The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Charlie Hebdo "satrizes" Sinai Plane Crash: Russia are up in arms

Charlie Hebdo have come under fire by Russian politicians for depicting the Sinai crash, which left 224 dead, as "mockery".

"It's not satire but filthy mockery," Ivan Melnikov, the deputy speaker of the lower house, told Russian state TV.

"As the whole world condoles with us, Charlie Hebdo preaches its vile right to sacrilege," he added.

Charlie Hebdo have not yet commented on the criticism.



Cartoon on the left: "The Dangers of Russian Low-Cost Airlines." "I should’ve flown Air Cocaine," (Background of Air Cocaine)

Cartoon on the right: The Islamic State: Russian Aviation Intensifies Its Bombardments.


According to Russia's State News Agency (TASS), Russian Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters that "This has nothing to do with democracy, self-expression or whatever. It is pure blasphemy,"


I can understand the Russian anger, given the fact that the majority of the 224 souls that perished were it's citizens and Charlie Hebdo trying to score political points over that just seems so distasteful.

I don't particularly find the cartoons amusing or it doesn't elicit some kind of deeper thinking but maybe that's because I'm not French.

Another interesting theory is that Charlie Hebdo are trying to score points against the Russian regime because earlier this year, Russia categorically stated that any publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons would be considered illegal.


Does the cartoon seem distasteful to anyone else?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Arbolus
Arbolus
13
Yes, it's distasteful. Charlie Hebdo and other magazines should certainly have the right to print this sort of thing (along with Muhammad cartoons, anti-Semitic cartoons, 9/11 satire and who knows what else), but they are massive pricks to actually do so.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I find it intriguing that suddenly loads of these "je suis Charlie" people started veering away from their support of Charlie Hebdoe as soon as they found out the fashionable view was to be apologists for the attackers. And now they did a cartoon on the Russian plane they're positively outraged because it's fashionable to praise Russia at the moment.

Ah well. Such is life for the sanctimonious hipster.
Original post by KimKallstrom
I find it intriguing that suddenly loads of these "je suis Charlie" people started veering away from their support of Charlie Hebdoe as soon as they found out the fashionable view was to be apologists for the attackers. And now they did a cartoon on the Russian plane they're positively outraged because it's fashionable to praise Russia at the moment.

Ah well. Such is life for the sanctimonious hipster.


I think it has significantly less to do with attitudes towards Russia and much more to do with attitudes towards Islam. But that wouldn't fit in to your 'blame the left' narrative so...


For the record I think the one on the right is quite funny. Distasteful, rude and offensive yes, also a little bit funny. I don't get the one on the left, I think I;m missing something with the cocaine reference.
Original post by mojojojo101
I think it has significantly less to do with attitudes towards Russia and much more to do with attitudes towards Islam. But that wouldn't fit in to your 'blame the left' narrative so...


For the record I think the one on the right is quite funny. Distasteful, rude and offensive yes, also a little bit funny. I don't get the one on the left, I think I;m missing something with the cocaine reference.


My narrative isn't to blame the left because im not right wing lol. My narrative here is to point out the people who change their whining based on what's fashionable at the time. Didn't you notice what I described happening extensively?

As for putting it down to changes of attitude to Islam....from who? Are you saying that all these people suddenly cheering on Putin are doing so because suddenly they're thinking twice about Islam? That's a bizarre observation but even if it's true, these people are stupid.

"I'll praise an abomination of a country and a leader because I'm now against Islam, even though I've spent the last few years being an apologist for Islamic terrorism."

I'll point out to you that most of these people have in fact been the types to be apologists for terrorists, blaming us for 7/7 etc. Look at who online for instance is taking this view. Barely any of them even cared at all about ISIS let alone Al Shabab, Boko Haram ect until a few weeks ago when they suddently became (one of) Russia's targets a few weeks ago. How can you not have noticed this?

You think there's not a pro-Russia bias here among these RT parrots? They mostly ranted when we sent a drone to kill that cockroach ISIS British guy but now don't care that Russia has bombed 4 hospitals just now.

This isn't a left wing/right wing thing because these idiots will be right wing as soon as it becomes the "in" thing within their hive. Belee dat.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 5
Avatar for Arbolus
Arbolus
13
Original post by KimKallstrom
I find it intriguing that suddenly loads of these "je suis Charlie" people started veering away from their support of Charlie Hebdoe as soon as they found out the fashionable view was to be apologists for the attackers. And now they did a cartoon on the Russian plane they're positively outraged because it's fashionable to praise Russia at the moment.

Ah well. Such is life for the sanctimonious hipster.


It is possible to criticise Charlie Hebdo's abusing its right to free speech while also deploring those who try to shut it down by force. If I insulted your mother to your face and you shot me in revenge, we would both be in the wrong.
Original post by Arbolus
It is possible to criticise Charlie Hebdo's abusing its right to free speech while also deploring those who try to shut it down by force. If I insulted your mother to your face and you shot me in revenge, we would both be in the wrong.


No, but if the first thing I said to your friends and family was 'well, I disagree with how he insulted that person's mother', without acknowledging the foul murder that occurred until probed later ('oh well, I also disagree with killing someone for what they say') then that would be pretty suspect and apologist-sounding, which is exactly what a lot of people did during the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Also, how can you abuse your right to free speech? Are people who self-harm abusing their right to life?
You don't like it then don't read it.
Original post by Arbolus
It is possible to criticise Charlie Hebdo's abusing its right to free speech while also deploring those who try to shut it down by force. If I insulted your mother to your face and you shot me in revenge, we would both be in the wrong.


Indeed it is possible. I'm talking about people jumping from one view to the other depending on what is in vogue to associate yourself with.

There are also others who were just like that woman who kicked off at the Frankie Boyle gig when one of his jokes hit close to home, even though she'd been all aboard when he was mocking other people and issues. It's all well and good to be all Je Suis Charlie when the target is what you don't like, but when it's what you support, suddenly they're dispicable. This is more what I'm driving at here.
Original post by KimKallstrom

I'll point out to you that most of these people have in fact been the types to be apologists for terrorists, blaming us for 7/7 etc. Look at who online for instance is taking this view. Barely any of them even cared at all about ISIS let alone Al Shabab, Boko Haram ect until a few weeks ago when they suddently became (one of) Russia's targets a few weeks ago. How can you not have noticed this?.


*cough* Corbyn's cabinet *cough* :colone:
I believe in freedom of speech, but you do think they should have learnt by now.
I sort of laughed at the second one. Am I a bad person?
Reply 12
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Being offensive and distasteful is what Charlie Hebdo have done for fifty years. They are probably delighted of the comments from Russian officials.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by KimKallstrom
I find it intriguing that suddenly loads of these "je suis Charlie" people started veering away from their support of Charlie Hebdoe as soon as they found out the fashionable view was to be apologists for the attackers. And now they did a cartoon on the Russian plane they're positively outraged because it's fashionable to praise Russia at the moment.

Ah well. Such is life for the sanctimonious hipster.


I don't think it has so much to do with attitudes towards Islam or Russia, but more about getting machine gunned because a group of people doesn't like your product. If the Russians went down Charlie Hebdo's office and attacked them we'd see the "Je suis Charlie" come back. Many people dislike the cartoons but more agree nobody should be killed for drawing them.
How is either in any way blasphemous? Saying it's distasteful is fine, but blasphemy?


Original post by RFowler
I sort of laughed at the second one. Am I a bad person?


Nope, I laughed too. But then gallows humour is always good for me.
Original post by TheArtofProtest



Does the cartoon seem distasteful to anyone else?


Nope.
Original post by Josb
Being offensive and distasteful is what Charlie Hebdo have done for fifty years. They are probably delighted of the comments from Russian officials.


It's interesting that you say that. May I ask to who?
Reply 17
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by TheArtofProtest
It's interesting that you say that. May I ask to who?


Pretty much everybody. Nobody cared before the attack.
I didn't agree with what they did with the Prophet Muhammed cartoon and once again I don't like what they've done now. If you said anything against Charlie Hebdo you were suddenly attacked, times have changed.
Original post by Josb
Pretty much everybody. Nobody cared before the attack.


I don't think so.

In fact, I don't think I've come across an issue where it made a mockery of a liberal person who holds progressive values.

I'd understand it if they were offensive to everyone as you claim, but I don't think that's particularly true.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you