Support NeoGAF

[Pennywise83]

I bought two copies this morning (Italy). It was sold with a (shitty) local newspaper for 2 €.

At 8.30 AM, the newspaper stand (a big one) already run out of all copies. I heard the same from other part of the city, and from other cities as well. It's really craziness.

The issue is good. Usual CH with some "nostalgic" and some comics paying homage. The rest is just talking about what happened last week and well, last week we know what happened.

 

[Coreda]

The right to say whatever you want doesn't remove the responsibility for what you say. If I come to you and tell you a very offensive "Your momma..." joke, I have a right to do so, but it's on me to anticipate the incoming punch to my face.

I still can't understand why anyone should expect killings over a cartoon. Ever. Criticism or negative press, sure. Other major religions have both depictions of their gods published and satirized regularly but there aren't killings over it.

Tuned into BBC Radio online and heard a Muslim grocery store owner expressing to the effect Charlie Hebdo got what they had coming, and that "deep down most Muslim's won't feel much remorse over the killings". I couldn't believe what I was hearing. This is clearly not a typical reaction but there are those I've read since these attacks that share a similar sentiment about 'they had it coming' whether or not saying so explicitly.

 

[sobaka770]

Those people can revere their prophet all they like. No one forces them to buy the magazine.

But no publication has any obligation to appease a religion just because they have a lot of members.

That's a very idealistic view of things, I'm fine with that, but what I'm saying is that right now the Muslim community in France is being marginalized and is generally seen as inferior. You can almost equal it to the situation with the black community in USA and Fergusson disaster.

If tomorrow NY Times' main satirist comes out with a satirical cartoon showing a black person being killed by cops with a crude comment, e.g. "They would commit crime anyway", which is insanely offensive, the editorial would obviously not allow it. If it were some obscure right-wing local publication with 60k copies, then you could argue for their right to print such cartoon, but on a USA-wide scale you can't say that black community should just disregard the thing. There would be a justified riot.

Charlie Hebdo is now big for better or for worse. What they print matters, and you cannot ask a community of a single faith or race etc. whose countries are either oppressed or in war, whose faith is constantly under attack, whose people or equivocated with terrorism and probed in every airport to just "take it" for the right of free speech.

Once again, it's nice to be entitled to your rights, but don't forget about the responsibilities that come with them, a lot of people just want the good part. And once again, it's not about justifying the killings.

 

[Pennywise83]

That's a very idealistic view of things, I'm fine with that, but what I'm saying is that right now the Muslim community in France is being marginalized and is generally seen as inferior. You can almost equal it to the situation with the black community in USA and Fergusson disaster.

If tomorrow NY Times' main satirist comes out with a satirical cartoon showing a black person being killed by cops with a crude comment, e.g. "They would commit crime anyway", which is insanely offensive, the editorial would obviously not allow it. If it were some obscure right-wing local publication with 60k copies, then you could argue for their right to print such cartoon, but on a USA-wide scale you can't say that black community should just disregard the thing. There would be a justified riot.

Charlie Hebdo is now big for better or for worse. What they print matters, and you cannot ask a community of a single faith or race etc. whose countries are either oppressed or in war, whose faith is constantly under attack, whose people or equivocated with terrorism and probed in every airport to just "take it" for the right of free speech.

Once again, it's nice to be entitled to your rights, but don't forget about the responsibilities that come with them, a lot of people just want the good part. And once again, it's not about justifying the killings.

1. I see satire on such lines all the time. That's what it is: satire. You can be offended, you can sue the journal, but you cannot deny it to appear.

2. CH is not "right-wing". At all. It's really extreme left-wing, and criticizes everyone, from Hollande to Le Pen, and every kind of religion.

 

[Joni]

If tomorrow NY Times' main satirist comes out with a satirical cartoon showing a black person being killed by cops with a crude comment, e.g. "They would commit crime anyway", which is insanely offensive, the editorial would obviously not allow it. If it were some obscure right-wing local publication with 60k copies, then you could argue for their right to print such cartoon, but on a USA-wide scale you can't say that black community should just disregard the thing. There would be a justified riot.

I think the black community would see that as a justified cartoon. It is what they have been saying: the cops see them all as criminals.

Charlie Hebdo is now big for better or for worse. What they print matters, and you cannot ask a community of a single faith or race etc. whose countries are either oppressed or in war, whose faith is constantly under attack, whose people or equivocated with terrorism and probed in every airport to just "take it" for the right of free speech.

They don't need to just take it. They can ignore it, they can show their disapproval through speech or they can do so through legal means.

Once again, it's nice to be entitled to your rights, but don't forget about the responsibilities that come with them, a lot of people just want the good part. And once again, it's not about justifying the killings.

The responsibility that they can expect violence because they used their free speech?

 

[Stereogatari]

2. CH is not "right-wing". At all. It's really extreme left-wing, and criticizes everyone, from Hollande to Le Pen, and every kind of religion.

Indeed. One of their writers was even pro-Turkish EU membership, visited Turkey multiple times and was friends with Turkish cartoonists.

 

[nowarning]

Yeah UK press lets us down as usual, full of stories agreeing with and promoting this stuff, they don't have the balls to print it themselves, but are more than happy to run stories about the cover haha.

 

[Arksy]

It's being sold in Turkey? Wtf? With Mohammed on it's cover? Nice!!

 

[Stereogatari]

It's being sold in Turkey? Wtf? With Mohammed on it's cover? Nice!!

Probably the only major Muslim majority country where that is possible.

Incidentally here are the front covers of Turkey's 3 main cartoon magazines this week:

And a 4th magazine called Gırgır just has a black cover.

Yeah UK press lets us down as usual, full of stories agreeing with and promoting this stuff, they don't have the balls to print it themselves, but are more than happy to run stories about the cover haha.

It's even being printed in Turkey hahaha.

 

[Addi]

Yeah UK press lets us down as usual, full of stories agreeing with and promoting this stuff, they don't have the balls to print it themselves, but are more than happy to run stories about the cover haha.

That's a shame, it puts the drawings on a pedestal, making it more special than it should be. It was one of the reasons why Charlie was singled out in the first place, them being the only ones with the balls to do anything

 

[Arksy]

Probably the only major Muslim majority where that would be possible.

Considering old mate Erogan was a bit "I think depictions of the prophet Mohammed should be off limits." earlier, this is rather amazing.

 

[Stereogatari]

That's a shame, it puts the drawings on a pedestal, making it more special than it should be.

This is kind of like how ironic the Muslim outrage at the drawings is. They don't like pictures of Mohamad because they're not supposed to worship him, but then by becoming so outraged about depictions of him they kind of end up going into a reverse-worshipping kind of state that ends up looking a lot like idolatry.

 

[Matt_]

Is this likely to be available anywhere in the UK? I'm probably not going to go out of my way, but if I see one I'll grab one.

.
I'd quite like a copy, even just for historical reasons

 

[NekoFever]

It's ironic really. A channel that gets stereotyped as left-wing shows it, but a bunch of right wing papers didn't.

Also the only paper that showed it was the Guardian.

I'm going to remember this incident next time I hear how spineless the liberal media is and the Sun or Mail starts banging on about how brave they are.

 

[skybald]

With all due respect, the attackers killed someone because that publication offended their prophet.

This achieves what Draw Muhammed day achieves. Nothing, in the way of real change, but offend millions of Muslims who played no part in the violence. & the Muslim families directedly affected by the murder.

You're just fighting shadows for paper liberties you already had.

But have it your way. At least the publication pledged to give money to the victim's families.

They are not fighting shadows, they are fighting actual attacks on democratic free speech. Yes, moderate Muslims will also be offended, and they have every right to be. However, no person has the right to take always the rights of another person because they have been offended. One must act on your offense justly and rationally.

 

[Funky Papa]

With all due respect, the attackers killed someone because that publication offended their prophet.

This achieves what Draw Muhammed day achieves. Nothing, in the way of real change, but offend millions of Muslims who played no part in the violence. & the Muslim families directedly affected by the murder.

You're just fighting shadows for paper liberties you already had.

But have it your way. At least the publication pledged to give money to the victim's families.

They had that liberty but many outlets were scared to use it. And in the end, there's no such thing as a right if people are scared to exercise it through their daily lives and jobs.

The attack gave them courage to step forwards and say "fuck, this is where the line is drawn". Not only the attacks failed to scare the press, but they emboldened it. And as a result, France (and its muslim community, despite any offense they may find in it) is a freer country.

So yeah, they dun guffed.

 

[Vitten]

It's heartwarming to see this but I'm less optimistic for the future. Because of these attacks cartoonists around the world are now even more shit scared to draw muhamed cartoons and will think not twice but three or four times before publication.

All the public support in the world isn't going to change the fact that extremists will keep taking extreme offense at the drawings and cartoonists risk their lifes for making them..and the cops can't watch everyone 24/7.

 

[Chumly]

It's becoming more and more clear that so called moderate Muslims are the problem. Bill maher was right. Their half assed indifference if not support of the killings is ridiculous. We wonder why extremism is allowed to thrive when the moderate Muslims are doing nothing to push back.

 

[Derwind]

It's becoming more and more clear that so called moderate Muslims are the problem. Bill maher was right. Their half assed indifference if not support of the killings is ridiculous. We wonder why extremism is allowed to thrive when the moderate Muslims are doing nothing to push back.

Any Muslim person that supports the murderers aren't Moderate.

Also, your ability to make broad sweeping generalizations doesn't help the problem either. So there's that.

 

[The Illiterati]

I think they should invite any and all who are named Muhammed to come to come to their offices and have themselves drawn caricature style or photographed. Then just fill the issue with hundreds of "Drawings of Mohammed".

 

[Chumly]

Any Muslim person that supports the murderers aren't Moderate.

Also, your ability to make broad sweeping generalizations doesn't help the problem either. So there's that.

I used to defend Muslims all the time but this incident has really changed my mind especially with their reaction. Unfortunately the broad sweeping generalizations are correct. That or we need to reclassify a significant amount of Muslims as extreme.

 

[Arksy]

It's becoming more and more clear that so called moderate Muslims are the problem. Bill maher was right. Their half assed indifference if not support of the killings is ridiculous. We wonder why extremism is allowed to thrive when the moderate Muslims are doing nothing to push back.

Uhh, actually what's so reassuring about this attack is that most Muslim groups have had absolutely no bars in condemning these attacks, whereas in previous attacks, they would refuse to condemn the attacks and flip flop around the issue, "Of course I oppose violence, but as long as the West supports the Zionist occupation...", "Of course I condemn these killings but we have to understand the racism and poverty facing the Muslim world."

Ten years ago, Muslims gathered in Trafalgar Square, to condemn the Danish cartoons and not to condemn the assassination attempts they had triggered.

Not this time, no justifications, no "but"..Muslims now gather in Trafalgar Square to condemn the attacks. The repudiation is near universal and unambiguous.

It is an attack, not just on the people of France, but on all of us here in Britain, on our fundamental freedoms,” said the Islamic Society of Britain.

Nothing is more immoral, offensive, or insulting to our beloved Prophet than such a callous act of murder."

There are those that still refuse to condemn, but they number in the minority this time. The spectre of moderate appreciation of these attacks is a spectre you've conjured that has zero basis in reality.

 

[Siegcram]

That's a very idealistic view of things, I'm fine with that, but what I'm saying is that right now the Muslim community in France is being marginalized and is generally seen as inferior. You can almost equal it to the situation with the black community in USA and Fergusson disaster.

No muslim community is being marginalized. Not the French one or any other. These drawings allude to a religion and it's most recognizable representative.

If tomorrow NY Times' main satirist comes out with a satirical cartoon showing a black person being killed by cops with a crude comment, e.g. "They would commit crime anyway", which is insanely offensive, the editorial would obviously not allow it. If it were some obscure right-wing local publication with 60k copies, then you could argue for their right to print such cartoon, but on a USA-wide scale you can't say that black community should just disregard the thing. There would be a justified riot.

Like someone already said, your example actually works incredibly well, and would generate outrage from the cops if anything.
If a similar cartoon were to be published in the NYT it would be a commendable thing.

Charlie Hebdo is now big for better or for worse. What they print matters, and you cannot ask a community of a single faith or race etc. whose countries are either oppressed or in war, whose faith is constantly under attack, whose people or equivocated with terrorism and probed in every airport to just "take it" for the right of free speech.

Once again, it's nice to be entitled to your rights, but don't forget about the responsibilities that come with them, a lot of people just want the good part. And once again, it's not about justifying the killings.

Once again, size, race or creed doesn't exempt any community from being the target of satire. It doesn't have to be considerate, appropriate or reserved. If anything, it can't be. At all.

They don't have to "take" anything, they just have to learn to live their life in the face of some squiggly lines. In light of all the other problems they face on a daily basis (that you already touched on) traffic doesn't seem like too much to ask.

 

[Kozak]

I used to defend Muslims all the time but this incident has really changed my mind especially with their reaction. Unfortunately the broad sweeping generalizations are correct. That or we need to reclassify a significant amount of Muslims as extreme.

I think we should classify anyone who is devout to their religion as extreme.

 

[Ikael]

Shame more didn't have the guts to.

Here in Spain, La Razon a major right-wing newspaper published the CH's Mohammed caricatures on its cover right after the attacks.

I disagree with most of their ideas (and crappy journalistic practices), but credit where is due, they showed an admirable amount of cojones and coherence, and I wish that our media would have more of these.

 

[Stereogatari]

Here in Spain, La Razon a major right-wing newspaper published the CH's Mohammed caricatures on its cover right after the attacks.

I disagree with most of their ideas (and crappy journalistic practices), but credit where is due, they showed an admirable amount of cojones and coherence, and I wish that our media would have more of these.

The question I have is would that right-wing newspaper be as willing to publish cartoons mocking Mary and Jesus?

 

[Bleepey]

The question I have is would that right-wing newspaper be as willing to publish cartoons mocking Mary and Jesus?

Some would argue that there'd be no cajones needed to publish say this:

Edit: Apologies onion orgy of various deities.jpg

 

[Admiral Woofington]

^Uhm... NSFW much?

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Wish I could get a paper copy here in the states. What is the best place to get an online digital copy in English?

 

[Stereogatari]

I think we should classify anyone who is devout to their religion as extreme.

That's stupid. Devout could mean one thing to one person, and another thing to another person. All 4 of my grandparents pray 5 times a day, which makes them devout, but they're not extreme.

Now if you mean those who practice their religion dogmatically and adhere to every last fundamental, then I agree that any such person is extreme.

 

[Funky Papa]

The question I have is would that right-wing newspaper be as willing to publish cartoons mocking Mary and Jesus?

It would depend. Out of their own volition (as in, for funsies): nope. To report said "abuse" and infuriate its tiny base of nationalcatholic readers? Oh, you best believe it. Front page, huge as picture and Impact font for the header.

Some would argue that there'd be no cajones needed to publish say this: buddahbeingfisted.jpg[/IMG]

Breh, I'm all for freedom of speech and stuff, but GAF still has NSFW rules.

 

[Paskil]

I bought my copy here. With shipping, was around 8€.

 

[Derwind]

I used to defend Muslims all the time but this incident has really changed my mind especially with their reaction. Unfortunately the broad sweeping generalizations are correct. That or we need to reclassify a significant amount of Muslims as extreme.

I suppose its who or what you're exposed to, I'm.an Athiest but my family is Muslim and I've found there are a ton of fucked up people who practice Islam, ones that condone violence and preach it, however, I've had the fortune of being exposed to Muslims who are moderate and open minded, I've challenged them on many facets of their belief and I l'm left with a better understanding of who they are and likewise.

I don't know that I can agree to that sentiment of yours but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

you need to put some of those images behind a fucking link, guys.

 

[Devil's advocate]

I kinda wish we could ask the Kouachi brothers for a statement. This isn't exactly the outcome they had in mind.

 

[thelatestmodel]

Some would argue that there'd be no cajones needed to publish say this:

Jeez dude, I'm at work, don't post that.

Fuck CBC for not publishing the cover in Canada. Politically correct cowards.

 

[Team Top Hat]

Where to import to Ameroca?

 

[DrFunk]

Some would argue that there'd be no cajones needed to publish say this:

Even though this is from the Onion...dude

 

[FDC1]

damn

 

[| Praxis |]

Yeah UK press lets us down as usual, full of stories agreeing with and promoting this stuff, they don't have the balls to print it themselves, but are more than happy to run stories about the cover haha.

The BBC showed the cartoon.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Do the profits coming from this issue go to the victims' families? It's 83x boost over their usual print numbers and sold out..

I also think that now, since the magazine went from obscure to world-renown, printing imagery which is truly insulting to Muslims on such scale is not cool. Just fanning the flames..

I dont believe every Muslim will turn into a psychopathic killer just because they are offended by a Mohammad cartoon.

 

[fastford58]

Hey...ass fisting.

 

[Kozak]

That's stupid. Devout could mean one thing to one person, and another thing to another person. All 4 of my grandparents pray 5 times a day, which makes them devout, but they're not extreme.

Now if you mean those who practice their religion dogmatically and adhere to every last fundamental, then I agree that any such person is extreme.

Eh religious texts would define devout as practicing religion dogmatically and adhering to every last fundamental.

 

[DECK'ARD]

The BBC showed the cartoon.

Yeah, the BBC actually changed their guidelines last week. They showed the other cover as well.

Before it was a blanket recommendation not to show any depictions of Mohammed, now it's a journalistic decision about accurately reporting what is being covered and understanding the views of those involved.

 

[Ckonetoo]

I don't know.

1. Some extremists say that they are prepared to kill for publishing cartoons (which I find mindboggling btw) and a community claims to be offended (I see nothing wrong with that).

2. People are killed because of those cartoons

3. Response = publish more cartoons on a wider scale because freedom of speech

4. Result = that community is offended again

5. Potential Result = more deads

If there wasn't a point 5, I would be on the same side as the people defending freedom of speech...
But there is a point 5 and therefore I think it's kind of irresponsible. It's not because lunatics shouldn't be prepared to kill for it, that they won't.

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

 

[Arkanius]

I don't know.

1. Some extremists say that they are prepared to kill for publishing cartoons (which I find mindboggling btw) and a community claims to be offended (I see nothing wrong with that).

2. People are killed because of those cartoons

3. Response = publish more cartoons on a wider scale because freedom of speech

4. Result = that community is offended again

5. Potential Result = more deads

If there wasn't a point 5, I would be on the same side as the people defending freedom of speech...
But there is a point 5 and therefore I think it's kind of irresponsible. It's not because lunatics shouldn't be prepared to kill for it, that they won't.

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

If they didn't do it, the Terrorism would have worked.

 

[gutter_trash]

terrorists lost

 

[Siegcram]

I don't know.

1. Some extremists say that they are prepared to kill for publishing cartoons (which I find mindboggling btw) and a community claims to be offended (I see nothing wrong with that).

2. People are killed because of those cartoons

3. Response = publish more cartoons on a wider scale because freedom of speech

4. Result = that community is offended again

5. Potential Result = more deads

If there wasn't a point 5, I would be on the same side as the people defending freedom of speech...
But there is a point 5 and therefore I think it's kind of irresponsible. It's not because lunatics shouldn't be prepared to kill for it, that they won't.

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

So your solution is to have the lunatics dictate the rules. What could go wrong?

 

[Stereogatari]

Eh religious texts would define devout as practicing religion dogmatically and adhering to every last fundamental.

True, the idea of picking and choosing is more of a concept that has evolved outside of the religious texts and jurisdictions themselves (In the Quran for example it regularly talks about hypocrites and those who only follow some of the rules being condemned to hell and other such garbage etc.).

 

[TTUVAPOR]

I don't know.

1. Some extremists say that they are prepared to kill for publishing cartoons (which I find mindboggling btw) and a community claims to be offended (I see nothing wrong with that).

2. People are killed because of those cartoons

3. Response = publish more cartoons on a wider scale because freedom of speech

4. Result = that community is offended again

5. Potential Result = more deads

If there wasn't a point 5, I would be on the same side as the people defending freedom of speech...
But there is a point 5 and therefore I think it's kind of irresponsible. It's not because lunatics shouldn't be prepared to kill for it, that they won't.

It's like some people would rather live in a world at war with absolute freedom of speech than in a 'peaceful' world where the consequences of freedom of speech are taken into account.
It's like claiming to have the right to do/say everything without being held accountable for the consequences. I don't know...

Sorry for my English

I'd rather live in a world where I am free and answer to no one with the risk of dying than in a world where I am told what to do, how to act, etc...with zero risk of dying.

What you're describing is prison. Prison is no freedom. Prison is a concept, more than just being behind bars, it can also become psychological, and the ISIS peeps and pretty much any terrorist organization or communist govt, dictators, etc...they have put people into psychological prisons.