Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Swampy

French magazine office firebombed...

Recommended Posts

No mitigation whatsoever for the nutters. Unless the Editor is braindead, he knew exactly what he was trying to provoke. A violent reaction by pcychos and consequent stirring up if islamophobia. Job done, as you will see in this thread.

Surely though, you understand that the magazine has a history of poking fun at absolutely everything. Why should the Islamic faith be any different? Because of radicalism? Pandering to the said nutters is allowing Islamic terrorism to prevail at it's base level, by manipulating media sources into self-censorship, never criticising Islam under any circumstances for fear of deathly reprisals.

It's actually a very similar situation to the whole South Park fracas of a few years back, they ran a cartoon depicting Mohammed and as a result Trey Parker, Matt Stone and the execs at Comedy Central were issued fatwas left right and centre. This being despite the fact that they ran an episode about 7 years earlier showing the exact same depiction of Mohammed and receiving nothing in the way of threats. As a result, the second episode of the 2 parter, under instruction from Comedy Central, had Mohammed depicted as a large black box with the word 'CENSORED' written over it, much to the disgust of the creators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retreats to standard boxoffice response, desperate for last word....

If I want the last word, I figure this will do:

False Assertions made by welshbairn, heroic defender of terrorism and proper bad 'un

  • Desperate for publicity and revenue: FALSE. Well, false inasmuch as any print publication must be forgiven for trying to increase circulation. The idea that this is some massive, out-of-character, last-ditch desperation attempt is completely false. Charlie Hebdo is already extremely well-known in France. This was a topical issue relating in large part to the aftermath of the Arab Spring.
  • Islam-unfriendly content can only have one 'purpose': FALSE. When there was last an Islamic issue in 2007 there was no attack. There was a court case, which Hebdo won. It's pretty clear that precedent was on Charlie Hebdo's side here.
  • Publishers more concerned with lucre than employee safety: FALSE. The employer is also the editor. The editor works in the magazine office. The editorial board does not work under duress.
  • Editor 'knew' what he was 'trying' to provoke: FALSE. The idea that he knowingly attempted to get his office firebombed is, aside from being ludicrous to anyone except a sociopath like welshbairn, pretty well falsified by his public reaction, and the fact that last time they ran a similar issue no such reaction took place.

Again: proper bad 'un, defender of terrorism, and also a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could if you didn't insist on buying a cheap one.

No, no, there are a lot of muslims. You're definitely going to need a few hundred brushes and some volunteers.

Frankly I think it's a disgrace that Swampy wants to tar muslims. What have they done to him?

Edited by Scary Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to make of things like this.

Obviously I'm not Muslim, or even religious, but to me it's much more offensive that in France Muslim girls and women are prevented from wearing headscarves, and therefore the freedom to follow an important part their faith, that it is for someone to use freedom of speech to question, satirize or parody a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to make of things like this.

Obviously I'm not Muslim, or even religious, but to me it's much more offensive that in France Muslim girls and women are prevented from wearing headscarves, and therefore the freedom to follow an important part their faith, that it is for someone to use freedom of speech to question, satirize or parody a religion.

I'd say both, when applied to people acting of their own free will, are on a par. They are both illegitimate restrictions upon freedom and free expression.

When people are compelled to wear the headscarf against their will, on the other hand, obviously the ban helps them. But that would apply almost certainly only in a minority of cases in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to make of things like this.

Obviously I'm not Muslim, or even religious, but to me it's much more offensive that in France Muslim girls and women are prevented from wearing headscarves, and therefore the freedom to follow an important part their faith, that it is for someone to use freedom of speech to question, satirize or parody a religion.

It's not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I want the last word, I figure this will do:

False Assertions made by welshbairn, heroic defender of terrorism and proper bad 'un

  • Desperate for publicity and revenue: FALSE. Well, false inasmuch as any print publication must be forgiven for trying to increase circulation. The idea that this is some massive, out-of-character, last-ditch desperation attempt is completely false. Charlie Hebdo is already extremely well-known in France. This was a topical issue relating in large part to the aftermath of the Arab Spring.
  • Islam-unfriendly content can only have one 'purpose': FALSE. When there was last an Islamic issue in 2007 there was no attack. There was a court case, which Hebdo won. It's pretty clear that precedent was on Charlie Hebdo's side here.
  • Publishers more concerned with lucre than employee safety: FALSE. The employer is also the editor. The editor works in the magazine office. The editorial board does not work under duress.
  • Editor 'knew' what he was 'trying' to provoke: FALSE. The idea that he knowingly attempted to get his office firebombed is, aside from being ludicrous to anyone except a sociopath like welshbairn, pretty well falsified by his public reaction, and the fact that last time they ran a similar issue no such reaction took place.

Again: proper bad 'un, defender of terrorism, and also a liar.

1. I have not defended terrorism.

2. I made clear that satirising Islam happens all the time with little or no response. I'm all in favour of satirising Islam, Christianity, Agnosticism, Atheism and Boxoffice...

3. Whereas publishing a picture of Mohammed on a magazine cover or as a cartoon has a clear track record of giving loonies an excuse (in their own demented minds) for violent behaviour. It's not particularly witty, so why do it? The only reason can be that it winds up Muslims in general, and firebomb wielding fundamentalists in particular.

3. The Editor knew this when he published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Whereas wearing 'sexy' or revealing clothes has a clear track record of giving loonies an excuse (in their own demented minds) for violent sexual behaviour. It's not particularly clever, so why do it? The only reason can be that it winds up men in general, and violent sexual deviants in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I have not defended terrorism.

2. I made clear that satirising Islam happens all the time with little or no response. I'm all in favour of satirising Islam, Christianity, Agnosticism, Atheism and Boxoffice...

3. Whereas publishing a picture of Mohammed on a magazine cover or as a cartoon has a clear track record of giving loonies an excuse (in their own demented minds) for violent behaviour. It's not particularly witty, so why do it? The only reason can be that it winds up Muslims in general, and firebomb wielding fundamentalists in particular.

3. The Editor knew this when he published.

1. Actually, you have, by passing the responsibility of the terrorists onto those writers who shamefully use their powers of free expression

2. In 2007 there was a response - a court case. The magazine won.

3. Again, the battered housewife comparison. And the fact that they'd published a similar issue before and hadn't suffered a firebombing.

3 (???). What, he knew that he was going to get firebombed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Actually, you have, by passing the responsibility of the terrorists onto those writers who shamefully use their powers of free expression

2. In 2007 there was a response - a court case. The magazine won.

3. Again, the battered housewife comparison. And the fact that they'd published a similar issue before and hadn't suffered a firebombing.

3 (???). What, he knew that he was going to get firebombed?

I note the last time they did an 'Islamic Special' the profits were considerable: from Wiki

Compared to a regular circulation of 100,000 sold copies, this edition was a great commercial success. 160,000 copies were sold, another 150,000 were in print later that day.

If you went into a redneck biker Teaparty meeting in Alabama wearing an 'I Love Obama' T-shirt and shouting "Cmon faggots, when does the teabagging start, I'm up for it!", would you be partially responsible for getting a kicking?

Edited by welshbairn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I note the last time they did an 'Islamic Special' the profits were considerable: from Wiki

Right... and then four years elapsed. And a court case.

Actually, let's try this: even if the sole, single motivating factor was money for one single fatcat, would that mitigate the assault even one iota? I don't think it would. You clearly think it would.

If you went into a redneck biker Teaparty meeting in Alabama wearing an 'I Love Obama' T-shirt and shouting "Cmon faggots, when does the teabagging start, I'm up for it!", would you be partially responsible for getting a kicking?

This is a terrible comparison. Publishing a magazine, which people can buy or not buy, is hardly the same as disrupting a meeting by coming in and shouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is Islamophobia in France, and there is unfair treatment meted out to the Muslim population every day. This is completely undeniable. Quite how this justifies an attack on a satirical magazine is anyone's guess.

I wonder, if it was a work and pensions office that got firebombed, would the Time columnist be quite so flip then? After all, such a department is infinitely more responsible for the conditions of the Islamic population in France than is Charlie Hebdo. What about if Sarkozy was gunned down in the street? Was he asking for it? You allow for one, you allow for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the defence of firebombing on the grounds that the magazine had it coming. How dare the parody magazine parody Islam. The trick has got to be to turn round and say "this is unacceptable", without then saying "Islam is unacceptable". Oh, and the full veil is nothing to do with Islam, its a cultural thing rather than a religious thing. However, I don't believe in telling people what clothes they can and can't wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the defence of firebombing on the grounds that the magazine had it coming. How dare the parody magazine parody Islam. The trick has got to be to turn round and say "this is unacceptable", without then saying "Islam is unacceptable". Oh, and the full veil is nothing to do with Islam, its a cultural thing rather than a religious thing. However, I don't believe in telling people what clothes they can and can't wear.

Greeny well earned. We live in a liberal democracy-not as liberal as I'd like, but pretty good all the same. That means our job is to convince by non coercive, non violent means that certain behaviours and practices are best left in the middle ages, not to show our own intolerance by banning freedom of expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie Hebdo at it again. This can only end well.

536311-hebdo.jpg

A FRENCH satirical magazine has published nude cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, a move that could further inflame tensions after violent protests in the Muslim world over an anti-Islam film.

The cover of Charlie Hebdo today shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title Intouchables 2, referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic.

Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine shows a naked turbaned Mohammed exposing his posterior to a film director, a scene inspired by a 1963 film starring French film star Brigitte Bardot.

Charlie Hebdo's website crashed today after being bombarded with comments that ranged from hate mail to approbation.

The magazine is no stranger to controversy over issues relating to Islam.

Last year it published an edition ''guest-edited'' by Prophet Mohammed that it called Sharia Hebdo.

The magazine's offices in Paris were subsequently fire-bombed.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his 'disapproval of all excesses''.

But he emphasised France's tradition of free speech.

''We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature,'' he said on RTL radio.

''If people really feel offended in their beliefs and think there has been an infringement of the law - and we are in a state where laws must be totally respected - they can go to court,'' Ayrault said.

He also said a request to hold a demonstration in Paris against the controversial US-made anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world, would be refused.

Charlie Hebdo's latest move was greeted with immediate calls from political and religious leaders for the media to act responsibly and avoid inflaming the current situation.

The magazine's editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time.

''The freedom of the press, is that a provocation?'' he said.

''I'm not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo, just like I wouldn't go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe.''

Dalil Boubakeur, the senior cleric at Paris's biggest mosque, appealed for France's four million Muslims to remain calm.

''It is with astonishment, sadness and concern that I have learned that this publication is risking increasing the current outrage across the Muslim world,'' he said.

''I would appeal to them not to pour oil on the fire.''

France's Muslim Council, the community's main representative body, also appealed for calm in the face of ''this new act of Islamaphobia''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

islamic values and progressive european values can't live side by side.

hindus, sikhs, buddhists, shintoists and zoroastrianists can fulfill all our immigrant needs and muslims can f**k off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...