Why I'm not Charlie and never will be

Then you probably should read Charlie Hebdo. Just so that, you know, you can see how insulting they really are and how much bullsh*t the media fed you.



They both are very legitimate fights, and so are many other fights throughout the world.
However, daisychain_, that doesn't mean we must disregard the symbolic impact of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Be it in the case of Syria, Palestine, Kurdistan or Charlie Hebdo, extremism is the one killing people. This should be a global fight against intolerance, not one over which massacre is the most horrific.

The cartoons below are drawn by Charlie Hebdo, the french magazine which recently got attacked by gunmen.

It shows a muslim man using the Quran as (bullets going through it) with the caption "the Quran is s*** it doesn't stop bulllets" after the Rabaa massacre in Egypt. Over 1000 Egyptians were killed by their own military whilst peacefully protesting.

This is one of the reasons I am not charlie. I do not make fun of massacres.I am above that. If someone where to make fun of holocaust victims, they would be called quite a few bad names(and rightly so). It shouldn't be any different when people make fun of other atrocities.

The other cartoon shows, Mrs Taubira, a government minister, as a monkey simply because she is a black woman. I do not support racism, so yet again, I am not Charlie.

Just to add - I do not support the gunmen or anything of the like.

The images are in the spoiler, you may find them offensive, so I've given you the option whether you wish to view them or not.

Huh? How did the cartoons "limit" the freedom of expression of Muslims? They didn't in the least. Muslims were free to ignore the cartoons or to take offence and exercise their right to counter the cartoons with whatever argument they wished to make.



Nonsense. The cartoons were a means of challenging the view that a certain historical figure is perfect and beyond reproach, and to protest censorship. Oh and "mocking" is a form of freedom of speech. The two are not mutually exclusive.



No it's not. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons wouldn't have been in illegal in England, and nor were they illegal in France. The European Court of Human Rights itself accepts that freedom of expression includes the right to mock.



There is no such human right to be free from someone sitting in their office and drawing an image. Under what legislation do you get this purported "human right" from?

It's not that freedom of speech that has caused such an atrocity to take place, it's the warped mind of a religious fascist who believes that murder is a proportionate response to someone drawing a cartoon.

Preconceiving another human being is prejudice.

Acting on prejudice is discrimination. So mocking a race is considered racist, not an expression of freedom of speech. The human right to freedom of speech is not an imbreachable right, only torture, slavery and equality are totally protected in all scenarios. Equality beats freedom of speech, Charlie breached the right of equality for freedom of speech. Go figure.

If someone burnt a Quran, would you not consider that even slightly disrespectful? But its just setting alight a bunch of pages right? Dont use that bulls**t argument of it being just an image, because the Quran is just a piece of paper as well. Its the intent which matters. Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews, he sat in an office and gave orders. Why is he considered the most evil then? The whole reason the pictures were first published was to make a mockery of Islam. You think people will take lightly to that? People who live their whole lives by the book?

You're right though, it is the religious fascist's fault for killing them. Theres no denying that. But what i am trying to get at is that technically, Charlie provoked it.

They weren't challenging censorship or doing anything vaguely in the cause of freedom of speech, they were making dark humour and seeing if they could get away with it.

Tbh I could not give a toss about France, as long as the UK is fine we'll be ok. It's not like those in France like us. These Charlie people had it coming, they played chicken and lost. They had their right of free expression yes, but they knew there may be a backlash from extremists after their very insulting publications. Both sides are to blame and are moronic in differing degrees.

What a disgraceful comment. Do publishers of the Qur'an "have it coming" if they are attacked by extremist gay or feminist groups by continuing to publish a book that such groups find offensive?

I don't see publishers of the Qur'an having feuds/dialogues with extremist gay and feminist groups.

This was the case with Charlie Hebdo (who had running dialogue with those who threatened them), they knew what they were getting into, one of the artists even said "I might be killed" (sp). He wanted to become a martyr, he became one. Hence he had it coming, it was his own free will to put himself in danger.

Besides, contextually the gay/feminist movements have far less of a blood filled history with the Muslims than the Muslims in France with the French establishment. It's a **** analogy.

Irrelevant. It is a hypothetical analogy made in order to test your flawed logic.



So he should have given in to the whim of religious fascists?



Oh please, gay people are persecuted all the time in Muslim countries, and also in Western countries by extremists. Regardless, the hypothetical analogy was used to challenge your logic. Calling it "****" does not make it go away, it just suggests that you do not have an answer.

Replace gay/feminist with far-right. If the far-right, who do have a more blood filled history with Muslims in Europe, demanded that the Qur'an no longer be published because they found it "offensive", would the publishers have it coming by continuing to publish it? Would they still have it coming if they had a running dialogue with the far-right? Would it be appropriate to say "they had it coming" if the publishers of the Qur'an were ultimately killed?

What does that even mean?



The Muhammad cartoons do not constitute "mocking a race", nor do they discriminate under any law.

You are completely wrong in your analysis of European law, domestic and otherwise. What precedent or legislation have you used to come to your conclusion?

Let me get it straight for you: Charlie Hebdo published satirical cartoons of Muhammad. In Europe, there is generally no right to not be offended by something, particularly satire of religious belief. Therefore what Charlie Hebdo did was completely within French law, and also within the European Convention on Human Rights.



The mocking of religious belief, particularly in the form of satire, is a long-held tradition in Europe. It is particularly valid when people hold such religious beliefs, which include homophobia, up as perfect and sacrosanct. If people are offended by that, and don't "take lightly" to that (which I presume you mean murdering in response), then that is their own irrational prerogative.



This is where your logic extends to: say in 25 years time the far right gains a massive foothold in Europe. They say "publish the Qur'an, which we find offensive, and suffer the consequences". Are publishers of the Qur'an "provoking" a violent response by continue to publish it, or are they continuing to adhere to their conscious that it is their religious freedom to continue to publish it?



Yes they were. Regardless, what's wrong with dark humour and why shouldn't people get away with it? There is clearly a market for Charlie Hebdo, or else they wouldn't be in business.

If Muslims were outlawed to the extent they could not practice their religion they would have to move elsewhere, to a predominantly Muslim country. But in today's society, there are strong principles of equality, approaching the situation from a strictly judicial point of view can only conclude to the fact that Hebdo, had they not posted such images would not have suffered an attack.

From research, this is definitely not the first time action has been taken against them. In recent years editors have received death threats going more than 5 years back, and a firebomb exploded at vacated headquarters after similar caricatures of Muhammad.

Why then, do Hebdo continue? Certainly not because it's tradition to mock religion. You'd think they'd hold off, its the instinctual reaction, but they seemed to keep pressing buttons until finally there was a reaction.

Why continuously make such images with the defence that is promoting freedom of speech. It is stirring unnecessary tension where before there was little and Muslims were generally accepted, to the point theyve forced a reaction and outlawed Muslims, almost a deathwish paving the way for pointless wanton and destruction, hence why I say it would be better it Charlie had just held off.

Nobody supports his killing, at all. But we all agree he was a foul human-being


Posted from TSR Mobile

If you are depending Charlie, or doing this whole trend about 'I'm Charlie', you are basically depending antisemitism, racism, Islamophoba, bigotry and xenophobia.


Posted from TSR Mobile

100% agree. I already shared my reasons in the other post about this so I might as-well copy & past. They also had a cover talking about surrogacy being slavery & what do you know, they drew a picture of 2 white people walking a black person on all 4s with a leash. Just inserting racism wherever they can & showcasing how they truly feel about black people.

Charlie Hebdo has made numerous extremely racist etc comics. Although they insult other religions equally, they seem to go one step further when insulting Muslims. Hebdo contributes to the marginalisation of discriminated groups that are already oppressed; its not 'just a cartoon'. Their work is viciously disgusting and goes above satire and into the realm of racism, xenophobia etc. They shouldn't have been killed, I condemn the murders just like I condemn the cartoons. So now, Charlie Hebdo is now being put on a pedestal as a western saviour and campaigner for free speech. They never were. If you champion free speech, you will not support Charlie Hebdo's work as they use it as a blanket to spread hate, islamophobia, racism and incite violence/ xenophobia.

So no, I am not Charlie. If I am anyone it would be Ahmed, the (muslim) policeman who was killed. He died protecting Charlie Hebdo who ridiculed his culture, ethnicity and faith. He died defending and protecting free speech and is a true hero.

You lost me at "died protecting Charlie."

How so? The freedom & laws that afforded Charlie Hebdo to exist. He obviously knew there was a target at the office/artists who work at Hebdo, so doing that line of work you could be harmed. He could have easily refused and asked to be relocated to another place.

He was just doing his job. That's not heroic. Heroic is not being a cop and diving in the line of fire anyway. That cop can also be seen as a sellout. But I am not Muslim so eh. I am however a woman of color and don't agree with the racist cartoons. I am not sad one bit that Hebdo is dead but I do not agree with the murders, either. I see you don't, either; I'm just trying to tie it all up.