Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Charlie Hebdo watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I've never heard of the magazine until last week. Because of the murders and the furore, I'm intrigued by the controversy.

    I read an article on spiked-online.com called 'What if Charlie Hebdo was published in Britain? It exposes the hypocrisy the politicians, students and others.

    Now, I see why they are offended, buy by doing this, it's added much more publicity and exposure to the magazine. Now, Charlie Hebdo is probably one of the most well-known magazines currently.

    What do you believe? Free speech, or not? At the minute, people only believe in it only when it suits them. Either you do, or you don't.

    What do you think?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by LeeMills77)
    ...
    Its not about free speech really. Its about not killing people you disagree with.

    We have (in Britain) free speech within certain limits and if those limits are broken (e.g. hate, or invasion of privacy, libel) then there is a court case, where a jury can decide. e.g. Look a private eye and the court cases in which it has been the defendant - it has won some & lost others.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tombayes)
    Its not about free speech really. Its about not killing people you disagree with.

    We have (in Britain) free speech within certain limits and if those limits are broken (e.g. hate, or invasion of privacy, libel) then there is a court case, where a jury can decide. e.g. Look a private eye and the court cases in which it has been the defendant - it has won some & lost others.
    It is about Free speech and most people are hypocrites.

    Anyone who claims to support free speech but support laws against 'hate speech', 'incitement' or even the illiberal libel laws is a liar and hypocrite.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't about free speech or defiance. It's about France's arrogance and double standards.

    I went and searched out the comics, so I could make sure I knew what I was talking about, I don't think a lot of people have actually done that. Certainly they haven't appeared anywhere in UK media and for good reason, they're really in bad taste.

    It is not ok to attack someone's race, gender, ethniciy or religion, so basically anyone's held belief and we have laws against that. But no, in France it's ok to continusly make malicious insults about islam and muslims. No matter how much you disagree with it, it's still wrong.

    Make no mistake, those comics arn't light hearted jokes or even clever jokes. They're a intellectually basic, vulgar, malicious and a continued attack against a group of people's beliefs. Here lies the difference between hate and free speech. Here also lies the hypocracy of what is happening. People condem the shooters and yet still back the inciteful material that triggered the whole event. It's like rubbing an egg in someones face. So i'm not sure all those people protesting in France actually genuinely know what they're protesting about.

    There can be fine line between satire, sarcasm, jokes and such and outright hate speach. Satire, despite what many are claiming is not what Hedbo published.

    Carlie Hebdo's comics were aimed at inciting religious hatred and his provocations ended with an attack on his people, by his own people. Good one. So what does France do? Prints the material even more.

    If another attack occurs in France I seriously won't have any sympathy for the nation at all.

    What the shooters did was undeniably wrong to the highest order but I find Charlie Hedbo at least partially responsible for what happened.

    I could understand if France was standing up for actual righteous, moral values, but that is something they certainly are not doing. I also think it's this whole thing is possibly representative of a deeper problem within French society.


    I find that the Charlie Hedbo magazine is at least partially responsible for what occured.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    This isn't about free speech or defiance. It's about France's arrogance and double standards.

    I went and searched out the comics, so I could make sure I knew what I was talking about, I don't think a lot of people have actually done that. Certainly they haven't appeared anywhere in UK media and for good reason, they're really in bad taste.

    It is not ok to attack someone's race, gender, ethniciy or religion, so basically anyone's held belief and we have laws against that. But no, in France it's ok to continusly make malicious insults about islam and muslims. No matter how much you disagree with it, it's still wrong.

    Make no mistake, those comics arn't light hearted jokes or even clever jokes. They're a intellectually basic, vulgar, malicious and a continued attack against a group of people's beliefs. Here lies the difference between hate and free speech. Here also lies the hypocracy of what is happening. People condem the shooters and yet still back the inciteful material that triggered the whole event. It's like rubbing an egg in someones face. So i'm not sure all those people protesting in France actually genuinely know what they're protesting about.

    There can be fine line between satire, sarcasm, jokes and such and outright hate speach. Satire, despite what many are claiming is not what Hedbo published.

    Carlie Hebdo's comics were aimed at inciting religious hatred and his provocations ended with an attack on his people, by his own people. Good one. So what does France do? Prints the material even more.

    If another attack occurs in France I seriously won't have any sympathy for the nation at all.

    What the shooters did was undeniably wrong to the highest order but I find Charlie Hedbo at least partially responsible for what happened.

    I could understand if France was standing up for actual righteous, moral values, but that is something they certainly are not doing. I also think it's this whole thing is possibly representative of a deeper problem within French society.


    I find that the Charlie Hedbo magazine is at least partially responsible for what occured.

    Why is it bad to attack someone's religion?
    I view Islam, like most religions, antagonistic to freedom and progress.
    I think Islamic values are inferior to western values.

    Offensive is important in a free society as it is often required to make progress.

    Many people were offended when someone suggests blacks should be treated the same whites.
    Many where also offended when someone said women should be able to vote.

    If you wish to be free of offence you should move to an unfree society.
    By suggesting all beliefs are equal you just end up to moral relativism. People must be free to say their ideas are better than Islam.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...industry/16455


    You are pretty much victim blaming, do you also blame women who are raped because they dress provocatively?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences. My impression is that Charlie Habdo is a respectable and/or popular publication so they have the duty to not be so utterly offensive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences. My impression is that Charlie Habdo is a respectable and/or popular publication so they have the duty to not be so utterly offensive.
    Disagree, if you dont want to be offended then don't buy charlie hebdo.Religion on the other hand is an ideology that seems to produce more harm to human civilisation than good. Its old age doctrines and dogmatic texts only provide harm to a modern scientific society, whilst they seemingly continue to harm and prevent human progression, freedom and liberties.

    My belief is religion is toxic, and has been for thousands of years. Just a look back into the history books provides copious examples of human barbarism and conflict fuelled by religion. I can only be glad for the enlightenment, and the increase and growing acceptance of science, freedom and liberty.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    What is wrong with criticising someone (the prophet) that essentially carried out very disturbing practices?. Charlie hebdo was not partly responsible for the paris attacks. They simply were carrying out what a magazine of that nature does, laughing at the world of politics and religion. Cabu who was killed at charlie hebdo was an old children's tv star and popular French artist. This guy is hardly what you make out to be as a person that looks for trouble. I think you are believing that these guys hate religion and there followers. Like them I believe it is acceptable to criticise religion for what it is not the followers like charb (now dead editor of charlie hebdo) said.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidx2)
    Disagree, if you dont want to be offended then don't buy charlie hebdo.Religion on the other hand is an ideology that seems to produce more harm to human civilisation than good. Its old age doctrines and dogmatic texts only provide harm to a modern scientific society, whilst they seemingly continue to harm and prevent human progression, freedom and liberties.

    My belief is religion is toxic, and has been for thousands of years. Just a look back into the history books provides copious examples of human barbarism and conflict fuelled by religion. I can only be glad for the enlightenment, and the increase and growing acceptance of science, freedom and liberty.
    I believe that Islam is toxic too, and should be criticised. But the magazine wasn't criticism, it wasn't constructive, it was just disparaging and offensive with no actually rationale behind it. Despite Islam not being a race, it is still identity, and publications should still be held to level of respect. They have posted racist things in the past, so I'm not very sympathetic at all.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    I believe that Islam is toxic too, and should be criticised. But the magazine wasn't criticism, it wasn't constructive, it was just disparaging and offensive with no actually rationale behind it. Despite Islam not being a race, it is still identity, and publications should still be held to level of respect. They have posted racist things in the past, so I'm not very sympathetic at all.
    I think you have to be sympathetic because of the human tragedy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by masterwam)
    I think you have to be sympathetic because of the human tragedy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not sympathetic to Charlie Hedbo.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:


    Just some of the thoughts of people about this issue..

    "They're asking for it"

    "They haven't learned their lesson"

    Disgusting.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    Why is it bad to attack someone's religion?
    I view Islam, like most religions, antagonistic to freedom and progress.
    I think Islamic values are inferior to western values.

    Offensive is important in a free society as it is often required to make progress.

    Many people were offended when someone suggests blacks should be treated the same whites.
    Many where also offended when someone said women should be able to vote.

    If you wish to be free of offence you should move to an unfree society.
    By suggesting all beliefs are equal you just end up to moral relativism. People must be free to say their ideas are better than Islam.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...industry/16455


    You are pretty much victim blaming, do you also blame women who are raped because they dress provocatively?
    No it is not, malicious offence only serves to undermine. It has no positive effects to society.

    Your points about equality and the vote do stand. Critisism, discussion, questioning and freedom to disgree etc IS fundamental to a free society. Critisism and malicious attack are two different things however. I've seen the comics and my opinion is that critisism is not what Hedbo was doing. I do not see how anything positive could come from them, only the provocation of others.

    Reguarding your rape analogy, people must be responsible for their actions. Whilst dressing provocatively is much more a grey area, people who get so drunk they don't remember anything are leaving themselves open to attack or exploitation. This is no one elses fault other than their own. They chose to become drunk and attached to that are possible consequences.

    This does not justify rape [Nothing justifies it] nor does it make the would be attacker innocent, no, they are guilty of the crime they have commited and should be punished accordingly, they are being held responsible for their actions. That crime however, could have been prevented had the victim not left themselves in such a vunerable state, somthing of which they are responsible for and their own doing.

    People are responsible for their own actions.

    (Original post by davidx2)
    Disagree, if you dont want to be offended then don't buy charlie hebdo. Religion on the other hand is an ideology that seems to produce more harm to human civilisation than good. Its old age doctrines and dogmatic texts only provide harm to a modern scientific society, whilst they seemingly continue to harm and prevent human progression, freedom and liberties.

    My belief is religion is toxic, and has been for thousands of years. Just a look back into the history books provides copious examples of human barbarism and conflict fuelled by religion. I can only be glad for the enlightenment, and the increase and growing acceptance of science, freedom and liberty.
    I'm not the one being offended. Those guys that decided to shoot up the place were. You'll find easily offended people everywhere and the level at which offence is taken isn't uniform across a social or specific group, generally.

    So are you saying it's ok to make a comic that is highly racially offensive? How about Jews? or homosexuals? ...is that ok just as long as those groups don't buy it?



    You see, with offence of that magnitude comes disrespect and it's dehumanising to the people it offends, which is wrong.

    I DO see the point you're making here but I don't think it applies to matters of this kind of seriousness.

    Those guys took unnaturally extreme offence and then decided to seek retaliation, but this is what people do in a lot of things, its just the scale at which they react. What does it cost not to offend someone on the level we're talking about...perhaps not to publish malicious comics that have the sole purpose of offending a targeted group? That's hardly a difficult or effortful thing to do to resolve the problem.

    Charlie Hebdo isn't funny, we're not talking about actual jokes or humor here, Hebdo has absolutely no redeeming qualities other than to seriously offend others.


    I cba to provide a differnt view about religion to you, its another topic.

    "just look back at the history books provides copious examples of human barbarism and conflict that wasen't fuelled by religion" ....got a point there?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mossad job. Ramp up the war on terror that began with another Mossad terrorist job on 9/11. Frame Muslims for terrorism, invade Muslim countries that created terrorism when there was little to begin with. This war on terror is an excuse to allow US/Israeli Zionist interests in the Middle East. There are a lot of Jews in France and much like America they have all the power and influence. Plenty of Sayanim (Jewish agents recruited by Mossad to help them with their terrorism) to choose from.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only reason why you can't see who is behind all this is because they indoctrinate us with their false victimhood. Understand this. Jews are not allowed to be talked of in a negative way. They have no crimes associated with their name other than what Israel is doing. Why do you think this is? Anti-Semitism! It is considered anti-Semitism to know of bad things Jews have done to others and all the trouble their people caused. This means Jews can commit whatever crimes they like and those who call them out on it are anti-Semites! victimising the villains.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    It is about Free speech and most people are hypocrites.

    Anyone who claims to support free speech but support laws against 'hate speech', 'incitement' or even the illiberal libel laws is a liar and hypocrite.
    I don't think it should be illegal to express an unpopular of politically incorrect opinion but you shouldn't expect everyone to sit by and take it/ agree with you. You should expect debate, that said you shouldn't have to fear being shot.
    I read someone use the example of the work place saying if you mocked islam or said you hated muslims at work you'd get fired or disciplined at least. but this does not only relate to religion if you said you hated women or people over 40 or black people etc in the work place you'd get the same treatment. That's not to say you can't have those opinions it's just to say there's a time to express them.
    I don't agree that we should have laws to prevent people expressing those views.
    Laws to prevent discrimination perhaps e.g. in NI gay men still can not give blood that's discrimination and we need laws to prevent that. But do we need laws to say you can't say you disagree with homosexuality, no we don't because it's someone's opinion no matter how stupid, uneducated and narrow minded it is.
    If we disagree with someone's use of their free speech we have to rise above it or debate it with them
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    This isn't about free speech or defiance. It's about France's arrogance and double standards.

    I went and searched out the comics, so I could make sure I knew what I was talking about, I don't think a lot of people have actually done that. Certainly they haven't appeared anywhere in UK media and for good reason, they're really in bad taste.

    It is not ok to attack someone's race, gender, ethniciy or religion, so basically anyone's held belief and we have laws against that. But no, in France it's ok to continusly make malicious insults about islam and muslims. No matter how much you disagree with it, it's still wrong.

    Make no mistake, those comics arn't light hearted jokes or even clever jokes. They're a intellectually basic, vulgar, malicious and a continued attack against a group of people's beliefs. Here lies the difference between hate and free speech. Here also lies the hypocracy of what is happening. People condem the shooters and yet still back the inciteful material that triggered the whole event. It's like rubbing an egg in someones face. So i'm not sure all those people protesting in France actually genuinely know what they're protesting about.

    There can be fine line between satire, sarcasm, jokes and such and outright hate speach. Satire, despite what many are claiming is not what Hedbo published.

    Carlie Hebdo's comics were aimed at inciting religious hatred and his provocations ended with an attack on his people, by his own people. Good one. So what does France do? Prints the material even more.

    If another attack occurs in France I seriously won't have any sympathy for the nation at all.

    What the shooters did was undeniably wrong to the highest order but I find Charlie Hedbo at least partially responsible for what happened.

    I could understand if France was standing up for actual righteous, moral values, but that is something they certainly are not doing. I also think it's this whole thing is possibly representative of a deeper problem within French society.


    I find that the Charlie Hedbo magazine is at least partially responsible for what occured.
    Satire is an important part of French culture - it's been around since at least the 1400s. I find it so ignorant for you to say it is the magazine's fault - it is the fault of the oppressive religions that find satire insulting. The satire on the covers exposes the oppressive regimes found in the faith - e.g. 2011's cover "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter" relating to the torture citizens in countries ruled by Sharia law face if they don't respect the faith. Perhaps it is wrong to depict the prophet - however, the covers supposedly depicting him don't actually say explicitly that it is in fact Muhammad.

    I'm not racist but (I know that's cliched) if you must respect their [Islamic countries such as UAE, Saudi] culture/Sharia law when travelling (dressing modestly, etc) then they [the attackers, extremist Muslims in France etc) should respect the Western culture of satire.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidx2)
    Disagree, if you dont want to be offended then don't buy charlie hebdo.Religion on the other hand is an ideology that seems to produce more harm to human civilisation than good. Its old age doctrines and dogmatic texts only provide harm to a modern scientific society, whilst they seemingly continue to harm and prevent human progression, freedom and liberties.

    My belief is religion is toxic, and has been for thousands of years. Just a look back into the history books provides copious examples of human barbarism and conflict fuelled by religion. I can only be glad for the enlightenment, and the increase and growing acceptance of science, freedom and liberty.
    I once had a very negative view of religion not disimilar to that you've expressed. I now live in Northern Ireland where the scar of religion is still healing and you can see how one might think it's toxic.
    However, I also worked with the elderly and seeing what religion means to people who are at a very different place in life was rather enlightening.
    I don't think religion is the toxic thing it is the interpretations of the minority and the human way that is toxic.
    Religion does not have to be taken as law, we don't need to read the bible and decide that god literally created the world in 7 days. What the majority of people take from religion is hope, moral values and a guide for their lives. This is something which fits well alongside science, freedom and liberty. For many people religion brings a great many good things.
    It is the small minorities such as westboro baptist church, Is etc. who have misinterpreted religion that give it a bad name. Therefore it is them who are toxic not the religion itself. Religion is often used as an excuse for war and conflict. Returning to Northern Ireland something I'm now quite familiar with, their war was titled as religious. But really the IRA began as a freedom fighting independence movement, it wasn't about being catholic or protestant it was about being irish and ruling as ireland instead of as part of England and the UK. As that war progressed people still labelled it as religious but it still wasn't it was routed in government & police corruption, injustice, inequality and towards the end gang culture. This is the same with so many 'religious' wars. Religion is used as the scape goat because it's easier than explaining the deeper problems.
    Religion as you said is an ideology based on a bunch of ancient books, it's only how individuals interpret them which makes it toxic or otherwise.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    This isn't about free speech or defiance. It's about France's arrogance and double standards.

    I went and searched out the comics, so I could make sure I knew what I was talking about, I don't think a lot of people have actually done that. Certainly they haven't appeared anywhere in UK media and for good reason, they're really in bad taste.

    It is not ok to attack someone's race, gender, ethniciy or religion, so basically anyone's held belief and we have laws against that. But no, in France it's ok to continusly make malicious insults about islam and muslims. No matter how much you disagree with it, it's still wrong.

    Make no mistake, those comics arn't light hearted jokes or even clever jokes. They're a intellectually basic, vulgar, malicious and a continued attack against a group of people's beliefs. Here lies the difference between hate and free speech. Here also lies the hypocracy of what is happening. People condem the shooters and yet still back the inciteful material that triggered the whole event. It's like rubbing an egg in someones face. So i'm not sure all those people protesting in France actually genuinely know what they're protesting about.

    There can be fine line between satire, sarcasm, jokes and such and outright hate speach. Satire, despite what many are claiming is not what Hedbo published.

    Carlie Hebdo's comics were aimed at inciting religious hatred and his provocations ended with an attack on his people, by his own people. Good one. So what does France do? Prints the material even more.

    If another attack occurs in France I seriously won't have any sympathy for the nation at all.

    What the shooters did was undeniably wrong to the highest order but I find Charlie Hedbo at least partially responsible for what happened.

    I could understand if France was standing up for actual righteous, moral values, but that is something they certainly are not doing. I also think it's this whole thing is possibly representative of a deeper problem within French society.


    I find that the Charlie Hedbo magazine is at least partially responsible for what occured.
    By reading the comics, do you mean you've actually read the magazines or just the cartoons? Because if it's the latter as far as I'm concerned you're just as uninformed as anyone else.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeArePalestine)
    The only reason why you can't see who is behind all this is because they indoctrinate us with their false victimhood. Understand this. Jews are not allowed to be talked of in a negative way. They have no crimes associated with their name other than what Israel is doing. Why do you think this is? Anti-Semitism! It is considered anti-Semitism to know of bad things Jews have done to others and all the trouble their people caused. This means Jews can commit whatever crimes they like and those who call them out on it are anti-Semites! victimising the villains.
    How is Israel committing a crime?. They are only defending themselves. If Palestine lets say was winning the conflict what would your view be!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 14, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.