Why I'm not Charlie and never will be

Scroll to see replies

Pretty much. They were putting themselves in danger and etc.

You are nit that sympathetic considering you were calling them racist, which is completely false

They knew they were in danger? They got death threats on a regular basis. Come on! And of-course I am, they did not deserve that at all.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 421

Evening

Original post by amenahussein

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

So if you're not defending Charlie, does that mean you support shooting up people when they get offended by a cartoon?

Reply 422

amenahussein

Original post by Evening

So if you're not defending Charlie, does that mean you support shooting up people when they get offended by a cartoon?

Nope! Absolutely not.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 423

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by amenahussein

That's more of a reason for me to not be Charlie, by standing with this magazine people are depending bigotry and xenophobia. How stupid is this hashtag?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Where's the xenophobia and bigotry? I can't see any..

Reply 424

ilikeflying

Original post by Iggy Azalea

Let's all get one thing straight here:

Charlie Hebdo was a lesser evil than Islam and the Muslim population.

It was just a minority group. The majority of Muslims and Islamic people don't encourage this behaviour.

Reply 425

alevels2k15

Original post by wellholathere

The Paris attacks have again added to the islamaphobia in the world. On behalf of real Muslims; We are not Charlie and we are not the terrorists who did the shootings, that is all.

This. ✌️

Reply 426

Tom_Ford

Original post by DorianGrayism

Not really. They killed those people because of a cartoon.

Whether Al Qaeda was at war with the West or Not, something would have happened.

It was exactly the Same with Rusdie.

This is exactly what the media wants you to believe, the French and the west are building it as some basic murder because of a cartoon. 50 years ago we did not see mass murders like this from Islamist groups. Ask yourself why that has changed.

I also do not think 'Islamofascist' is that accurate a description really. What really was the motivation? Anti-faith and anti-minority propaganda has always been a feature of the media in Europe.

Hamza is predictably involved, as are IS, but context specific it is obviously Algeria that should be looked into to get to the crux of the matter. Algeria originally had a moderate and idealistic Islamic (and fundamentalist) democratic movement that was beaten down with great brutality. This movement opposed the tyranny of a French puppet government in Algeria, and the brutality suffered by them was the worst of any country in the world. Think China, as the western press often likes to slate for their human rights abuses, but worse.

Now, with that known, is it at all a surprise that young lads from the banlieue with little respect and social mobility/prospects in a France which practices widespread public contempt and hate for their religion, are a bit angry? (whilst being fully aware of the history of their country/relatives).

There is a lot of wilful ignorance in the French press that prefers to forget their imperialistic oppression and choose to permit extreme attacks on Muslim beliefs as an everyday facet of life. Yeah, they're free to express it. But is that right? To view this as simply a war between high-minded elite 'western enlightenment' and some sort of brutal fascist medieval bloodcult is to totally miss the point and to wilfully ignore the west's part in having developed the crisis.

Of course they are totally guilty and responsible for the crime itself. However one of the brothers was described as the sort that would not do this type of thing, a kind and sweet man. But stranger things have happened in the past to get someone so riled that they become radicalised and responsive to messages of hate and violence. I am not saying what he did was justified, but I think there is a bigger background to this than the message we're being sold by Murdoch/French media and co. We are being sold the French propaganda message, it's all about their liberty and equality vs medieval evil. But it is not all that , at all. It is a gross oversimplification.
It's at least partly about the recent legacy of European colonialism in Africa and the Middle East (call it imperial hangover) and at least partly about the French role in it and the refusal of France to address these things.

These guys are cannon fodder for every fanatic with a believable message aimed at giving them a sense of belonging and fuelling that anger/desire to put things 'right'. It could have been a cartoon, it could have been a government building, it could have been a plane, a subway train. Next time, they could be killing people because they don't like how they're discriminating against Muslims for X/Y/Z.

This is not just some isolated incident and to treat it as such is why the west will continue failing to deal with the actual problem.

Reply 427

Evening

Original post by amenahussein

Nope! Absolutely not.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Then why make such a sweeping generalisation about the millions who are standing in unity against terrorism? If you can do that than I can easily say you support terrorism and the right to kill people if you get offended.

Reply 428

uberteknik

Original post by amenahussein

Of-course they are not responsible for their deaths, they never shot themselves did they?

Not at all, I just said I'm sure they were aware of the danger they were putting themselves into, the danger of extremists and radicals rebelling in the way they did. Which was a terrible act. I STATE AGAIN.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, they put themselves in danger - precisely because they were making a stand for freedom through expression.

But just like the argument some people use that rape victims 'asked for it' is another way of silencing freedom of expression. The only person guilty is the rapist because they perpetrated the attack and used their freedom of choice to commit the rape.

The problem with satire and sarcasm is that one needs to understand the context in which the cartoon is made. Unfortunately that is exactly the problem with the Charlie Hebdo case because it can and is used out of context.

Satire say's one thing and means something entirely different. It's the more sophisticated equivalent of adding 'not' at the end of a statement after a pause, which out American friends are apt to do. There is a sketch in the Borat movie which satirises Americans teaching him how to perform 'not' jokes. The culture of Borat did not allow him to understand the concept and so he cannot master the art. The real joke was therefore at the expense of the Americans. In other words, satirising satire itself and not Borat stereotyping Khazakstan.

The confusion in the minds of people who only see as far as the literal interpretation, can be summed up by the famous French artiste Magritte, who painted a smokers pipe and titled it ceci ce n'est pas une pipe - translated as 'This is not a pipe'.

What he meant is that the painting itself is not a pipe, it merely shows an image of one.

With Charlie Hebdo, the uninformed will find treachery by taking a literal interpretation of their images. This misunderstanding of context can and is itself exploited by taking the literal image and pushing political agendas to up stir hatred and division.

Charlie Hebdo and the equivalent UK counterparts like Private Eye perform a very important role in liberal democracy because they force us all to confront issues that would otherwise be silenced - whether we agree with them or not.

So once again we have a difference of cultures not understanding each other.

It is therefore extremely comforting to see the millions gathered in Paris, London and other cities all over Europe and the world, who are all part of the same community, coming together in unity to fight fascism and hatred, to uphold the values of Liberté Égalité Fratertinté and to stand in defiance and solidarity against tyranny and oppression - whatever their race, creed and culture.

The terrorists have well and truly shot themselves in the foot and they only have themselves to blame.

Je suis Charlie.

[video="youtube_share;qoethxOp5Kg"]http://youtu.be/qoethxOp5Kg[/video]

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 429

Tom_Ford

Original post by Opiece

But these black people don't know the context of the drawing, which is the most important thing. When it was published, every French person knew it was referring and mocking the far-right political groups that called our minister a monkey. The reason Charlie are depicting her as a monkey as well is so that people understand the reference, not to insult her.

So? Charb', Charlie Hebdo's chief editor, said that he preferred "dying standing up than living on my knees". If these people get threatened, it just makes their fight against fascism and islamism even more legitimate. No one should be acknowledging this type of threats.

No. You seem to be pretty oblivious to the context in which this massacre happened. In 2011, Charlie Hebdo released a special edition called "Charia Hebdo" in order to mock islamist beliefs. Since then, they've been threatened, granted police protection and their headquarters were burnt down by extremists. The massacre that happened last Wednesday is just the epilogue of this affair. Had they not released these cartoons, they wouldn't have been attacked. It's got nothing to do with worldwide geopolitics or grand terrorist movements; it's just two extremist, Muslim zealots getting revenge on what they consider to be a personal insult. It's not something the 'French media' want us to believe, it's the actual truth.

The only difference between this and a regular terrorist attack is that the authors of Hebdo baited the terrorists. Hence they had it coming. What do they expect to happen? If they wanted to be martyrs then that is their choice. These guys were not rogue terrorists, they had contact with Al Qaeda and IS, I believe they trained in the middle east.

Reply 430

DiddyDec01

Original post by IdeasForLife

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.

Clearly you don't understand French, French culture and French politics. I bet you can't even read basic French.

If you have even had a small understand of it you would realise how wrong you are.

The minister is depicted as a monkey in response to the far right French news paper Minute. It is not a racist attack at all. But you don't understand that because you do not have the context behind the picture.

Don't make such stupid statements without doing any research what so ever.

Reply 431

Tom_Ford

Original post by DorianGrayism

Mmm not really. It has nothing to do with the IS.

They didn't like the Mohammed cartoons because it is blasphemous, so they murdered him.

No need to try to make it more complex than it actually is

And here we go:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ahmed-coulibaly-isis-video-footage-shows-paris-supermarket-gunman-pledging-allegiance-to-islamic-state-9970600.html

Reply 432

Zander01

I find it strange when people bang on about freedom of speech for some things but not for others.

We don't even have real 'freedom of speech' in Britain

Reply 433

AVGA17

For anyone comparing Charlie Hebdo's cartoons to racism, antisemitism and homophobia, I'll say what I keep saying to everyone citing this apparent 'double standard'

Being black, gay, or jewish (ethnically not religiously) or anything of the like, is not a choice.

Religion IS a choice..

Every choice a human being makes in their lives has consequences. And every adult should be prepared to face these consequences. Everyone has the right to ctiticise people's choices. Criticise, not obstruct them from making them.

Following a particular religious dogma is a choice. Nothing more. A choice everyone is free to opt out from at will. And of course, there are consequences. If it;s criticism from some newspapers in form of cartoons then so be it. Such is the price of freedom of expression.

Because the same laws that allow those cartoons to be published, allow you to follow your religion without fear of persecution or opression.

Charlie Hebdo weren't racist. They were criticising certain choices that fellow members of their society have made. They were excercising their right for free speech and freedom of expression. A right that muslims are free to excercise themselves as well. No one will EVER stop a muslim from publishing a cartoon of Jesus.

And this right is something that I personally hold very close to my heart. Especially as an Artist.

Je suis Charlie.

Reply 434

username945663

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

I'm quite disappointed with this post, not because you're not Charlie (everyone has the right to an opinion), but because you've taken the cartoons you posted wildly out of context despite Muslims always complaining that non-muslims do the same when referencing the Quran. For example, it's already been explained several times on this thread how the monkey cartoon isn't actually racist in the context it was drawn in.

Morning.

Changed OP. The online article I read mislead me I guess. Rabaa massacre one stays though. No one's given a good excuse for that. And I'm not too kind to those who laugh at my people like that.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 435

CJKay

Original post by amenahussein

That's absolutely fine! I definitely am for freedom of speech!! And I think the Paris shooting was a disgusting act and an attack on democracy. But.. Let's not act stupid, it didn't happen for no reason. The magazine tormented extremists and radicals.. Which is probably not the greatest thing to do, they have every right to do it! But they knew what danger they were putting themselves into when publishing such offensive cartoons.

Posted from TSR Mobile

And they continued despite the risks, as should we all, which is what made this particular incident so powerful.

Original post by paradoxicalme

I understand the context of the picture. However, it still depicts a black woman as a monkey. There is a fine line between satirising racism and reappropriating it and I can still see black people being offended by that picture.

The cartoons are aimed at people who are willing to take the time to understand the context behind them, not people who just like looking at pretty pictures.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 436

The Angry Stoic

#JesuisCharlie is not about whether or not you like their cartoons or whether you are offended by them. Its about supporting their right to freedom of speech and freedom of speech in general after it has been directly and violently attacked.

Original post by IdeasForLife

Reply 437

username945663

Original post by The Angry Stoic

Yh don't worry Jason, I don't think they had the right either.

Reply 438

Legilimency

You don't have to agree with Charlie's work to be Charlie. Being Charlie means you stand by freedom of expression, regardless of what is being expressed. Being Charlie means believing people should be able to communicate also inapproprioate, provocative and distasteful messages. Peope are being Charlie because they support this and want to proctect that right. It's possbile there are other interpretations, but this is the meaning I've understood is the most common one.