11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Grey Fox]

I like this new anti-clerical love Languish is feeling.

[mongers]

Somewhat incidently, perhaps the major reason why most if not all major UK newspapers and TV channels haven't reproduced much of CH. cartoons is someone in this country has already been convicted of distributing religiously offensive cartoons.

Background, a few years ago we ceased to have Blasphemy laws, because these had been replaced by a racial and religious hatred act in 2006.

This is the second conviction for this man, it's not immediately clear which piece of legislation he was prosecuted under, but I'd be interested if any lawyer here could clarify this, as the various news reports vary somewhat from one another:

I doubt that's any part of the reason.

I think he was prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act which was passed in the dying days of John Major's government. It was largely in response to there not being sufficient legal recourse for the victims of stalking. It can be racially or religiously aggravated which can carry a higher sentence and moves it from a summary to an either way offence. My guess is this guy wanted a jury trial so opted for the Crown Court.

It's nothing to do with incitement to religious hatred.

No apparently he was convicted under "Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986." 

I think fear of being stung for stirring up religious hatred Is playing a part in why our media isn't show these cartoons.

The 2006 legislation is on the books and awaiting a proper test, I think so far there's only been one person it's been applied to.

[Liep]

So in the next Charlie Hebdo they will feature a cartoon of Muhammad and it'll be translated to 16 languages. Bet one of those will be Arabic?

I'm sure no harm will come of it.

[Siege]

Are you questioning my insuperable superb ability to speak multiple languages? Why are you such a hater? Are you muslim, or communist, or liberal?
You might think you know Spanish, but I know real Spanish. I spoke spanish before I spoke english and I did not study either, I just farted and the words came out of my mouth. Peo!!! And I could speak French too if I wanted, but I have better uses for my intelect. Bottom line, I win!

Hilarious, keep them coming you have become my favourite payaso.
¡Fuerza con el francés, compadre!

Payaso?
I know what that means!
Vos sois muito mas payaso que yo.
Y no me llameis "compadre", you communist sympathizer.

[derspiess]

Brits are the complete opposite - relatively friendly and well-meaning, but can't for the life of them orchestrate a proper uprising.

Did a pretty decent one in 1776.

[garbon]

So, Mart, what's up with being a fan of revolution? Grallon often says something similar which strikes me as odd given that we are all part of a group that benefits mightily from a strong rule of law.

[Siege]

Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?

Seedy, Katmai, and that other drunk.

  Siegy?

Practically everybody here is the little guy--even the ones that don't think they are, no matter how hard they believe.

I have an extremely large penis.
People call me the Three-Legged Jew.
I wear specially designed pants with an extra leg in the front.
I don't need a bat to play baseball.
I can suck my own dick without bending foward.
My load can fill a cereal bowl, and then some.
I cannot ride on motorcycles.
Last time I went to the beach....

[Martinus]

So, Mart, what's up with being a fan of revolution? Grallon often says something similar which strikes me as odd given that we are all part of a group that benefits mightily from a strong rule of law.

You mean as gays or as people who are rich?

For me, I think it is just a case of romantic sentimentality. I would have probably disliked any actual revolution. Most likely I would end up like de Sade - an early supporter who was later arrested and imprisoned because as a revolutionary judge he refused to send innocent people to the guillotine.

[garbon]

You mean as gays or as people who are rich?

Well, I meant gays. I can't speak for Grallon but I certainly am not rich - much as I wish I was.

For me, I think it is just a case of romantic sentimentality. I would have probably disliked any actual revolution. Most likely I would end up like de Sade - an early supporter who was later arrested and imprisoned because as a revolutionary judge he refused to send innocent people to the guillotine.

Ah, okay.

[crazy canuck]

You'd think that any number of newspapers across would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the shootings... unless they had reasons not to.

Official censorship and self-censorship both seem like likely reasons not to, but disinterest seems a fairly far fetched reason not to.

A very good editorial in the Globe today addressing this question.

It's so very easy to defend the freedom of speech of those we agree with. It requires no particular courage or intellectual rigour. And so all those who are critical of newspapers, like this one, that have chosen not to publish the more inflammatory cartoons of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo are having a terrific little time right now. They have nothing on the line as they gleefully accuse the media of heinous shortcomings in the emotional aftermath of the murders of most of Charlie Hebdo's senior editorial masthead.

Newspapers and TV stations – and, somehow by extension, their reporters – are called cowardly because they won't print or broadcast images they consider offensive. They are labelled appeasers on the grounds they are buckling under to rioters in the Islamic world who protest the publication of images considered blasphemous. "Terrorism works," say the critics who believe the sole reason an outlet would refuse to publish an offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoon is out of fear of retaliation.

How incredibly easy. How crass and pompous.

There are 12 people dead in Paris, murdered because the editors and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo stuck to their editorial guns. They printed what was their right to print, even though many wished they didn't. The government of France at one point tried to get them to tone down their provocations. But after the offices of Charlie Hebdo were firebombed by Islamist extremists in 2011, the government gave the magazine police protection. The government supported the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish what it wanted, even though it disagreed with the content. That was courage. That took intelligence.

What doesn't require courage or intelligence is demanding proof of one's solidarity with the victims of the Paris massacre by reprinting their most offensive material. The right of Charlie Hebdo, and all the Charlie Hebdos of the world, to publish provocative, offensive, satirical cartoons must be backed without reservation. But so too must the right of other publications to make different choices – namely to defend Charlie Hebdo without embracing and endorsing everything the satirical newspaper ever did, or holding its work up as canon.

The Globe and Mail, along with The New York Times, the CBC and many other media outlets, last week chose not to reprint Charlie Hebdo's deliberately provocative cartoons. We made the same decision in 2006 after a Danish magazine was threatened by extremists for publishing cartoons depicting Mohammed as a terrorist. Both decisions were made in accordance with the newspaper's beliefs and values. Charlie Hebdo's editors lived by their values, and died for them. If there is a better way to honour them than by doing the same thing, we don't know what it is.

[Martinus]

I think most people would agree with this, CC. I just find the Raz's claim that the cartoons are not being reprinted because this is a minor issue ignored by American media to be quite preposterous.

[Siege]

Hey Jacob, is that it?
6 newspapers from the entire muslim world condenm the attacks?
And 2 of them are non-muslim lebanese?

[garbon]

It's so very easy to defend the freedom of speech of those we agree with. It requires no particular courage or intellectual rigour.

I don't see how that's true. I think we'd still call it courageous if a media outlet had been threatened and attacked for something mainstream that we agreed with. Similarly people who frustrated aims of would be attackers of said hypothetical media outlet would also be looked upon as courageous. I suppose less "intellectual rigour" as you wouldn't have the cognitive dissonance factor of having to verbally support something that you despite - but that's about it as a difference.

[CountDeMoney]

It's my understanding they tend toward crudeness.

Americans

But yes, they do:

It doesn't help that there's a loss in translation when it comes to American understanding of Hedbo, because Americans have no real equivalent to Charlie Hedbo cartoons over here.  They're more akin to an underground 'zine, or something an angry 13 year old would draw.  That, and they're simply not very funny, but I don't believe that's the point of them, even though you people laugh at them for some reason.  Then again, the French love Jerry Lewis too, so there you go.

There's a difference between editorial cartoonists and political satire cartoonists here as well.

[CountDeMoney]

They did seem to spare no sacred cows, by the way. The cover with the rabbi has him saying "Give us Palestine and we will cut the number [of Holocaust victims] from 6 to 5 million." 

Yeah, that's a real knee slapper.

Yeah.

Like I said, Jerry Lewis.