h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"They just didn't leave it alone as many others would."

Whether that was stupid or brave is an interesting question, for which I'm not sure I have an answer, but it was the choice they had made.


The editor, Charb, had said in an interview a few years back (after the fire bombing following the publication of the Muhammad caricatures) "I'd rather die standing than live on my knees".
Fair enough.
There would probably have been a middle ground somewhere (live sitting down, or something?), but Charlie Hebdo was never about middle grounds, really.

After all, Charlie Hebdo had been created after another satirical paper, Hara-Kiri, had been banned. The subtitle for Hara-Kiri was "le journal bête et méchant" ("the stupid and vicious magazine", as wikipedia translates it).
And it does(*) walk right in its steps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hara-Kiri_(magazine)


(*) just trying to get back to present tense, there.

Re: Saudi Arabia

Well, for this discussion, yes. Saudi Arabia has to be considered moderate, in the sense of the people of Saudi Arabia, compared to takfiris* like the Taliban, al Queda, the so-called Islamic State, Boko Haram, &c.


But no, in the spectrum of Muslim Nations, no, I don't consider them very moderate what with their record on human and women's rights. But personally, I don't consider any Muslim nation to be moderate at all. I don't know of a Muslim Nation that wouldn't consider having me imprisoned, flogged, or stoned for simply being an atheist.





*A word I just learned, defined on that other site thusly;

""takfiri generally refers to a Sunni Muslim who looks at the world in black-and-white; there are true believers and then there are nonbelievers, with no shades in between. A takfiri's mission is to re-create the Caliphate according to a literal interpretation of the Qur'an.""

Isn't that more a matter of necessity? There's no reason to commit acts of terror to bring about a repressive islamic state, if you've already achieved an oppressive islamic state.

You'd think a big group like Procol Harum could get chicks
without resorting to collective kidnappings and captivity.
Though they do insist on a wider shade of pail.

(My mind has been badly bent by that last cartoon posted above -
the sight of a good triangle being shoved up some beggar's arse
is more than I can handle. Euclid always seemed straight to me.)


~jwf~

While were on this subject, I just read a post on Reddit's atheism subreddit that is quite enlightening. It's a heartfelt appeal from an apostate Muslim. It's worth a read. His main point is that the best thing we can do is to treat Muslims in our countries with kindness.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2rw5sy/hello_im_an_exmuslim_please_take_5_minutes_of/

I'm really liking this thread at the moment, the informed and reasoned debate is what I love about this site.

Thank you all for this! And especially thank you to SuperFrenchie for clearing up a few things about life in France regarding religion and the recent events

Also, great link BG!

Yes BG, very interesting.

Having done a bit more research last night (it's been a short night! ), some sources suggest that conspicuous religious signs are also forbidden for visitors to law courts and public services. Some more research turned up the *actual* text that those sources were mentioning, and it is the one that forbids hiding your face in public spaces. So headscarfs that leave the face visible seem to be fine according to the text.

*aside*
I was living in England in 2004 when the so-called headscarf law was being discussed in France. I had the following conversation with several people from the church I attended there and from my prayer group :
"Is it true?!"
"Errm, what?"
"France!"
"France... what?"
"They really want to ban religion?!"

Mmh... Nope. Bit more complicated than that.
(although they did try, after the revolution).

That's when I realised that French laicité was something very specific that a lot of people misunderstood. So I try to change that when I see it happen.

*/aside*

"I don't consider any Muslim nation to be moderate at all. I don't know of a Muslim Nation that wouldn't consider having me imprisoned, flogged, or stoned for simply being an atheist."

what do you understand by muslim nations? I think it is about democratic or not democratic nations or to be more precise, governments.

Turkey enjoyed a secular democracy for much time. Most population is Muslim. However now with Erdogan, considered by democratic west as a "moderate islamist" , population is suffering his lunatic ideas about women behaviours or his wild neoliberal policies, btw, so wellcome by that democratic west.

In the seventies, countries like Egipt, Afganistan, Algeria... what you call muslim nations, were seeing the rise of social popular forces that let women or workers a freedom never seen before.
But...
Fanatics, the so called Islamists, kicked all that. Check Argelia´s recent history or the Saur Revolution in Afganistan ( or read the novel One thousand splendid suns) Talibans, Muhayidines... names change but they all have in common the Saud Arabia and democratic west support and money. No need to add why, is there?

As I said before, being muslim or christian means nothing, it´s the circunstances what we should focus on.

I could say that US is a christian country, even Bush said Gold told him to invade Iraq... UK is also an officially religious country...
Should we refer to that fact when we consider the list of attrocities those governments have committed?

oh, hang on, I see, it was in the name of democracy...and freedom, and...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

the magazine dissmissed the cartoonists because it offended the jews... It seems that they have some preferences.

... Or, seeing as Siné and Val (the head of Charlie Hebdo at the time) had serious relationship problems, Val just used it as an excuse to fire a guy who was annoying the hell out of him...

Do have a look at the pictures around the middle of this article, and tell me Charlie Hebdo has some preferences.
(Pictures not safe for work).
On the left : "jewish woman's arse: does racism help sales?",
in the middle "now we can say it, Hitler was a fun guy" and he says "hi there, [derogatory word for jews]",
on the right "a [derogatory word for arab] licks the arse of a [derogatory word for jew] - "So, wanna make peace?""Just go on, we'll see".

There's a lot of grey in the world, not just black and white.

This article makes some salient points on the issue:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/#.dpuf

I´ve read the reference to the fired cartoonist in this link:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks?CMP=fb_gu

He is a cartoonist too and expresses his view on the idea of CH´s style of satire. I think it´s difficult not to agree with him.

Thanks for that link Lusus.


hollow and islamophobic were the words that came to mind when I saw the drawings.
It´s true they make that kind of attacks on any religion, but the ones on muslims one were prominent, not to say obsesive.

That done in a country with a great part of the muslim population marginalized and in a context of growing islamophobia, makes hard to applaud it as an act of sensible freedom of speech.

Could we make now one parallel to the one they did where a muslim hold a koran full of bullets and say it´s a shit since it can´t stop bullets ( it was in reference to the 1000 egiptians killed by their government during the last arab spring there)

Imagine now a cartoonist holding the magazine and saying something similar... how funny, it´s just freedom of speech.

Jokes against jews in the Nazi Germany, jokes about black people in US were also freedom of speech? or were part of the hatred and arrogance of the powerful?

I insist, this attack is part of a war started many years ago.

This isn't a war, it's psychotic criminals murdering people because they imagine a sky fairy told them to.

There is no defense against what happened in Paris, it was an abhorrent crime carried out by, as you say 'psychotic criminals'.

However, one of the layers of tragedy to this event is that the 12 who were murdered died in the name of satire that was not incisive, popular or even funny. It was at best provocatively and deliberately offensive.

"It´s true they make that kind of attacks on any religion, but the ones on muslims one were prominent, not to say obsesive."

I can't seem to find all the covers for a long enough time period, which would really be the only way to confirm or infirm that.
So it might be true.
There is, however, another posibility: that the cartoons that criticised islamist extremists were more mediatised than the others, for some reason.
Why would the media do that, pick some and leave the others out?
Well, someone not long ago gave what could be an answer : "... It seems that they have some preferences"

The front page they published when De Gaulle died was offensive. They have been very critical of pretty much all French Presidents ever since, too. Does that make them anti-President?

Does anyone think that the picture showing the father, son and holy spirit happily effing each other away was hilarious, and not offensive to christians?
Did many papers write about that controversy?
I'd be interested to know.


"However, one of the layers of tragedy to this event is that the 12 who were murdered died in the name of satire that was not incisive, popular or even funny. It was at best provocatively and deliberately offensive."

Do you mean that denouncing extremism and bigotry should only be allowed if it's either incisive, popular and/or funny?
Provocation is Charlie Hebdo's trademark. They have mocked pretty much everyone and everything that was taking themself (too) seriously.

... Or does it just count if they criticise muslims because these days they're the ones that are more likely to respond with violence, so you really shouldn't talk about them ?

Also, you seem to imply that the attackers really were only offended by the cartoons.
What if the cartoons were the pretext?
What if the attackers (whom we now know had been trained in jihad camps) were just waiting for the opportunity to strike wherever they "legitimately" could ?
In which case, had Charlie stopped all criticism of islamists, they would have just found another target.

Charlie maybe made their job easier because they didn't have to look for something to get offended at: it was right there.
But I have very little doubt that, if this offensive material had not been there, they would have found something else to get offended at.
So, yeah, *other* people would have died, not those ones.
Much better, right?

Isn't criticising the magazine a little like criticising a rape victim for wearing a short skirt?

There is a bit of that tone isn't there. I've read several articles and posts with the theme "I'm not Charlie" that begin condemning the attack followed by an "however" or a "but".

Whatever follows those howevers and buts always boil down to some degree of "she was asking for it".