Charlie Hebdo 'feels alone' in its fight to poke fun at the world

No more references to Nazis please.

The humourless on all sides are gradually taking over the asylum. Je suis Charlie.

I still feel disgusted by the people who in anyway suggested the outrageous and inhuman actions of the faux "offended" were in anyway asked for or deserved.

Freedom of expression, discussion and critisim of ideas (and satire falls into this), especially dogmatic ones is the hallmark of a free, open and educated society.

No-one and no-thing deserves special protection or rights when it comes to conversations, and if you disagree, respond in kind, the answer for a cartoon you don't like is another cartoon or article.... Not riots and murder.

Even on this site I have regularly had my comments deleted or altered especially when they have strayed into the topic of religon.. sure this site is a business and my freedom upon it is limited, and I have the option to go make my own if I like, I accept that.. Though it does make me very worried about the future that placating those who seem to think they have more rights than everyone else seem to be getting exactly what they want, respect through fear and bullying.

Charlie Hebdo 'feels alone' in its fight to poke fun at the world

Yep, getting shot up by terrorists can do that.

Feels left alone?

Well, maybe because most journalists have better things to do than to deliberately provoking certain elements, knowing very well that it would lead to potentially harsh (and deadly) reactions.

That's the height of irresponsibility to me.

What's the point of insulting certain groups or religions? Totally reckless and stupid stunt.

Islamists show that intimidation works. If the majority caves in fear, the few nails sticking out can be bashed with ease. It is a favourite recipe of totalitarians of all stripes. All newspapers all over the free world should all show the Danish and Hedbo cartoons, as often as possible. But our silence means that the bullies win.

Everybody wants to be PC

What's the point of insulting certain groups or religions? Totally reckless and stupid stunt.

So, should we always "treat them gingerly and with respect and listen to their demands" after all, no matter who they are?

So, should we always "treat them gingerly and with respect and listen to their demands" after all, no matter who they are?

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Never heard of a middle ground?

Strangerland:

Where is the middle ground between free speech and one group being excempt from criticism and satire? Would would you think if (to pick one of your favourite targets) followers of GW Bush responded with death threats to any criticism? Accept it and find a "middle ground"?

Where is the middle ground between free speech and one group being excempt from criticism and satire?

The middle ground is having freedom of speech, and not using it to purposefully antagonize these groups.

For example, I fully support Hebdo's right to say and do what they do, but I think they are dumb as dirt for doing what they do.

Just because we have the right to do something, doesn't mean we should.

Strangerland:

" The middle ground is having freedom of speech, and not using it to purposefully antagonize these groups. "

If you are not allowed to offend a group because of death threats, then freedom of speech is gone.

Remember that nobody got murdered because of this Onion cartoon:

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image-29553

Did this cartoon "antagonize some groups"? You bet! Does it make an important point? You bet! Do you lambast the Onion for making the cartoon? What do you say?

Strangerland:

" In other words, I'm saying that they should be allowed to say what they do, but that they are morons for actually saying it. "

The second part of your sentence invalidates the first part. That is what is so sad about this liberal PC position... you are supporting the radicals. It is completely reasonable to complain about the Hedbo cartoons (or the Onion cartoon) as long as you do it with words. The moment there are demands enforced with death threats, the situation changes completely. At that moment, there are no "buts" and "ifs" any more: We should support the cartoonists and condemn the headcutters. With their "buts" and "ifs" the liberal commentators completely capitulate to the radicals.

Incidentally, this something that moderate muslims like Irishad Manji, Ali Rizwi, and Maajid Nawaz have been complaining about for a long time. They support Hedbo without any caveats. And those are the people we should support, and not the headcutters.

The second part of your sentence invalidates the first part.

No it doesn't.

That is what is so sad about this liberal PC position... you are supporting the radicals.

And that is what's so sad about your right-wing conservative extremism - it's always "you're either with us, or you're against us".

It is completely reasonable to complain about the Hedbo cartoons (or the Onion cartoon) as long as you do it with words.

You mean like the words I just used above, to which you claimed that I'm supporting the radicals? It seems you are saying one thing, then saying another.

We should support the cartoonists and condemn the headcutters.

I support the rights of the cartoonists, and I condemn the 'headcutters'. But I think the cartoonists are stupid for antagonizing them.

All ideas and beliefs should be held up to ridicule. I'd argue religious beliefs, given that they often base themselves on unverifiable supernatural ideas, are probably more deserving of ridicule than most.

Anyone claiming to be offended should be told to take a flying you know what. The cowards in the media who refused to show solidarity with Charlie Hebdo by not reprinting the images of Mohammed were pathetic.

Strangerland:

" And that is what's so sad about your right-wing conservative extremism - it's always "you're either with us, or you're against us". "

That is not the position at all. The point is that when one party imposes their will by death threats, the ball game changes completely. At that point, the death threats are the issue. At that point, blaming the victims becomes tacky.

And that is the point that the Onion made with its cartoon (the link to which the moderator has just removed, rendering this thread a bit incomprehensible); NOBODY got murdered or even received death threats for this cartoon.

And yes, if Jewish, Catholics, and Buddhis groups had threatened to murder the Onion editors, I would absolute say we needed more cartoons like this, without any "buts" and "ifs" and pontificating about how unwise the Onion editors are.

Is that so hard to see? As I said, moderate muslims are telling you the same thing.

" And that is what's so sad about your right-wing conservative extremism - it's always "you're either with us, or you're against us". "

That is not the position at all.

Yes it is. When I didn't express the same opinion as you, you called me a supporter of the radicals. I wasn't with you, so I must be the enemy.

when one party imposes their will by death threats, the ball game changes completely. At that point, the death threats are the issue. At that point, blaming the victims becomes tacky.

I'm not blaming the victims. The attackers were in the wrong. Violence is never the answer, and they should be fully condemned.

But you seem to be confusing how things are with how they should be. People should never be shot and killed for expressing an opinion or drawing a cartoon. That's how thing should be. But the reality is, that some people will use violence as an answer. That's how things are. If you go into a black neighborhood and wear a sign saying "I hate n****", you are exercising your freedom of speech. But you are likely to get a hell of a beating for it, and if you want to claim innocence because of freedom of speech, you aren't going to get much sympathy from me.

Hebdo should never have been attacked. But they also should have known they would be. And that is why I think they shoulder some of the responsibility.

@Strangerland

Does your idea of a "middle ground" for satire apply to Islam, other religions, other non-religious beliefs or any belief with followers capable of storming into your office with assault weapons? I'm a bit confused as to when you think people should take a middle ground.

Does your idea of a "middle ground" for satire apply to Islam, other religions, other non-religious beliefs or any belief with followers capable of storming into your office with assault weapons?

I don't see any point in antagonizing someone for the point of antagonizing them. If you want to criticize Islam for their ridiculous idea that the prophet should not be drawn, the you should do it in words. If you do it with a picture, then you are just sticking it in their face. If they decide to react with violence, they are not justified in that decision, but neither is that decision to be unexpected. Some people don't care about not using violence, and they'll react to a direct provocation with a direct response.

Generally Christians aren't going to shoot up a bunch of people for drawing a picture of Jesus fornicating with a donkey. But does that mean that I think it's a good idea to draw a picture of Jesus fornicating with a donkey? No. Why antagonize? It doesn't serve any good purpose other than to antagonize.

After all it's not like the Muslims are going to see a picture of Mohammad and suddenly say 'oh, now I get it, yeah I guess it's ok to draw a picture of him'. It's just going to make them angry. If you want them to see the fallacy in the argument, then debate it out with them. Do it with editorials and blog posts or whatever. Antagonizing doesn't further the cause whatsoever.

@Strangerland

You didn't really answer my question. When should cartoonists practice self restraint? When dealing with Islam, other religions, non-religious beliefs or beliefs with followers capable of murder?

As to the written word, do you also think that Salman Rushdie ( a man who only used words ) and the murdered translators of his novel were morons too? You will find with Islam that it isn't just cartoons which can whip up some of the faithful into a very dangerous frenzy.

You didn't really answer my question.

Maybe I got a little too specific by choosing a single group, but I did answer the question:

Does your idea of a "middle ground" for satire apply to Islam, other religions, other non-religious beliefs or any belief with followers capable of storming into your office with assault weapons?

Generally Christians aren't going to shoot up a bunch of people for drawing a picture of Jesus fornicating with a donkey. But does that mean that I think it's a good idea to draw a picture of Jesus fornicating with a donkey? No.

When should cartoonists practice self restraint?

When antagonizing for the sake of antagonizing.

As to the written word, do you also think that Salman Rushdie ( a man who only used words ) and the murdered translators of his novel were morons too?

No, I don't. There are some differences. The first is that Muslims are very clear on images of the prophet, and that it's antagonistic to their religion. The next is that the satanic verses were a commentary on the religion, laid out with arguments to support what he thinks. His book served a purpose that wasn't just to antagonize. Cartoons don't serve any other purpose other than to antagonize.

But regardless of which it is, I still condemn violent actions whether they are against a cartoonist, an author, or a translator. Violence is never the answer.

Strangerland:

" I don't see any point in antagonizing someone for the point of antagonizing them. If you want to criticize Islam for their ridiculous idea that the prophet should not be drawn, the you should do it in words. "

That will get you the same result. Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manji, Tarek Fatah, Robert Redeker, Ayan Hirsi, Peter Raddatz, Bassam Tibi, Hitoshi Igarashi, and countless others have received death threats for written words, not for cartoons.

I do not understand why advocate standing up for freedom of speech in words, but not in images???

For that matter, if I draw a stick figure and call it "Strangerland", nobody will kill me for it. If I draw the same stick figure and call it "Mohammed", somebody will. So would this be an issue of a cartoon, or of text?

Jimizo:

" If a group of neo-Nazis had stormed in with Kalashnikovs and massacred the staff, would you still say "they had it coming"? "

that is the point, isnt it. I wonder if we get an answer from Strangerland and Lost in Nagoya.

"Hebdo should never have been attacked. But they also should have known they would be. And that is why I think they shoulder some of the responsibility."

WiiliB and Jimizo, you two are completely out of line! A few posters on this board are making a profound point that you are missing because of your stubborn insistance on defending the right to free speech!

Here is the point they have made very well; a percentage of one certain group is not able to handle the 21st century concept of free speech and while we may think whatever we like (at least for the time being), we should not actually say or write or draw it and if we do then we are somewhat responsible for being butchered if that group decides to use violence.

Certain groups can handle free speech. A crucifix in a beaker of urine; no problem, no violence. Sections of books devoted to anti-semetic jokes (Blanche Knot, Truly Tasteless Jokes for the curious); no problem, no violence. TV shows (Saturday Night Live) dedicated to questioning the paternity of Jesus by making the wise men take a DNA test; no problem, no violence. Even parodies of African- or Mexican- American culture are taken in stride.

But there is one group out there that cannot be questioned, ridiculed or antagonized...

So you two (WiiliB and Jimizo) really owe these posters a thank you because they have just confirmed the double-standard that a few have said and many have thought.

I do not understand why advocate standing up for freedom of speech in words, but not in images???

I've repeatedly stood up for freedom of speech, even in the images:

If you do it with a picture, then you are just sticking it in their face. If they decide to react with violence, they are not justified in that decision

And here:

People should never be shot and killed for expressing an opinion or drawing a cartoon.

And here:

I support the rights of the cartoonists, and I condemn the 'headcutters'.

For that matter, if I draw a stick figure and call it "Strangerland", nobody will kill me for it. If I draw the same stick figure and call it "Mohammed", somebody will.

Why would you want to do either of them, other than to antagonize?

“We feel terribly alone. We hoped that others would do satire too,” he said. “No one wants to join us in this fight because it’s dangerous. You can die doing it.”

He`s dead right on this. Even the great Private Eye in London chickened out during the Princess Diana hysteria in 1997. They feared mob violence then, just as satirical sites across the globe fear humorless nutters today.

“We feel terribly alone. We hoped that others would do satire too,” he said. “No one wants to join us in this fight because it’s dangerous. You can die doing it.”

The reason they don't find support, is because drawing pictures of Mohammad is not something worth dying for. It serves no end goal, no purpose. There are major problems in the Muslim community, but drawing pictures of their prophet is not going to solve a single one of them.

Strangerland:

" Why would you want to do either of them, other than to antagonize? "

Well, why would want to criticize anybody, other than to antagonize? The whole point free speech is being able to say or draw what you want, without being killed as a response. It is a question of submission: Do we submit, in our societies, under islamic blasphemy laws or not? I guess your answer is: yes.

And I am still waiting for your answer to Jimizu`s question: " If a group of neo-Nazis had stormed in with Kalashnikovs and massacred the staff, would you still say "they had it coming"? "

why would want to criticize anybody, other than to antagonize?

To fix a problem.

Do we submit, in our societies, under islamic blasphemy laws or not? I guess your answer is: yes.

You obviously haven't been reading my posts.

If a group of neo-Nazis had stormed in with Kalashnikovs and massacred the staff, would you still say "they had it coming"? "

I never said that they had it coming for the Mohammad pictures, so of course not.

Strangerland:

" I never said that they had it coming for the Mohammad pictures, so of course not. "

I know. That was "Lost in Nagoya" who said that. However, you are insinuating the same thing by asking why Charlie Hedbo would use their right to free speech in the first place. So if people were massacred by Neo-Nazis for cartooning Hitler, would also question why they would make the cartoon in the first place?

you are insinuating the same thing by asking why Charlie Hedbo would use their right to free speech in the first place.

No I'm not.

So if people were massacred by Neo-Nazis for cartooning Hitler, would also question why they would make the cartoon in the first place?

Please show me where neo-nazis expressed that they think depictions of Hitler are an executable offense.

If cartoon images of Jesus Christ offended Christians, you can be sure that IS would draw them over and over.

Strangerland:

" Please show me where neo-nazis expressed that they think depictions of Hitler are an executable offense. "

You are evading the answer...

That was the answer, it just wasn't what you wanted to hear. Or maybe you aren't able to grasp it - the neo nazis haven't been clear that depicting Hitler is an executable offense, so the question isn't equivalent.

The thing is most people had never heard of Charlie Hebdo before the attacks. They weren't very good, in fact they were nothing more than lefty shock-jocks.

Nothing justifies what happened to them, but if you have freedom of speech and use it irresponsibly, then you have to expect some people to get upset.

You cannot choose your race, you can choose your religion.

Muslims in many middle eastern countries cannot. They are born to the religion, and there is no leaving it.

Saying/writing "I hate " is tantamount to saying "__ should die."

No it's not.

Those who say, "But it's offensive..." are in essence saying certain parts of Islamic society have the right to impose their views on the rest of us.

I've never said it's offensive. I've only said that there are people who are offended by it, and antagonizing them for no reason other than antagonizing them is stupid.

"Muslims in many middle eastern countries cannot. They are born to the religion, and there is no leaving it." Baloney. Most people are born into religion and some choose to leave. Islam is one of the few (maybe the only one) that threatens apostates with death. This is one reason why it's good to antagonize all religions; it's a good way to smoke out the radicals.

Baloney. Most people are born into religion and some choose to leave. Islam is one of the few (maybe the only one) that threatens apostates with death.

Which is why they can't leave.

This is one reason why it's good to antagonize all religions; it's a good way to smoke out the radicals.

It's definitely smoked out a lot in the west.

"The thing is most people had never heard of Charlie Hebdo before the attacks. They weren't very good, in fact they were nothing more than lefty shock-jocks.

Nothing justifies what happened to them, but if you have freedom of speech and use it irresponsibly, then you have to expect some people to get upset."

There's nothing wrong with lefty ( or rightist ) shock-jocks. Civilised people deal with this. It's what civilised people do.

There's nothing wrong with lefty ( or rightist ) shock-jocks.

I think there is something very much wrong with both camps. Moving swiftly on from your strawman, my point is expect a reaction should you test boundaries.

It's like going into a gypsy camp and telling them they're a bunch of dirty thieving mofo's and then complaining when you wake up in the Accident and Emergency ward.

The middle ground is having freedom of speech, and not using it to purposefully antagonize these groups.

Your very being antagonises these people, Strangerland. How do you propose to find middle ground on that?

But there is one group out there that cannot be questioned, ridiculed or antagonized...

@Samwatters. Wow, so you insist on spoiling a child because they throw a very bad tantrum? Sorry, but the rest of the world should not cater to such a thing. It's called giving an inch and they'll take a mile.

This is the real world and no one should try to appease one particular group distaste just because they "can't" handle it. It's called, "Deal with it, and become better at tolerating such things". Because at the very core of their beliefs, they're told they're not to put up with aspect of life outside their religious ideology. And they fail to realize that religion is about self governance, not governance of others. Which is exactly what most of their "laws" promote even to those outside of their belief system.

As many have said, "Why tolerate intolerance?"

Free speech and expression can be as antagonizing as it can be because that's what it is. It's not a crime to hurt some someone's feelings, and it certainly won't kill them. But if the "offended" group is as excessive in having their "feelings" hurt that they'll kill someone for it, the problem lies with them, no matter how you look at it.

@Honest Dictator. No one on this board thinks Islam is less comaptible with the 21st century than me and no one thinks radical Muslims are babies who need a good spanking more than me.

This is the real world and no one should try to appease one particular group distaste just because they "can't" handle it. It's called, "Deal with it,

It's not a crime to hurt some someone's feelings

"Why tolerate intolerance?"

Awesome post! People getting all butt hurt nowdays shows how weak people have become.

Madverts:

" The thing is most people had never heard of Charlie Hebdo before the attacks. They weren't very good, in fact they were nothing more than lefty shock-jocks. Nothing justifies what happened to them, but if you have freedom of speech and use it irresponsibly, then you have to expect some people to get upset. "

"Getting upset" is not the issue, getting murdered is. Don´t you think the majority of your posts get me upset? That does not mean I have the right to shoot you. And vice versa.

Saying something that gets some others upset is part of free speech. No but and if about it.

"Don´t you think the majority of your posts get me upset? "

You're always upset. Hysterical even.

I am not condoning murdering people over things they have said. I'm talking about personal responsibility. Cause and effect. It really isn't that hard to grasp..

Madverts:

" I am not condoning murdering people over things they have said. I'm talking about personal responsibility. "

By bringing in "personal responsibility", you are devaluating half-hearted declaration of free speech. No, it should NOT be our "personal responsibility" to obey islamic blasphemy laws in our societies. Be ashamed.

" Which is why they can't leave. "

Shariah apostecy law does not (or should not) apply in France.

Free speech in my opinion comes with responsibility. If you choose to purposely cover your nads in BBQ sauce and dangle them in the lions den then don't expect any sympathy. Charlie Hebdo was on the point of extinction before the attacks anyway, that was their motivation for their shock-jock antics by deliberately targeting Islam knowing full well it would get them publicity.

I realize you know absolutely nothing about France, but I'd like to know why publicly taking a crap on Muslims is part of free speech here but when someone does it to the Jews they get a massive fine and even a gaol sentence.

Get back to me on that one.

Your very being antagonises these people, Strangerland.

No, our destroying their lands and killing their people antagonizes them. Do you see them wanting to kill South Americans? No, because the South Americans aren't in their lands killing their people.

Free speech in my opinion comes with responsibility

I mostly agree, but I don't even know if it's responsibility so much as just not being a dick. I think it's just understanding that we all need to share the planet with each other, so using that free speech to antagonize for no other purpose to antagonize other people sharing this planet with us is not understanding that we're all in this together.

The hypocrisy is sickening.

Make a cartoon mocking/insulting things like U.S. troops, or burn the American flag and spit on it in public, and there would be calls for their heads and violence threatened.

Yet, make a cartoon mocking/insulting certain religions in very hateful and provoking ways, and it's supposed to be 'free speech' and people just need to get over it.

No, our destroying their lands and killing their people antagonizes them.

Which, of course, doesn't explain why Muslims, born and raised in the West, go to fight for ISIS.

Furthermore, repeated acts of barbarity in the name of Islam antagonise ME greatly, and yet I still find it in my giving heart to spare individual Muslims my wrath.

repeated acts of barbarity in the name of Islam antagonise ME greatly, and yet I still find it in my giving heart to spare individual Muslims my wrath.

Just as so many Muslims spare individual Westerners their wrath at the west bombing their weddings and their hospitals and their children.

Just as so many Muslims spare individual Westerners their wrath at the west bombing their weddings and their hospitals and their children.

Do they so? I don't recall the 9/11 terrorists, or the 7/7 bombers, or the Bataclan shooters being victims of Western bombings. Hell, maybe Boko Haram were, but they went off, abducted and raped Sudanese schoolgirls. Go figure.

Do they so?

What, you think all Muslims are terrorists? You think all Muslims hate all westerners? If so, you really are clueless.

@Moonraker"He suits Charlie".

Really? Why? They are bunch of dorks and their "magazine" is a worthless piece of toilet paper.

Muslims in many middle eastern countries cannot. They are born to the religion, and there is no leaving it.

...because there is no freedom to antagonize. Antagonizing serves an important function.

@Strangerland

Cartoons don't serve any other purpose other than to antagonize.

I disagree. The point of the cartoons is to demonstrate that people have a right disagree with Islamism (ie. free speech) whether or not it antagonizes. Although they are provocative, the cartoons uphold principles that at one point were nothing short of sacred in the West.

It's definitely smoked out a lot in the west.

Indeed. It has smoked out those in the West that do not really believe in free speech - unless of course it involves using taxpayer money to pay an "artist" to submerge a Christian crucifix in a jar of his own urine. Because to some such a act is not needlessly antagonistic to Christians?

I think the one way I could analogize this issue in a way that a Liberal person that believes in political correctness could understand would be to invoke the discredited, "she was asking for it" rape defense. If a women dresses provocatively she has a right to expect to be safe from sexual assault. However the Left would never dare to ask women to be more modest in their dress for fear of antagonizing hyper-sexualized men.