Charlie Hebdo Champion of free speech or anti-muslim?

[goonersid]

Whilst not condoning the terrible events at the magazines headquarters, I do dispute the integrity of Charlie Hebdo, their image as champions free speech and the associated hypocrisy of the media, other religious organisations and politicians.
Muslims consider the production of any image of Mohammed in any guise or format as disrespectful, so why is it considered acceptable for this magazine to disrespect that? And could this be considered as racist or anti-muslim journalism?
After all you can’t even mutter the y** word without being accused of being anti-semitic. Or is it simply acceptable to the political, religious and media world to mock Islam, because of the actions of a few fanatics, whereas the politically and financial influential Jewish world must be respected?
The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, once again features an image of Mohammed, so despite the support shown to the victims of the attacks by many Muslims around the world, this magazine feels it necessary to once again disrespect their beliefs, and no doubt take advantage of what will be their biggest ever selling issue. whist once again poking with a stick the small minority of fanatics, like those who carried out the attack.

[OneBardGooner]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... t-muhammad

Does anyone know if they do a CentreFold Pin Up?



May the cowardly scum who murdered these innocent journalists and carttonists - rot in the worst of hells. What gets me is the 'precious' and 'hypocritical' attitude of these extremists who are offended by such publications - They slag off and put down other religions but when it comes to Islam =- it's like 'oh that's the prophet, you are not to say anything we consider detrimental or offensive, if you do we will kill you'...fuckin' bunch of bumhole fucktard cowards.

[OneBardGooner]

ps: Maybe they should really go for it in the next issue and have the prophet riding that minger jordan


too soon?

[goonersid]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... t-muhammad

Does anyone know if they do a CentreFold Pin Up?



May the cowardly scum who murdered these innocent journalists and carttonists - rot in the worst of hells. What gets me is the 'precious' and 'hypocritical' attitude of these extremists who are offended by such publications - They slag off and put down other religions but when it comes to Islam =- it's like 'oh that's the prophet, you are not to say anything we consider detrimental or offensive, if you do we will kill you'...fuckin' bunch of bumhole fucktard cowards.

The thing is it doesn't just offend extremists, but every honest decent practising Muslim, would the French Government be so tolerant towards this publication, were it to portray Jesus Christ as a Promiscuous serial killing homosexual? the outcome is the same, you are disrespecting something that different religions hold dear.
Don't get me wrong all religion is bollocks

[flash gunner]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j ... t-muhammad

Does anyone know if they do a CentreFold Pin Up?



May the cowardly scum who murdered these innocent journalists and carttonists - rot in the worst of hells. What gets me is the 'precious' and 'hypocritical' attitude of these extremists who are offended by such publications - They slag off and put down other religions but when it comes to Islam =- it's like 'oh that's the prophet, you are not to say anything we consider detrimental or offensive, if you do we will kill you'...fuckin' bunch of bumhole fucktard cowards.

The thing is it doesn't just offend extremists, but every honest decent practising Muslim, would the French Government be so tolerant towards this publication, were it to portray Jesus Christ as a Promiscuous serial killing homosexual? the outcome is the same, you are disrespecting something that different religions hold dear.
Don't get me wrong all religion is bollocks

Google back issues of this magazine you'll see loads of cartoons about Jesus, the pope and Jews. No attack has ever happened from these.... Champion of free speech IMO I'm not a church goer but I believe and these pictures do not offend me at all only the barbaric violent Muslim faith get offended to the point killing is acceptable

[Theoperator]

Yeah the problem comes that because most "mainstream" media dont do any pics at all, those that do are hung out to dry, and are "easy pickings" for mad fundamentalists.

TBH its about time that "precious" religions grew up rather than get offended at pics of he who mustnt be pictured.

Religions that cant laugh at themselves need to move on in the world.

[QuartzGooner]

I think that cartoons of Muhammad should not be published.

They just inflame and provoke violence.

From my viewpoint as a Jew, I have criticisms of how Muhammad lived.
He took a Jewish slave as one of his wives.
He also raised armies to attack Jews.

But, in spite of this, from my faith's perspective, Islam is regarded as a genuine religion with a genuine spiritual basis.

Criticisms of individual leaders are fine if based on fact, go ahead and do ones of the Ayatollahs or Abou Abbas etc.

But a cartoon of Muhammad is an attack on Islam, and too general.

Cartoons have been used to inflame opinion and encourage violence, the Nazi caricatures of Jews are well known, and were widely published at the time and are currently still published in the Arab world.
Simply to spread hate.

So it is a thin line, but one that can be trodden carefully and responsibly if the cartoonist so chooses.

[GranadaJoe]

A Stephen Fry quote:

"When people say I have offended them my response is, "So fucking what!!!?

None of us have the right not to be offended, Muslims included.

The prohibition of representations of anything with a 'soul' is not in the Quuran. Like women covering up it is a cultural (control?) thing.
An iman in Iran recently prohibited fathers building snowmen for their children!

If Charlie Hebdo hadn't published an image of Mohammed they would have been caving in to the extremists (just like the spineless British media). Mohammed with a tear in his eye is hardly inflammatory.
In fact I don't think CH have ever attacked Mohammed, only those who use him, and religion in general, as reasons/excuses to repress, kill etc others.

Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death for including in his novel passages from the original Quuran which allowed Muslims to pray to some pagan Gods. What a bastard he was, pointing out something that's true!

Some people are quicker to find offence than others. In the modern world some people seem desperate to find something offensive.

Hundreds of things and people offend me, but I don't think they should be banned or killed.

[QuartzGooner]

Granada

To me, the whole idea of "Being offended" is a misnomer.

I do not hold free speech sacred, because speech carries with it responsibility.

To be constructive and engaging wherever possible.

People will offend me; from time immemorial my identify has been criticised.
But I expect that.

What I work against is efforts to induce violence against me, or others whom I think are being bullied.

[GranadaJoe]

I agree that it would be better if people spoke responsibly, but what if they don't.

People used to be put to death for not believing, or for stopping believing, or for believing something different. In some parts of the world they still do.

Christianity and Judaism have long been subjects of jokes, debate and disagreement and I'm sure for some believers this is offensive, but neither religion now advocates death to the perpetrators. There weren't marches or burning effigies when Charlie Hebdo paraodied those religions, and few suggested that the journalists should be banned or killed.

I believe that the current refusal of most mainstream news organisations to show the latest cartoon is nothing to do with 'not wishing to offend' and everything to do with fear of reprisals.

Fighting passionately for free speech and fighting passionately against people who use it to promote things I disagree with are not mutually exclusive. There have been some articles in CH that I don't like but I still think they should be allowed to offend me. I might not be right all the time.

[goonersid]

Granada

To me, the whole idea of "Being offended" is a misnomer.

I do not hold free speech sacred, because speech carries with it responsibility.

To be constructive and engaging wherever possible.

People will offend me; from time immemorial my identify has been criticised.
But I expect that.

What I work against is efforts to induce violence against me, or others whom I think are being bullied.

Two excellent posts Quartz, hitting the nail on the head as to what I am suggesting. It is perfectly just to portray Islamic murderers as insane or whatever, but the portrayal of Mohammad is a direct attack on someone’s beliefs and an antagonistic act that could be compared to mocking the Holocaust as it serves no purpose other than to offend.

[Rugby Gooner]

Champion of free speech! They shine a satirical light on ALL religions, and political persuasions ,not just islam.
Muslims have murdered people for the "disrespect" of a cartoon, yet do not find it disrespectful to be-head someone in broad daylight on a London street, burn Poppies on Rememberance Day, or march through London carrying placards calling for the killing of "Infidels" and "Kuffars."
They also have little or no respect for people of other religions in muslim countries. Islam has become a political dogma as well as a religion, and it's advocates seem all too ready to exploit the liberal freedoms of the west,(which they see as a weakness),to expound their blinkered ideology.
I do not follow any religion, and believe that no religion should be allowed to dictate the way we live. That is why I think that faith schools should also be immediately banned. In my opinion, children should be taught free from ideology. These schools just segregate people, and allow narrow, and sometimes dangerous viewpoints to be inculcated into young people.

[GranadaJoe]

Granada

To me, the whole idea of "Being offended" is a misnomer.

I do not hold free speech sacred, because speech carries with it responsibility.

To be constructive and engaging wherever possible.

People will offend me; from time immemorial my identify has been criticised.
But I expect that.

What I work against is efforts to induce violence against me, or others whom I think are being bullied.

Two excellent posts Quartz, hitting the nail on the head as to what I am suggesting. It is perfectly just to portray Islamic murderers as insane or whatever, but the portrayal of Mohammad is a direct attack on someone’s beliefs and an antagonistic act that could be compared to mocking the Holocaust as it serves no purpose other than to offend.

I understand your opinión, it's very reasonable, although I disagree that Ch are attacking Islam. imo they're attacking the way some people use Islam.

But what's your point? Do you think Charlie Hebdo should be banned from portraying Mohammed?

[QuartzGooner]

Rugby

I agree that single faith schools keep people separate.

But I think they should be allowed.

They do not have to poison anyone's mind, but exist as a recognition that there are some values and beliefs that are different.

Very tricky to enforce that they are not teaching confrontation, because textbooks can be blatantly racist, as can teachers' lessons.
School inspectors can be sent in, but any teacher could be pragmatic and teach a neutral subject whilst the inspectors are in the classroom.

And even if all pupils of every religion were forced to attend the same schools Monday - Friday in the daytimes, it would be almost impossible to prevent separate faith schools during evenings and weekends.

Granada

I see your point, but Sid and myself honestly believe that if you depict Muhammad then it is impossible not to be a direct attack on Islam itself, because he is the central figure of Islam.
It serves to alienate even the most non-violent Muslims.

Very hard for me to make any comparison for any human being of the Jewish faith as though we do believe there were a tiny handful of people who never sinned, even the most major person for us who was Moses, committed sins (which he repented for) and we are supposed to learn from them. The idea of being able to repent from sin and see the errors of one's ways being very important to us.

Better to encourage some local community based schemes whereby pupils from various schools can meet to discuss things and learn a bit about each others' faiths in a way that is mutually agreed.

[GranadaJoe]

I understand your view that CH shouldn't portray Mohammed, and I'm sure that many people agree with you. However, all our opinions are wishful thinking without action. Do you think that depictions of Mohammed should be banned or not?