprised that someone from a European background could.

But then again I agree with junkyard find CH make their point in a really poor way that is cheap tacky and crass, but I still think their intention isn't hard to spot.

Still don't think they deserve to be gunned down though

I never said they deserved to be gunned down
I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this...if the reaction is a violent ine the yes it should be condemned
And there lies the problem...it could have been avoided if they had shown a bit more respect and sensitivity

It is clumsy and crude though and draws more attention the Charlie Hebdo than it does to the plight of the poor souls involved.

And all so dad could have new teeth...

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this

No. People shouldn't gun down other humans.

And there lies the problem...it could have been avoided if they had shown a bit more respect and sensitivity

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this.

Rubbish! It is never you to blame if someone responds to a cartoon with guns.

[img] [/img]

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this...if the reaction is a violent ine the yes it should be condemned

If some ultra-insulted, religious zealot numbskulls decide to go on another shooty trip then I hope there's somebody waiting for them.

I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this

Its one of those
try walking down the street and insulting people as horribly and offensively as you can and see what happens. Its obvious what will happen

Stating what will happen when you behave in certain way is not condoning what will happen

EDIT:

It is never you to blame if someone responds to a cartoon with guns.

the consequences are somewhat predictable.

* I dont even know what that would mean in this context do we really have the right to be offensive and tbh I cannot be bothered doing this no one has the right to be not offended v no one has the right just to be offensive again

Gonzy you almost word for word quote with approval the line of the Islamist "insult my faith and it is your fault if a kill you " personally I have no respect or sensitivity for the nutter who murders to protect his belief from satire.

No. People shouldn't gun down other humans

Middle lane hoggers?

To be honest (and a little bit cold), I think it pretty poor work. The original photo was so strong, that's the best they could with it? A pretty ambiguous commentary, not very hard hitting or edgy. I'm not even sure it makes sense. Clearly they lost their finer minds in the shooting if this the best they can do with such a ripe bit of material.

I saw something I didn't understand. The content was challenging and it wasn't spelled out for me how I should react. It made me angry. I am offended.

I saw something I didn't understand. It made me "stupid". I am offended.

yes if you poke the lion it will eat you, we arent animals and live and abide by laws of the country apparently. Although some try to justify their actions through their beliefs but ultimately are just doing it for themselves.
I'm watched the documentary about Farkunda ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33810338 ) . Make of it what you will but I felt shocked and ill at the injustice and inequality of it all.

The first cartoon (Mcdonalds one) seems to be a poke at western consumerism more than at syrian refugees. Horrible, but I don't see that it's mocking Aylan Kurdi.

The second one is just awful. Not something to be machine gunned over, but I wouldn't mind seeing them get a reasonable kicking in the street over it tbh. I can't understand why anyone would think that's alright to publish. "Because free speech", no, piss off, free speech gives you the right to be a ****, it doesn't justify you being a ****, or excuse the fact that you're a ****. It certainly doesn't mean that we should celebrate that you were a ****.

I couldn't give a monkeys if the intention was to mock or to make a serious point about the handling of the refugee crisis, I think the use of Aylan's haunting image was quite frankly tasteless. And claiming that it's only "satire" doesn't make it any more acceptable imo.

Charlie Hebdo - what a load of shite. Being controversial just for the sake of it without being witty, funny or clever.

The second one is just awful.

Well it certainly doesn't give the impression that artist is primarily motivated by a genuine concern for muslim refugees.

Perhaps the BNP and EDL have missed a trick in not employing more cartoonists?

Je suis Charlie, to understand the cartoons you need to have a certain degree of intelligence and understanding. If it is perceived as an insult, then the whole point has been missed by a lack of understanding on your part. This is the problem with the entire population of the World, a lack of understanding. I don't understand how people can believe in God, however, I don't feel the need to kill everybody that does. How long would I be able to walk around free, if I killed everyone that I felt had insulted me?

Gonzy you almost word for word quote with approval the line of the Islamist "insult my faith and it is your fault if a kill you " personally I have no respect or sensitivity for the nutter who murders to protect his belief from satire.

stavromuller - Member

Je suis Charlie, to understand the cartoons you need to have a certain degree of intelligence and understanding. If it is perceived as an insult, then the whole point has been missed by a lack of understanding on your part.

Oh go on then, enlighten us on the second cartoon.

I took it to be questioning why Europeans think we have a right to be better than everyone else. Like Canute, we don't float.

Edit: Turns out I prefer the interpretation below.

It's mocking the belief that any religion has a superiority over another.

Ah, the 'you're ignorant/uneducated' argument. I'm not insulted, nor offended, I understand it, I just think it's a bit shit and they could have done better.

Oh go on then, enlighten us on the second cartoon.

to understand the cartoons you need to have a certain degree of intelligence and understanding. If it is perceived as an insult, then the whole point has been missed by a lack of understanding on your part.

I suspect that it might be you who has missed 'the whole point'.

Unless of course the intention wasn't to deliberately cause a reaction, what do you think the chances of that are?

Do you think those responsible are shocked and completely surprised that it's caused a hostile reaction?

Tell me, as someone with "a certain degree of intelligence".

I thought it was a fake?

https://twitter.com/MerwaneMeh/status/642629506478514176

Fake? I do wish I hadn't posted a sentential and pretentious interpretation of it. 🙁

Do you think our "Dear Leader" would have done an about face on the refugee situation without the image of "the boy on the beach". All I'm saying, is that the interpretation of anything is dependent on your understanding. I'm not responsible for how you understanding of anything.

[quote=gonzy ]I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this

Ah, in the same way that if you ride on the road not the cyclepath and get run over by a car you have only yourself to blame? Or in the same way that if a woman goes out in a short skirt and gets raped she has only herself to blame.

As for the cartoons, I can see the point they're making with both of them - which isn't to insult muslims, not at all. But TBH they're a bit shit and rather tasteless - I support the right of Charlie to publish cartoons like that, but I wouldn't be buying a publication with those in.

edit: oh, but Charlie didn't publish those? So somebody is busy stirring up trouble for them!

Among others the Independent, Huffington Post, and the Times of Israel, are reporting it, between them you would imagine that someone might have got hold of a copy. You would also expect Charlie Hebdo to issue a statement if it was fake. I can't see any reports of that.

I'm not wishing anyone to be gunned down...but going off the last time they insulted the muslim world...some nutcases decided to do just that. All I'm saying is that you would have thought they would have learnt from the last time that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed even if it is supposed to be satirical..

[img] [/img]

Ah, in the same way that if you ride on the road not the cyclepath and get run over by a car you have only yourself to blame? Or in the same way that if a woman goes out in a short skirt and gets raped she has only herself to blame.

in the way if you go up to ever couple and say **** me your wife is butt ugly you will get hit by some of them.

that sort of thing. Predictable consequences dependent on your behaviour but not at all desirable or good or something one could condone, a bit like the behaviour that caused it.

I'm not responsible for how you understanding of anything.

I don't think you intelligent as think you are.

The thing is JY, that isn't at all similar to what they are saying.*

* if that is actually what they are saying

or perhaps they just make their point in a really poor way that is cheap tacky and crass

If you had published a cartoon that week of them burying their dead colleagues while imagining the increased sales of the next issue, I think they'd have applauded you

[quote=scaredypants ]If you had published a cartoon that week of them burying their dead colleagues while imagining the increased sales of the next issue, I think they'd have applauded you

If only there was another CH - that's exactly what they would have published.

Not going to comment on the first cartoon as such a shit transliteration is never going to make sense.

The second though, I get. As christians* we get to travel hin and yonder, doors open or if they don't we can at least get to them without having to risk life and limb before being safely taken to the side. Muslims? Well you only need to look at the news to see how they get on.

*or at least being of a part of the world & social strata that predominantly identifies itself as such.

You would have thought these jackasses would have learnt something from the past experience....but no...
They're plunging to an all time low with this one....if they sugfer a repeat of 8 months ago...I'm sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this...

Yes.. it should be known that mocking a silly religion should result in murder.

I'm guessing you're a believer in silly made up stories and you can understand how people decided to murder those people.. am I right?

Schweiz - Member
...and that's the whole point of the Charlie Hebdo brand of satire. They want to challenge you to see beyond the obvious. You can certainly argue that this is insensitive but in this case, it's our reaction that is being mocked, not the migrants/refugees/Aylan.

POSTED 3 HOURS AGO #

If Carlsberg did pretentious claptrap

@gonzy, I just asked my French wife about the cartoon (she is no fan of the magazine btw). It is not mocking the child, it is saying he was so close to his objective of a life in the west (symbolised by McDonalds kids meals) but yet so far.

On a serious note I wonder how many people are going to get wound up by this who don't actually have the first clue as to what the cartoon is about. The Moroccans generally speak good enough French to understand the cartons onto publish that piece is deliberately provocative. The second carton as I understand jt is mocking the Christian story that Jesus could walk on water. Charlie Ebdo has a long history of mocking all religions.

OP I do feel compelled to respond to a couple of points in your first post, Charlie Ebdo has said they won't draw Mohammed again (after the cover following the attack) as it won't achieve anything. Those that where murdered can't learn any lessons as they are dead. One thing the attack did is cement the furniture of the magazine which like most print publications was suffering, the hugely successful memorial edition raised around €5m which was distributed to the families of the dead staff, the magazine now has its highest levels of subscriptions in decades and €10m in the bank. There are no laws against drawing Mohammed in most countries in the world so to do so is perfectly legitimate. Far from "learning a lesson" the Charlie Ebdo incident brought people together to defend the right to do whatever is legal in terms of freedom of expression.

No in the way that is you walk up to every fat person you see...

Is there not a difference between satirising an idea and attacking a person? I'm sure Gonzy would agree with you there.

On a serious note I wonder how many people are going to get wound up by this who don't actually have the first clue as to what the cartoon is about.

+1

I get the cartoons (although they're hardly great, more of a shock factor than a clever message), but as soon as I saw them I knew that many won't see past the images themselves. This sort of thing only works when you are able to look at it objectively IMO...those who feel closer to the persecuted side of the cartoon may (not unreasonably) struggle to remain objective enough to see the underlying message.

a bit like those 3d steroegrams .. some see them some never see them no matter how hard they try

a bit like those 3d steroegrams .. some see them some never see them no matter how hard they try

And a bit like those 3D stereograms often when you do get it you think 'well that was a bit shit, I must have missed something', but no that was all there was. Especially the first one (especially when you remember that the little lad wasn't washed up at his destination in the EU and western Europe).

The 2nd one requires the reader understanding that Charlie Hebdo, although a French rag, is not written from a pro Christian context. I can easily see how if you came from other cultures it could easily be assumed that a french magazine would support the default national religion as that is what some many would be used to.

The question is, do we want all comment and satire to be at a level where everyone, however thick, bigoted or determined to take offence, cannot take exception?

I'd say a rather big "no". But obviously the OP doesn't see that it is western values in the first cartoon, and assumptions of inferiority of Islam in the second that are being criticised. There is an argument that the child's image is being used "too soon", but on the other hand it took the using of that image to bring about a worldwide reaction to actually do the right thing, which we all should have done months ago.

Look at how bad our satirical news coverage is in the UK. In the US they have the Daily Show, John Oliver, and until recently, Colbert. We have, mock the week... We need a Charlie Hebdo, rather than a smug establishment organ like Private Eye.

The question is, do we want all comment and satire to be at a level where everyone, however thick, bigoted or determined to take offence, cannot take exception?

Thanks for clarifying that up

I really dont think it is helpful to , as so many of the supporters of these are doing, to suggest that anyone who finds charlie hebdo to be crass, offensive, blunt, abrasive and a bit shit is thick.

Dont shoot the messenger win them over with your supreme intelligence

if you clever folk simplify it enough we might just get it..perhaps you could draw us a cartoon picture to help 😉 🙄

I don't think anyone has ever drawn a political cartoon that is funny so I don't think we can complain about how witty it is. In terms of offensive,crass, etc I'd hate to think that my moral compass is the global standard. Boundaries should be pushed and there will be things that some people find offensive. In this case I think these cartoons make a pretty valid point an I suspect one of the motivations was to get people talking about an important subject that has dropped out of the headlines so I applaud them for that. If it offends you then so be it. You don't have a right to not be offended and I'm sure there are plenty of things that you think are fine that offend others.
[img] [/img]

Junkyard whined » we insult those who disagree with us

It's weird you take umbrage at that...

😛

[b]JY [/b]- read my post again - at which, ironically, you seem determined to take offense. It doesn't say [b]everyone [/b]who doesn't get the Cartoons is any of those things. Just that the OP is talking about a situation where he thinks a certain sector of the population will take offense...

[b]nickjb[/b] has it on the nail. There is no right not to be offended.

Yes.. it should be known that mocking a silly religion should result in murder.

I'm guessing you're a believer in silly made up stories and you can understand how people decided to murder those people.. am I right?

and what if i am...what is your point here? what if i wasnt and i was christian, jewish or hindu and i had made the same comment?

i take it you're one of those islamopohobes who thinks we have muslamic ray guns?

@gonzy, I just asked my French wife about the cartoon (she is no fan of the magazine btw). It is not mocking the child, it is saying he was so close to his objective of a life in the west (symbolised by McDonalds kids meals) but yet so far.

On a serious note I wonder how many people are going to get wound up by this who don't actually have the first clue as to what the cartoon is about. The Moroccans generally speak good enough French to understand the cartons onto publish that piece is deliberately provocative. The second carton as I understand jt is mocking the Christian story that Jesus could walk on water. Charlie Ebdo has a long history of mocking all religions.

not everyone is going to get that though, even if they do speak french. most people wont get past the visual impact of the image and the text used.
i think the following sums up what i am trying to get at...

I get the cartoons (although they're hardly great, more of a shock factor than a clever message), but as soon as I saw them I knew that many won't see past the images themselves. This sort of thing only works when you are able to look at it objectively IMO...those who feel closer to the persecuted side of the cartoon may (not unreasonably) struggle to remain objective enough to see the underlying message.

OP I do feel compelled to respond to a couple of points in your first post, Charlie Ebdo has said they won't draw Mohammed again (after the cover following the attack) as it won't achieve anything. Those that where murdered can't learn any lessons as they are dead. One thing the attack did is cement the furniture of the magazine which like most print publications was suffering, the hugely successful memorial edition raised around €5m which was distributed to the families of the dead staff, the magazine now has its highest levels of subscriptions in decades and €10m in the bank. There are no laws against drawing Mohammed in most countries in the world so to do so is perfectly legitimate. Far from "learning a lesson" the Charlie Ebdo incident brought people together to defend the right to do whatever is legal in terms of freedom of expression.

Is there not a difference between satirising an idea and attacking a person? I'm sure Gonzy would agree with you there.

No - it wasn't insulting someone - it wasn't objectively wrong - one group of people thought it was wrong but that doesn't make it so. And the analogy of going upto someone in the street and telling them they were fat was a poor one.

We need to work on stopping people from punching people in the face when words or pictures or thoughts upset them, and get them to respone with words, with cartoons, with arguments. We shouldn't cave to their sensitivities, or yours.