Firebomb attack on French magazine "Charlie Hebdo"

"100 lashes if you don't die of laughter"

brilliant. I love it.

Brilliant? They made his head look like a dick. I could have come up with that as a twelve-year-old.

Which is, in fact, not what I'm saying. I'm saying they published the image for no other reason than to provoke a reaction. Surprise doesn't enter into it. They not only expected it to be met with an extreme reaction- an extreme reaction was their intent. Though, to be honest, I doubt they anticipated quite the form that reaction would take.

I just wanted to take a second to point something out here, only because constitution protection was brought up. Yes, in the US the WBC was protected to do what they had planned to do under the US constitution. But acts like that wouldn't be covered under every countries free speech laws/constitution if it had happened outside of the US; in fact what the WBC did would be illegal here. This is also why think there is so much debate on this topic as far as was it ok for the magazine to publish it in the first place (in regards to cultural differences and attitudes on said topic).

Some countries, like here in Canada, don't have "free speech;" we do have laws against hate speech. Granted they aren't used that much, but they do get used. It's been used in a case exactly like this one actually, gay bashing cases, even taking a child out of a home of neo-nazi's. The laws are there to protect people, not to restrict others (and they work both ways).

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think that the difference in mentality in regards to free speech might be the reason why some people don't find it an issue and others do. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, just that there are differences.


Personally I think the reaction to cartoon is unjustified, but at the same time I wouldn't burn a cross in the middle of a church and expect the congregation to welcome me with open arms either. (I would expect to be put in jail here though).

in case anyone cares

* link *

I'll take parody over violence any day. extremist _anything_ deserves equally extreme parody in my book

I hope your creative/humorous side wasn't limited to your 7th grade art class

Sorry, I was using that as a jump off for my culture differences/attitudes point.

I know why you said it

Well, don't get me wrong; I find little to no fault with what the magazine did. I think part of the point of "only printing to get a reaction" (per Bill_the_Cat's completely accurate assessment) is to show other people that the person or group being lampooned will, in fact, react that way. Yes, it "targets" so-called mainstream, "progressive" or moderate Muslims (which is yet another tangent unto itself) and yes, it is a jape with the express foreknowledge that the over-reaction is likely coming, but the purpose served is to underscore the inappropriate way in which religious belief can cause some people to react to situations or statements.

Like Spock asked: "Why does God need a starship?" In much the same vein, why would God need humans to get offended by images that other humans have made? Extremist religious views tend to always have that problem. The fear seems to be that, if human proponents are not somehow "strong" or "willful" enough in their reactions, that the deity in question--despite omnipotence or nigh omnipotence--will somehow fade out of existence.

PS: Another way in which I would not like to be misunderstood is that I don't necessarily think making somebody's head look like a dick isn't funny; it's just going to be difficult for me to ever call such a thing "brilliant."

I can see your point, I spent the summer in the UK and picked up that little colloquialism...

also I live in California and say "awesome" like every five minutes though I'm not often actually stricken with any real awe. that said, I think burlesquing extremists is awesome

That, to me, is not only a valid form of expression, it's a valuable form of expression. It serves to keep a free society honest about its freedom.

To me, there is only one reason to bring up the negative aspects of an act like this: to consider, for the future, the effect publishing it might have on one's personal safety. Anything outside that, including looking at past acts, diminishes the oppressing violence. If someone says "I don't agree with what Timothy McVeigh did, but he did have a point about Waco", it's very difficult to see that as anything but a partial apology for the Oklahoma City bombing. Similarly, to say "I don't agree with firebombing Charlie Hebdo, but man those guys are racist pricks" is to some degree apologize for the firebombing.

You want to say that there is a lot of anti-Muslim prejudice in France? I'll agree with you. But saying that as a response to another instance in the pattern of violence against those who publish images of Mohammed, or who speak out against Islam? That carries very strong connotations.

How about saying "The people who firebombed Charlie Hebdo are violent, irrational turds and Charlie Hebdo were acting like xenophobic pricks"? Neither of those observations is, nor needs to be, a qualifier for the other.

I used to bait my older brother until he hit me and then he'd get in big trouble. he never managed to just have thick enough skin to ignore me so it pretty much always worked. it was totally worth it for me to get punched because his consequences were 10x worse and it always drew tons of attention to what an unreasonable, self absorbed, reactionary humorless asshole he was... by comparison my bullying was 'harmless' even though I was just doing it to be a jerk. I'm not justifying my behavior as an 8 year old, I was a little shit, I'm simply pointing out that if he didn't overreact (violently) every time I probably wouldn't have done it anymore, and had he just chilled out and found a clever way to subtly expose me without being a blatant whiney snitch I surely would have been the one getting in trouble instead

might I point out we were acting like children

The problem I have with this is that no xenophobic act is required to provoke a violent response. The girl who started the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"--who drew Mohammed as a teacup--is now in hiding under a new identity, which she had to pay for herself. And of course there's Salman Rushdie, who was the subject of a fatwa for the capital crime of delving into Islamic apocrypha.

The two sets of prejudices--France's against Muslims, and many Muslims against anyone who publishes anything that can be construed as blaspheming against Islam--are not proportionate. Not just in terms of the acts they spawn, but in size. In volume. This is the proverbial plank and mote, here. If you want to shake your finger at France for espousing such prejudice, I'll shake my finger right along beside you. But the other problem is much worse and much larger, and I'm leery of presenting them on opposite sides of an "and", as if they somehow balance out.

No. Not proportional by any stretch of the imagination.

This is exactly why I was uncomfortable with the strong support they received from some posters in this thread.

Charlie Hebdo, and other European publications which have caused similar controversies in recent years, could choose to test the limits of free speech by defying laws against Holocaust revisionism, republishing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, giving the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan a guest column, publishing a Rape Humor Issue, etc. But they're not doing any of those things; they're just poking Muslims with a stick over and over again. I think that's a pretty clear indicator of what this is really all about, and it's why my sympathies don't lie with them.

Next cover. Caption is "Love is stronger than hate."

I think this one is kind of cute.

Now this is interesting. Is it xenophobic to mock homophobia?