I'm surprised at the number of people who are concerned about insulting the world's muslim population, etc. As pointed out in the article, if drawing an image of your prophet in a way that is not derogatory and supports the stated position of moderate muslims around the world (these attacks are not justified), why should anyone be offended? Are they so sensitive and insecure about the religion that they can't tolerate good-natured humor? I certainly hope that people are massively underestimating the resiliency of muslims around the world, since humorous depictions of jesus and other holy figures are standard fare around the world.
5
The Islamic communities in the advanced world need to take a hard look at themselves. Radical Islam infects them as the KKK infected Christianity in the Post Bellum South. There is entirely too much sympathy and support for criminal Islam in the mainstream Islamic communities in the Western Democracies.
Islam in Europe and America needs to break with the old world Islam, to create a Reform Islam that is actually non-violent and accepts the values and institutions of the advanced democracies in which they choose to live.
Religious reform is hard and sometimes dangerous work but it is long overdue for Islam. If Pope Francis can begin anew to reform for Christianity again, then the Islamic community should do no less.
Islam in Europe and America needs to break with the old world Islam, to create a Reform Islam that is actually non-violent and accepts the values and institutions of the advanced democracies in which they choose to live.
Religious reform is hard and sometimes dangerous work but it is long overdue for Islam. If Pope Francis can begin anew to reform for Christianity again, then the Islamic community should do no less.
6
The real issue is this: Religion kills. Plain and simple. All religion. It kills the spirit of free and open inquiry. Whether with a smile or a smirk or a sword, it kills and perverts the mind, with fear and falsehoods and fables, with guilt and poisons and prejudices, with wasted lives yearning for pie in the sky when you die. It kills and slaughters and maims physically, brother against brother, us against them, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth until all are left blind and toothless, or worse. From the bloody bible to the bloody koran, physical and mental horrors that have been committed in the name of religion by hucksters and frauds and fascists who claim to speak for god, and with god, and through god. And we fall for it! God did this, God told me. God loves that. God hates this. God wants this. Oh, and drop another coin in the basket before you leave please ...as god demands. Their so-called holy books are nothing but recipes for our enslavement and torture, written by self-serving, and all-too-human control-freaks. Like shorn sheep, like lemmings, we are led to our mental and physical debasement and slaughter, time and time again. Enough. Get off your knees! Stand up like the proud Men and Women that you truly are, and choose to live your own lives, in your own ways. Walk tall on your own path - with your own meanings and mistakes and methods. Break the chains of dependency and religion, and breathe the fresh and healing air of freedom. Deeply. Fully. Finally.
7
If only flip-flopping and fearmongering western politicians had the foresight, common sense and courage of the Charlie staffers. Then, one might have good reason to hope that this whole tragedy might prove to be a setback for violent extremism rather than a bending of principles out of fear of it.
3
I must disagree with some of the comments below.
(1) The only limitation to Freedom of Speech (or any fundamental Freedom) can only be that my freedom does not impinge on the freedoms of others. Irreverence or disrespect towards a historical, cultural or religious figure does NOT stop others from revering or respecting said figure.
(2) Defending Freedom of Speech (or any fundamental Freedom) cannot occur on warm, fuzzy, middle-of-the-road subjects. It can only occur at the rugged edge. This is how boundaries are established. There is no point, for example, to defend the right to broadcast an editorial about this season's in-vogue colour. There is every reason to defend the right to broadcast pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, even if you personally disagree with the intent or the contents of such a broadcast.
(3) The right to Free Expression cannot depend on taste. Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens are/were as (if not more) visceral as Charlie Hebdo in their attacks on religion. I don't see any debate on THEIR right to attack deeply-held beliefs.
(4) To call CH anti-islam shows a deep misunderstanding of the cultural background and identity of the publication and its editors. CH is anti-religion in general. In fact, it is anti-everything nonsensical (in their view). Its stance is rooted in a very deep tradition of French satire that dates back to the Enlightenment and they take on all three major religions, political figures and many other subjects besides.
(1) The only limitation to Freedom of Speech (or any fundamental Freedom) can only be that my freedom does not impinge on the freedoms of others. Irreverence or disrespect towards a historical, cultural or religious figure does NOT stop others from revering or respecting said figure.
(2) Defending Freedom of Speech (or any fundamental Freedom) cannot occur on warm, fuzzy, middle-of-the-road subjects. It can only occur at the rugged edge. This is how boundaries are established. There is no point, for example, to defend the right to broadcast an editorial about this season's in-vogue colour. There is every reason to defend the right to broadcast pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, even if you personally disagree with the intent or the contents of such a broadcast.
(3) The right to Free Expression cannot depend on taste. Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens are/were as (if not more) visceral as Charlie Hebdo in their attacks on religion. I don't see any debate on THEIR right to attack deeply-held beliefs.
(4) To call CH anti-islam shows a deep misunderstanding of the cultural background and identity of the publication and its editors. CH is anti-religion in general. In fact, it is anti-everything nonsensical (in their view). Its stance is rooted in a very deep tradition of French satire that dates back to the Enlightenment and they take on all three major religions, political figures and many other subjects besides.
3
"All is forgiven" - I cannot in my lifetime or in recent history recall a more brave, courageous and legitimate response in the wake of such a horrific and premeditated tragedy. Yet the conditioning of many does not allow them to see this part of the story, the story of forgiveness in response to the murder of your friends and colleagues. How can we talk about anything else? That should have been a huge headline. Our conditioned response is fear, "what will be the result of this cartoon?" It's beautiful response and unfortunately it seems many comments are still on the wrong side of history.
1
I do not believe making fun of another person's belief represents free speech nor is it brave. I do believe, however, that it will sell papers. I believe the paper is seizing a moment that will create great sales.
Very brave, or very foolhardy. Time will tell (and it may not take much time).
Mohammed was not Charlie and no one can speak for him-nor for anyone else. He may well have forgiven, but this placatory statement is -if that is what is -as they say: Way too late and way too little. And, for those who do not know: Mohammed is dead!
To paraphrase English Royals: We are NOT amused!
Let's explain this simply: If someone (individual or group) killed and wounded my friends and colleagues in such a violent way for what was believed to be revenge, it would seem to me that I need not tempt fate to invite the same treatment.
As the Qur'an says: If you fear trouble, go away from there. In other words, use your intelligence and common sense! Don't repeat what is for some provocation and for others insensitive and yet others, deeply insulting. This is true for all-the Hebdos, North Africans, muslims, French and the rest of the world's population.
To paraphrase English Royals: We are NOT amused!
Let's explain this simply: If someone (individual or group) killed and wounded my friends and colleagues in such a violent way for what was believed to be revenge, it would seem to me that I need not tempt fate to invite the same treatment.
As the Qur'an says: If you fear trouble, go away from there. In other words, use your intelligence and common sense! Don't repeat what is for some provocation and for others insensitive and yet others, deeply insulting. This is true for all-the Hebdos, North Africans, muslims, French and the rest of the world's population.
1
Unfortunately the reactions of the politicians has been to propose spying on everybody taking away our freedom of privacy. so have not the terrorists already won?
2
It is not to late for the New York Times to be courageous. Reverse your editorial position, and print the Charlie Hebdo cover. In your paper this past week, you posted a video of a man being shot to death--a graphic horror that should offend the sensibilities of any person with feelings. No moral individual condones murder, but you had to show it for your readers to understand in full the gravity of the attacks. And Islam may not condone depictions of their prophet, but in like manner Charlie Hebdo's cover is an essential part of the present and pressing story. Your deference in this instance feels less like respect than cowardice.
4
When there has been anger and confrontation in our personal lives, do we keep bringing up the issue, taunting, poking, enflaming? Or do we give the conflict a rest for awhile, a cooling off period, until emotions subside? I am not suggesting that free speech be curtailed in any way, only that timing matters.
1
One question: where can I buy a copy?
1
It is very surprising and disappointing that the NYT did not publish an image of the Charlie Hebdo cover, when so many other significant news organizations are and millions of individuals are sharing it on social media. The cover is central to this very story, and leaving it out is an insult to the intelligence of your readers. I'm a longtime reader and subscriber, and never has your slogan "All the news that's fit to print" been more meaningless and empty than it is today.
3
Absolutely brilliant cover!
1
Many NYT picked comments are about how brave Charlie Hebdo is as it continues to picture Muhammad inspite of the terrorist attack it sufferred for doing so. I wish the NYT had one ounce of that bravery and showed that cover instead of surrendering freedom of speech to religious extremists.
4
I suppose that I am just an ignorant American, poor me. I wonder this: "Why are believers of the Muslim faith _so_ offended by a drawing of their deity?" Is it simple modesty?
My gosh: as a Christian, I revel in depictions of Jesus Christ. I believe in the Trinity: God the Father, Jesus His Son & the Holy Spirit. I believe that God has no form: He sent his Son Jesus to convince us humans of His existence.
My gosh: as a Christian, I revel in depictions of Jesus Christ. I believe in the Trinity: God the Father, Jesus His Son & the Holy Spirit. I believe that God has no form: He sent his Son Jesus to convince us humans of His existence.
1
OUTstanding Charlie Hebdo! NOW that is a protest! That is a fight to combat religious fundamentalist intolerance and support for terrorism. I just might need to subscribe to them now. Pity many other spineless 'news' organizations while they may write an article to describe this news won't actually republish the picture itself!
Of all of the news organizations in the world, NYTimes...you disappoint me gravely with your lack of courage and not even showing the key object of your article. It is a sad day for me as you typically reflect so positively in my view of your home city. Forget about my subscription, I'm giving it to Charlie Hebdo now.
Of all of the news organizations in the world, NYTimes...you disappoint me gravely with your lack of courage and not even showing the key object of your article. It is a sad day for me as you typically reflect so positively in my view of your home city. Forget about my subscription, I'm giving it to Charlie Hebdo now.
4
People and groups that clothe their political insanity in religion demand and impose political speech controls to censor and dictate the lexicon of the political discourse in their favor. They are suppressing free political speech and expression, around the world.
1
I am travelling in India this is an example of the excellent commentary in the press here. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/will-gunmen-get-m...
The author is a Muslim Bangladeshi who is taking refuge in India. It also brings out the disappointment that non-western intellectuals have with the West epitomized by NYT and its readers. Worth a read.
The author is a Muslim Bangladeshi who is taking refuge in India. It also brings out the disappointment that non-western intellectuals have with the West epitomized by NYT and its readers. Worth a read.
1
A truly great article would be an honest Op Ed article describing the NYT decision not to publish the front cover of the pending Charlie Hebdo issue.
This is not a crticicism of the Times.
The Times staff are incredibly articulate. Their dilemma would be a great illustration of the complexity of actually executing freedom of the press.
This is not a crticicism of the Times.
The Times staff are incredibly articulate. Their dilemma would be a great illustration of the complexity of actually executing freedom of the press.
A truly interesting article would be an Op Ed discussion of why the NYT chose not to print the pending Charlie Hebdo cover
This is not a criticism of the Times
The Times staff are incredibly articulate. They must have discussed this.
It's easy to assert "they should print it" from afar.
But their debate would be a great illustration of how truly complex "freedom of speech" is in action.
This is not a criticism of the Times
The Times staff are incredibly articulate. They must have discussed this.
It's easy to assert "they should print it" from afar.
But their debate would be a great illustration of how truly complex "freedom of speech" is in action.
2
I'm glad I returned to the article to click on the link to Charlie Hebdo's cover. Unity in grief, forgiveness, and humor were conveyed by Rénald Luzier in his cartoon, um, holy card.
1
Youtube has a video with Moe Hammed in hell. I think the taboo is becoming less enforceable.
As a 20 year subscriber to the Times, I have never been so disappointed with the Times' coverage of a news story. One cannot intelligently cover this story without showing the cartoons the served as the original source of the controversy. And how can one cover this new post-massacre cover without actually showing it? The failure of the Times to run the cartoons in question speaks to either its tremendous cowardice or political correctness run amok. Evidently nous ne sommes pas tous Charlie.
8
“There are three principles in a man's being and life:
The principle of thought, the principle of speech,
and the principle of action. The origin of all conflict
between me and my fellow-men is that I do not
say what I mean and I don't do what I say.”
― Martin Buber
Something for Charlie Hebdo and France to chew on when you have a ostracized minority in destitution. I commend the NYTimes for putting the thought, not exercising the speech (the cover) and taking responsibility for this action.
The principle of thought, the principle of speech,
and the principle of action. The origin of all conflict
between me and my fellow-men is that I do not
say what I mean and I don't do what I say.”
― Martin Buber
Something for Charlie Hebdo and France to chew on when you have a ostracized minority in destitution. I commend the NYTimes for putting the thought, not exercising the speech (the cover) and taking responsibility for this action.
Charlie just doesn't get it. By rallying the support of the Prophet they mock shows again lack of insight and respect. How many from Charlie Hebbdo or world leaders who marched in Paris said "I am Robert Faurisson" when he was threatened with death and barely escaped assassination for his opinions? None. The freedom of speech seems to be observed only if it is directed against our enemy, and this is the Arab. That's what the vast majority of the Hollywood movies tell us.
For all those freedom fighters sitting in their mother's basement advising others to print this cartoon, why not take a positive step for freedom yourselves? Register a domain name and make a simple website with just that image. As long as you're channeling John Hancock, be sure to include your name and address in a large font. Until you do that, maybe keep quiet about the bravery or lack thereof of others.
2
The cover is the story, yes? So why don't we see an image?
Even if I disagree with NYT's decision to withhold the earlier, more provocative cartoons, I can at least fathom the rationale behind it: The story would not be conveyed fully or accurately without the "worst" of these images, and the "worst" images did not meet the paper's standards.
But this "Je Suis Charlie" cover is unquestionably less offensive than, say, photos of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, which previously were run in the Times.
Perhaps Professor Cooper's criticism is accurate.
Even if I disagree with NYT's decision to withhold the earlier, more provocative cartoons, I can at least fathom the rationale behind it: The story would not be conveyed fully or accurately without the "worst" of these images, and the "worst" images did not meet the paper's standards.
But this "Je Suis Charlie" cover is unquestionably less offensive than, say, photos of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, which previously were run in the Times.
Perhaps Professor Cooper's criticism is accurate.
8
The frightening part to me is that for some fairly reasonable people -- forget the crazies -- an explanation is actually required, to show that you really shouldn't kill someone because of a cartoon, or a drawing or a word.
And Obama's absence in Paris is historic, and seems sort of bigger and wider every day. Neville Chamberlain comes to mind.
And Obama's absence in Paris is historic, and seems sort of bigger and wider every day. Neville Chamberlain comes to mind.
5
This cover is brilliant (I know because I've viewed it on other websites). That this decimated group could channel their extreme sorrow and anger into this adroit depiction of peace, unity and humor is remarkable. At the same time, isn't it a stick in the eye to those zealots whose ideology cannot tolerate such peace, unity and humor?
5
I believe that NYTimes doing the right thing that does not reprint these caricatures here. Freedom of speech is a good thing. Freedom of speech it is a right thing. But it is bad if freedom of speech is used to insult the feelings of others, including religious feelings.
1
You couldn't be more wrong. The whole point of protecting freedom of speech is to protect speech which people may find offensive.
1
I have to say that I am torn on this issue. I believe that freedom of speech and press are universal rights to be guarded, and any violent action in response to free speech must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Although I do not believe in any organized religion, I have also always thought that religious freedom is a universal right that should be protected, and I don't understand why mocking someone's religious beliefs is something to be celebrated.
11
Because religious fundamentalists mock non-belief, from time to time with bullets. Anyone who is brave enough to publicly ridicule that kind of barbarism is worthy of celebration.
The people who work at Charlie had better make sure they have guards posted at their homes, their children's schools, and their wives jobs. Unfortunately from now until forever they will be targeted by radical extremists.
1
Common decency is still a virtue. So get it out of the way, insult the worlds 1.6B muslims and have your say. But don't ask me to laud it.
4
This is a time that cries out for Christopher Hitchens, isn't it? Our loss of him, just over three years ago to cancer, deprives Hebdo of a contributor voice that would have been strident indeed this edition if perhaps not so funny as they'd like. Pity that Bill Maher isn't really a professional writer: humor, in the end, is the most devastating response to the true outrage that blood compels.
While as a general matter I have little patience with gratuitous skewering of the honestly religious, you had to make an exception for Hitchens, the intellectual bad-boy that nearly everyone loved for his passion and conviction. His lifelong Marxist convictions would have been welcomed in the offices of Libération.
As with the Hebdo martyrs, only the good die middle-aged.
While as a general matter I have little patience with gratuitous skewering of the honestly religious, you had to make an exception for Hitchens, the intellectual bad-boy that nearly everyone loved for his passion and conviction. His lifelong Marxist convictions would have been welcomed in the offices of Libération.
As with the Hebdo martyrs, only the good die middle-aged.
4
Charlie Hébdo's new issue will be published outside France too. In the US, the Washington Post is the only publication to show the cartoons.
Hebdo's lawyer Richard Malka said they would not give in, insisting: "The spirit of 'I am Charlie' means the right to blaspheme."
It's true! That's why there will be more attacks in the future! But we shouldn't be afraid! Fear is what our enemies want to instil!
Hebdo's lawyer Richard Malka said they would not give in, insisting: "The spirit of 'I am Charlie' means the right to blaspheme."
It's true! That's why there will be more attacks in the future! But we shouldn't be afraid! Fear is what our enemies want to instil!
8
No, the WSJ also shows the cartoon. The Times does not directly show the cartoon but there is a link to it. Back door, so to speak, but at least we don't have to go to Google.
The best I can do at my age is to subscribe to Charlie Hebdo and relearn the French I once loved so much. My next 90 years can't be that hard.
9
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It's either there or it does not exist.
You can not erase a word out of song.
Terrorists should know how how we treat them.
Buy the way, it would be much better if we destroy terrorism.
And only after that will draw pictures and laugh.
You can not erase a word out of song.
Terrorists should know how how we treat them.
Buy the way, it would be much better if we destroy terrorism.
And only after that will draw pictures and laugh.
4
Support and solidarity for Charlie Hebdo must be unconditional. Conditional solidarity in times such as this is hollow. With 7 billion people in the world you are bound to hurt peoples sentiments.
1 billion Hindus revere the cow as a holy animal and worship it. Hindus are appalled when cows are slaughtered for their meat. Is that good reason for Muslims, Jews and Christians to stop eating beef?? Surely there are other meats that can be eating without hurting Hindu sentiments. Will the world understand if Hindus burned down slaughter houses and kill meat producers because we are deeply hurt.
There are few comments about racism faced by Muslims in Europe. Agreed. But is that license to kill. Lets have a conversation about racism and how to deal with it. But explaining away the killing using the racism card is below the belt.
1 billion Hindus revere the cow as a holy animal and worship it. Hindus are appalled when cows are slaughtered for their meat. Is that good reason for Muslims, Jews and Christians to stop eating beef?? Surely there are other meats that can be eating without hurting Hindu sentiments. Will the world understand if Hindus burned down slaughter houses and kill meat producers because we are deeply hurt.
There are few comments about racism faced by Muslims in Europe. Agreed. But is that license to kill. Lets have a conversation about racism and how to deal with it. But explaining away the killing using the racism card is below the belt.
7
French Jesuit Journal Etudes publishes on its website some caricatures in Charlie Hebdo relating to Catholicism. Journalists consider that it is "a sign of strength to laugh at the institution to which we belong".
http://www.revue-etudes.com/archive/article.php?code=16641
http://www.revue-etudes.com/archive/article.php?code=16641
14
A line like this still shocks me: "an equal-opportunity offender, taking on the Roman Catholic Church, Judaism and Islam." Judaism is a miniscule religion in the world (and France) compared to the other two. Jews have long been besieged in France and not only France but in French Algeria by the Algerians and the pieds noirs. So how are the three of those equal targets? It's despicable. As for this cover? French writers say that Charlie Hebdo covers actually satirize the attitudes they seem to be representing, so this is probably mere mockery of forgiveness and more mockery of Islam once again. Bravo.
3
A picture would be worth 1,000 words.
Where's the photograph of the cover? It is not only germane to this news story - it is this news story.
Where's the photograph of the cover? It is not only germane to this news story - it is this news story.
12
It's no surprise that the NYT Picks in this comment section do not have any of the numerous comments critical of the Times for not showing the cover of the latest Charlie Hebdo magazine. The editors of the Times should change the quote on the masthead to "All the news that's safe to print."
15
A picture's worth a thousand words.
7
The NYT's article is entitled,"Charlie Hebdo's New Issue has Muhammad on the Cover" but does not show the cover of the Charlie Hebdo issue. I have read the NYT almost every day for the past 15 years and it was my trusted news source. An objective article would include a picture of the cover of the Charlie Hebdo issue in order to inform and help the reader understand the issue being reported on.
The NYT has no problem reporting on the Snowden leaks or any other sensitive US government issues. I applaud them for their commitment to the free press and allowing the public to have access to information as part of a free and democratic society. A failure to include the cover of the Charlie Hebdo issue is a failure of the NYT to provide its readers with the information necessary to understand the article and make an informed decision and opinion of the issues included in the article.
The USA Today newspaper included the cover of the Charlie Hebdo issue in their coverage of this story. I question what is going on at the NYT when the USA TODAY takes more editorial risks and provides better substantive news than the NYT.
I understand the NYT is a private business and exists only to make a profit but i did believe it took seriously its duty as a member of the fourth pillar of government. I am left thinking that the NYT may no longer be committed to objectively providing information to its readers and selectively supports free speech only when it suits their agenda.
The NYT has no problem reporting on the Snowden leaks or any other sensitive US government issues. I applaud them for their commitment to the free press and allowing the public to have access to information as part of a free and democratic society. A failure to include the cover of the Charlie Hebdo issue is a failure of the NYT to provide its readers with the information necessary to understand the article and make an informed decision and opinion of the issues included in the article.
The USA Today newspaper included the cover of the Charlie Hebdo issue in their coverage of this story. I question what is going on at the NYT when the USA TODAY takes more editorial risks and provides better substantive news than the NYT.
I understand the NYT is a private business and exists only to make a profit but i did believe it took seriously its duty as a member of the fourth pillar of government. I am left thinking that the NYT may no longer be committed to objectively providing information to its readers and selectively supports free speech only when it suits their agenda.
77
try Google I am sure you can find the image online
Exactly. When comic book newspapers have more editorial integrity than the Times, something is seriously wrong.
1
On publishing the cartoon as equivalent to using the N-word:
The N-word is used for no other useful reason than to disparage a person.
A Religion is a set of ideas and beliefs which should always be open to discussion, debate, and criticism.
The N-word is used for no other useful reason than to disparage a person.
A Religion is a set of ideas and beliefs which should always be open to discussion, debate, and criticism.
4
These very same Europeans who claim to be passionate defenders of unbridled freedom of speech and take great delight in insulting and provoking Muslims, also have laws that criminalize denial of the Holocaust. So much for freedom of speech!
How is drawing a Muhammad cartoon an insult? Are you insulting Hindus when you eat cow? Should cowboy movies be forbidden? Should we all be subject to the arbitrary rules of any system of belief? The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists do not have a problem with practicing Muslims not drawing Muhammad. They just do not consider themselves subject to that religion's rules.
Before last week, I had never bought a single copy of Charlie Hebdo in my life. But I am firm believer in freedom of speech and I will be buying tomorrow's issue!
Freedom of speech is so important, we can never give up if we are to remember our values and what we want to stand for.
I was so touched by the support we received from countries all over the world, it still gives me goosebumps when I see photos of the marches!!
Merci!!
Je suis Charlie, citizen of the world and I am #notafraid
-A
Freedom of speech is so important, we can never give up if we are to remember our values and what we want to stand for.
I was so touched by the support we received from countries all over the world, it still gives me goosebumps when I see photos of the marches!!
Merci!!
Je suis Charlie, citizen of the world and I am #notafraid
-A
7
@ Michael NYC 'Am I the only person in the free, Western World that thinks it is ego driven idiocy - to recklessly satirize and mock certain important symbols &/or certain historical figures?'. This politically correct question misses the whole point of Charlie Hebdo. Free speech is absolute (in your country it is protected by the first amendment). People may feel offended by some cartoon or text, but in no way should the response be to kill the author. As Ross Douthat wrote a coiuple of days ago, this is a necessary blasphemy. Satire has a long tradition going back to before the court jestors: roman generals who came back victouriously, had during their march of triumph, somebody behind them whispering 'memento mori' (you are mortal).
3
I noticed that NYTimes did not actually print the cover (only a link to another publication with the cover). And come to think of it, you probably never have printed any of the other pictures of Muhammed. Maybe NYTimes is afraid of the repercussions, or perhaps it is not "fit to print"?
9
An unpublished picture is worth a thousand words.
10
Defiance. That's why everybody should publish the cartoons. Defiance to the murderers and the intolerant zealots who urge them on.
The Times, as a newspaper, has every right to decided what's news and what's not. The editors make this call, and we trust them to do it. But as an institution, it has a commitment to a free press that transcends the judgment of its editors.
Solution: run the cartoons, but not in the news columns. Rather, in clearly identified corporate statements that say 'terrorize this' or some equivalent.
The Times, as a newspaper, has every right to decided what's news and what's not. The editors make this call, and we trust them to do it. But as an institution, it has a commitment to a free press that transcends the judgment of its editors.
Solution: run the cartoons, but not in the news columns. Rather, in clearly identified corporate statements that say 'terrorize this' or some equivalent.
4
By what conceivable journalistic standard is a story whose entire point is the new, illustrated cover of a magazine that has become the entire world's focus, not illustrated by that cover. The victorian insistence on the absolute primacy of so-called good taste is maddening when the subject is satire which by its nature mocks taste. You're the newspaper of record, I've heard; record it then, dammit.
10
At what point do we recognize that theocratic states are totalitarian states whether they are muslim or christian.
As problematic as Israel is in its quest to provide security, it is far less problematic that the Palestinian and Arab states which slaughter their citizens in the name of god.
Look at the history of christianity and its religious wars, burning witches, the inquisition. It should make you ill. Islam is no better.
As problematic as Israel is in its quest to provide security, it is far less problematic that the Palestinian and Arab states which slaughter their citizens in the name of god.
Look at the history of christianity and its religious wars, burning witches, the inquisition. It should make you ill. Islam is no better.
When the media becomes the news it often results from a failure in quality control. In the case of CH it began with a lofty ideal about freedom of the press disconnected from the use of that license and the clear and present dangers present. The end of day murder and mayhem of CH's editors, cartoonists, two police and four Jews in a food market on the out-skirts of Paris - 17 victims, 3 perpetrators killed, several more victims seriously injured/wounded. Was freedom of the press exercised by CH's editorial chief to publish a provocative satirical cartoon that was anti-Islamic in nature worth it?
1
The freedoms we have in democratic countries are not free. Many people have given their lives fighting for them, and the moment we stop fighting we'll start losing them. Were those sacrifices worth it? A most emphatic yes!
I am convinced that the attack on Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with these cartoons being an affront to Islam. That was just a pretext. It happened because AQAP fears the pen more than the sword.
The brilliance of Osama bin Laden was that he invented a new form of warfare, one that requires very limited command and control. It's almost impossible to fight with conventional arms because there is almost no place to attack, only millions of places to defend. Any military response actually advances the cause. But it does require martyrs, and that requires an ideology that makes martyrdom attractive to potential recruits. By ridiculing the underpinnings of that ideology, Charlie Hebdo (and others) make that ideology look, well, ridiculous. That threatens the whole enterprise. Hence, the attack.
Now maybe it's time for Congress to start calling those potato things "French fries" again.
The brilliance of Osama bin Laden was that he invented a new form of warfare, one that requires very limited command and control. It's almost impossible to fight with conventional arms because there is almost no place to attack, only millions of places to defend. Any military response actually advances the cause. But it does require martyrs, and that requires an ideology that makes martyrdom attractive to potential recruits. By ridiculing the underpinnings of that ideology, Charlie Hebdo (and others) make that ideology look, well, ridiculous. That threatens the whole enterprise. Hence, the attack.
Now maybe it's time for Congress to start calling those potato things "French fries" again.
17
Everyone ought to buy the upcoming Charlie Hebdo magazine in support of free speech and in memory of those who were murdered by depraved terrorist.
4
i just called and cancelled my digital subscription. Ive been a member since 2011, but if you refuse to publish the cover photo, which is obviously news and relevant to the article, i can no longer support this publication
8
Charlie Lives!
3
Freedom of Speech has no limit, no boundaries!
3
Another post from France, to give any further explanations about this strange UFO called "Charlie Hebdo"... the inconoclastic tradition of cartoonists and writers against all kind of authority is very old in my country, since sixteenth century during religion wars, during the following century against Church and royal subjects, until French Revolution and the incredible explosion of caricatures and newspapers all around the country...since then, and a french society deeply secularised, the existence of such magazines, CH is not the only one, is a kind of breath...no need to buy it each week, even to read it, it's part of our DNA, a taste of gallic sense of "Carpe diem" with no respect of dogmas, authorities, symbols, irrelevant and not politically correct, a mixture of sex, religion and politics satiric disrespect...the paradox of this drama is that the "provocative" Muhammad on the front cover will be seen all around the world, those who killed an entire team of marvellous cartoonists to shut them down, will face now and for long a lot of their worst nightmare on every screen, paper and street...
4
I am not sure how many NYT readers have actually read Charlie Hebdo as opposed to read about Charlie Hebdo. My relatively lame home town newspaper, La Tribune de Genève actually published the current cover and a dozen past ones reminding readers that Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity publication making fun of catholics, muslims, jews, corrupt charitable organizations politicians etc...
4
As someone of Muslim background, I have to say that I love the idea of a cartoon of the prophet with an "I am Charlie" pin. It’s actually a compliment that suggests inclusion, and I appreciate the overture. One of the hard things during this time is feeling shut out of the right to protest—I want to join your side, as your friend, and shout "I am Charlie" too. But, so many want to hear a condemnation or disavowal of the attack, which, while I understand this impulse, I wish just one person would just say, “You don’t need to reject this act any more than I do.” Now, back to the cartoon, I hope it’s drawn with at least some respect. When I see drawings (in this magazine) of Arabs with huge hawk noses and gross sweaty armpits (yellow, and dripping with sweat) I don’t see satire, I see hate. We have a history of these drawings here, and I think we all agree that we have evolved to see similarly crude drawings of African Americans as racist and designed to hurt, denigrate, and oppress.
25
No Charlie Hebdo cartoon has ever been drawn "respectfully." That's the point, to mock ALL the fairy tales of ALL religions. The deities DO NOT exist. Today, this Jesuit publication in France reprinted disrespectfully drawn anti-Jesus and anti-Papal Charlie Hebdo cartoons here:
http://www.revue-etudes.com/archive/article.php?code=16641
Christians will not harm anyone as a result.
http://www.revue-etudes.com/archive/article.php?code=16641
Christians will not harm anyone as a result.
1
I too liked the captions on this latest cartoon, but did they have to make him like a buffoon in the drawing? Old habits die hard.
I thought Americans braver...
7
Major news organizations aren’t publishing Charlie Hedbo because they are all lost in translation. What these images *would* mean *if* they were published in America and out of context… is not what they actually mean contextually inside the discourse of French politics. They have managed to represented CH as exactly 100% the opposite of what they were. They were a radical left wing, anti racists, pro immigration, anti Islamaphobia, anti xenophobia organization. Our incredibly mono lingual media couldn’t get the Satire so they banned ANTI-racist cartoons BECAUSE they believe them to be saying the opposite and the result is a preponderance of Americans being completely misinformed about the very fabric of the story. Thanks to such astonishingly poor journalism, most Americans believe CH to be representative of the xenophobic right wing of France, when in fact that party, The Front National party was their primary target!
This has been such an incredible comedy of errors that, almost hilariously, the *only* news organization that published the damn cartoons has been FOX news… and that’s because those morons mistranslated the images and read them as right wing. Do you remember when Bush invited Stephen Colbert to The White House correspondence dinner because he thought he was a “conservative” comedian?? That just happened all over again. And that joke just went flying over Americas head.
This has been such an incredible comedy of errors that, almost hilariously, the *only* news organization that published the damn cartoons has been FOX news… and that’s because those morons mistranslated the images and read them as right wing. Do you remember when Bush invited Stephen Colbert to The White House correspondence dinner because he thought he was a “conservative” comedian?? That just happened all over again. And that joke just went flying over Americas head.
6
It seems like a rather gutless editorial stance to write a story about the next Hebdo cover, without publishing the image directly. NYT times does link to the image published by Libération, but apparently can't bring it's self to sully its images.
Why? Because Charle Hebdo mocks religion? This is the most comman short hand in American media and is lazy reporting. Charlie mocks religious extremism and abuse of power. It's cartoon with the former Pope telling a child abusing priest that he should go into film like Roman Polanski, isn't anti catholic, it is anti-pedofile priests. The 2006 crying Muhammad cartoon titled "Muhammad overwhelmed by Fundementalists" with the punch line " it's hard to be loved by idiots," was aimed at Islamists, not Islam.
There is a difference between criticizing religion and critizsing the excess of religion. Charlie Hebdo does the latter, but walks the line very fine. The people who killed the editorial team of Hebdo last week couldn't see the difference, and apparently neither can the American media.
Why? Because Charle Hebdo mocks religion? This is the most comman short hand in American media and is lazy reporting. Charlie mocks religious extremism and abuse of power. It's cartoon with the former Pope telling a child abusing priest that he should go into film like Roman Polanski, isn't anti catholic, it is anti-pedofile priests. The 2006 crying Muhammad cartoon titled "Muhammad overwhelmed by Fundementalists" with the punch line " it's hard to be loved by idiots," was aimed at Islamists, not Islam.
There is a difference between criticizing religion and critizsing the excess of religion. Charlie Hebdo does the latter, but walks the line very fine. The people who killed the editorial team of Hebdo last week couldn't see the difference, and apparently neither can the American media.
7
Brovo Charlie Hebdo
2
I did not know of this (CH) magazine before this incident in Paris and I know of a lot of magazines - I worked in a magazine shop many years ago.
It appears that these folks have deliberately engaged in hate speech and considering what has happened have not learned a valuable lesson that such speech is not rewarded but comes with danger from some members of a large section of the population within the country and a very large percentage of the world's population: these members will kill you for such speech.
I say that such actions are surely insane... look up Einstein, I won't repeat his statement here.
It appears that these folks have deliberately engaged in hate speech and considering what has happened have not learned a valuable lesson that such speech is not rewarded but comes with danger from some members of a large section of the population within the country and a very large percentage of the world's population: these members will kill you for such speech.
I say that such actions are surely insane... look up Einstein, I won't repeat his statement here.
3
Mes Charlies,
I enjoyed this piece in as much as it covers the emotionally intensive production of the latest issue. I feel let down on two fronts, however. One, no photo of the cover. The decision not to publish is only journalistically explicable as a measure to protect the far-flung and often un-protected staff of the NYT against an unforgiveable threat of violence. It really has to be stated (as the reason for the omission) each time it is omitted. The fear held by journalists - and their employers - is legitimate...but it is also a talisman of the enormous pressure that can be put on free speech by the threat and use of violence. It is part of the story.
Number two; today's cartoon (like much of what is French, not to mention comic) is layered, complicated, self-contradictory and a-linear. From a journalistic perspective, the message(s) of the cartoon is also critical to any weighing of its offensiveness. It is also a labored-over and emotionally pregnant image that frankly needs further explanation to readers as to a culture that baffles this keenly interested observer after many years in situ. Really felt like the author (and many others) punted in the face of its cultural density.
I enjoyed this piece in as much as it covers the emotionally intensive production of the latest issue. I feel let down on two fronts, however. One, no photo of the cover. The decision not to publish is only journalistically explicable as a measure to protect the far-flung and often un-protected staff of the NYT against an unforgiveable threat of violence. It really has to be stated (as the reason for the omission) each time it is omitted. The fear held by journalists - and their employers - is legitimate...but it is also a talisman of the enormous pressure that can be put on free speech by the threat and use of violence. It is part of the story.
Number two; today's cartoon (like much of what is French, not to mention comic) is layered, complicated, self-contradictory and a-linear. From a journalistic perspective, the message(s) of the cartoon is also critical to any weighing of its offensiveness. It is also a labored-over and emotionally pregnant image that frankly needs further explanation to readers as to a culture that baffles this keenly interested observer after many years in situ. Really felt like the author (and many others) punted in the face of its cultural density.
4
I am extremely disappointed to read that Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad.
To me, a person or entity who, while enjoying freedom of speech, chooses a higher standard of respecting what another human being values stands at a higher pedestal.
By publishing a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad to make a point of freedom of speech tells me that all at the magazine have no regard of the sensitivities of 1.2 billion Muslims.
By doing this Charlie Hebdo has alienated thousands like me who came out to condemn the lunatics that attached Charlie Hebdo.
By doing this Charlie Hebdo have shown that it thinks it is well within its rights when it chooses to insult and ridicule what others hold so dear whenever it wants. It tells me that it is not about the ideal of freedom of speech after all. Much more mundane and base sentiments are at play here.
While the action of the murderers should be condemned, may be Charlie Hebdo was not so innocent after all.
To me, a person or entity who, while enjoying freedom of speech, chooses a higher standard of respecting what another human being values stands at a higher pedestal.
By publishing a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad to make a point of freedom of speech tells me that all at the magazine have no regard of the sensitivities of 1.2 billion Muslims.
By doing this Charlie Hebdo has alienated thousands like me who came out to condemn the lunatics that attached Charlie Hebdo.
By doing this Charlie Hebdo have shown that it thinks it is well within its rights when it chooses to insult and ridicule what others hold so dear whenever it wants. It tells me that it is not about the ideal of freedom of speech after all. Much more mundane and base sentiments are at play here.
While the action of the murderers should be condemned, may be Charlie Hebdo was not so innocent after all.
1
these type of comments astound me. history and its lessons do not favor your argument. stand up--sometimes you must fight for what is right.
8
Yes, but the point is -- in a free society based on the principle that the free and lively exchange of ideas is necessary to political and (indeed) human fulfillment, is the correct reaction to ignore or voice disagreement with the message (as you have done here), or is it one of violence that seeks to silence everyone who gives offense? What has people in France and across the world angry is the symbolism of the attack on the basic notion of how we organize ourselves as a society, not the attack on the specific message that Charlie Hebdo published (although, even there, I think the point was less to intentionally offend a religion as it was to say your sensitivities do not place ideas or religious principles beyond the reach of my pencil).
I wonder how the murdered cartoonists would feel about this. Satire can be a powerful weapon of the weak against the strong. Given the situation of Arab youth the world over, and what we have learned about the role of Abu Ghraib in turning on a switch in these disaffected youth, this Mohammad-caricature-obsession is starting to feel like bullying. Are there really no better targets? Sarkozy with his elevator shoes and fondness for suing rappers who dare not to sing his praises?
1
What needs to be cleared up is: is it real hatred the French have for the very conservative Muslims in their midst? And how virulent is the Muslim hatred for the liberal French, which is more overt?
I was born a Jew, in Israel, but lived in the US (well, not exactly in the US, in New York City) since I was seven, 67 years ago. In addition, I am very liberal, I don't mind paying taxes in order to help the less fortunate, I'm fine with immigration, I am an atheist, I am a theater director, I am gay and I have had it up to my eyeballs with religious, holier than thou attitudes. My point is that I am a bit confused as to why, if a picture of Mohammed offends many Muslims, do some people go out of their way to picture him in cartoons. I'm all for stinging satire, but offending Muslims so blatantly by using the image of Mohammed is wrong. Why don't they satire your everyday, garden variety, holier-than thou Muslim everyman, or ultraconservative imams? There sure is enough fodder for many issues of a magazine.
I am not calling for self-censorship but satire should sting, not hurt.
The Charlie Hedbo was a horrendous attack by psychopaths using religion as a license to misbehave and should be condemned. But maybe this terrible act is a wake up call to the enmity between the French and Muslims, which both must confront, once and for all.
Take it from a (mostly pro-Israel) culturally (and proud of it) Jewish, atheist, gay New York, liberal theater director, I know from hate.
I was born a Jew, in Israel, but lived in the US (well, not exactly in the US, in New York City) since I was seven, 67 years ago. In addition, I am very liberal, I don't mind paying taxes in order to help the less fortunate, I'm fine with immigration, I am an atheist, I am a theater director, I am gay and I have had it up to my eyeballs with religious, holier than thou attitudes. My point is that I am a bit confused as to why, if a picture of Mohammed offends many Muslims, do some people go out of their way to picture him in cartoons. I'm all for stinging satire, but offending Muslims so blatantly by using the image of Mohammed is wrong. Why don't they satire your everyday, garden variety, holier-than thou Muslim everyman, or ultraconservative imams? There sure is enough fodder for many issues of a magazine.
I am not calling for self-censorship but satire should sting, not hurt.
The Charlie Hedbo was a horrendous attack by psychopaths using religion as a license to misbehave and should be condemned. But maybe this terrible act is a wake up call to the enmity between the French and Muslims, which both must confront, once and for all.
Take it from a (mostly pro-Israel) culturally (and proud of it) Jewish, atheist, gay New York, liberal theater director, I know from hate.
14
Pretty much what I have been thinking and saying. Not Muslim, or Jewish but "hate " speech in the guise of satire...well....we don't need more hate speech.
Condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Terrorists are always terrorists and there is no islamist terrorist or jewish or any other.
welcome the brave act of charlie to come back by publishing an edition tomorrow with the tag line :" All is forgiven". and the same time shame on the act that it will portray Prophet Muhammed on the cover. He is not charlie and will never be charlie.
pity the government to allow publication to trigger yet another controversary
welcome the brave act of charlie to come back by publishing an edition tomorrow with the tag line :" All is forgiven". and the same time shame on the act that it will portray Prophet Muhammed on the cover. He is not charlie and will never be charlie.
pity the government to allow publication to trigger yet another controversary
1
I've got a great idea for a charlie hebdo cartoon. Barak Obama, Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, all the American gutless wonders, cowering behind the Statue of Liberty, observing the demonstrations across the ocean, with Obama asking, "How should we respond?"
5
All the NYT allows us to see is the cover of Charlie Hebro? Why not the entire issue? Or why not tell us where to buy it? Does the NYT even know if it will be available in the U.S.?
2
Show the damn thing! This is disgraceful.
11
Vive la France!
J'accuse NYT
J'accuse NYT
7
Isn't the cover of a magazine which will probably hit more than a 3 million issue produced by the survivors of a group of massacred comic creators be worthy of a front cover picture by the NYT. "All the news that's fit to print"??????????
16
SHAME ON YOU, The New York Times, for not publishing the today's cover of Charlie Hebdo on YOUR website, in YOUR newspaper. A link to Liberation? Really? What a pathetic cowardly decision! This is a terrible mistake on your part, a reputation-killer, in my opinion.
And BRAVO to CBS, the Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, the Daily Beast, and others who have enough courage, dignity, and respect to their own profession and to their readers/viewers, and ARE PUBLISHING THIS COVER.
And BRAVO to CBS, the Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, the Daily Beast, and others who have enough courage, dignity, and respect to their own profession and to their readers/viewers, and ARE PUBLISHING THIS COVER.
13
no--it is not a reputation killer of perhaps the best paper--but it does show tentativeness when it should show solidarity.
I suspect that there are some ideas that Charlie Hebdo considers taboo.
But attacking a religion that is not part of the French culture, which is highly symbolic to its disinfranchised and ignored Muslim population, is puzzling. Has the paper attacked other religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism – or is it just Islam? Given the problem of the alienated French Muslim community, it is odd that Charlie Hebdo seems so fixated on this one note, this mocking of Islam, which is "other" and outside of the culture that these writers belong to. (One could imagine that they are merely giving voice to some dark inner dislike of Muslims in the zeitgeist. And one can also see how these "cartoons" could provide fodder for the bigots in France.) Satire and humor work best when they are delivered from those who are on the inside, not on the outside.
Sorry, I know that this is still a time of great shock and mourning, and I am sickened by what these shooters did to these people. But I am just puzzled by Charlie Hebdo's obsession with Islam and wondering why they haven't, for example, mocked the need of cartoonists to draw pictures of Mohammed. (And what is this all about? Who cares? Besides Muslims. Does it help non-Muslims to understand their foibles? Isn't that what satire is for? Well, this is not the time for this, I know. It probably sounds like I am "blaming the victims."
But attacking a religion that is not part of the French culture, which is highly symbolic to its disinfranchised and ignored Muslim population, is puzzling. Has the paper attacked other religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism – or is it just Islam? Given the problem of the alienated French Muslim community, it is odd that Charlie Hebdo seems so fixated on this one note, this mocking of Islam, which is "other" and outside of the culture that these writers belong to. (One could imagine that they are merely giving voice to some dark inner dislike of Muslims in the zeitgeist. And one can also see how these "cartoons" could provide fodder for the bigots in France.) Satire and humor work best when they are delivered from those who are on the inside, not on the outside.
Sorry, I know that this is still a time of great shock and mourning, and I am sickened by what these shooters did to these people. But I am just puzzled by Charlie Hebdo's obsession with Islam and wondering why they haven't, for example, mocked the need of cartoonists to draw pictures of Mohammed. (And what is this all about? Who cares? Besides Muslims. Does it help non-Muslims to understand their foibles? Isn't that what satire is for? Well, this is not the time for this, I know. It probably sounds like I am "blaming the victims."
12
Actually Charlie Hebdo has mocked every religious symbol and political authority,
including Jesus, the Pope and every French president. Nothing was considered sacred, and the more people believe something is untouchable the more likely CH would consider it fair game.
including Jesus, the Pope and every French president. Nothing was considered sacred, and the more people believe something is untouchable the more likely CH would consider it fair game.
22
Obsession with Islam ? I can't blame you because the recent events have dramatically put in light Charlie Hebdo through prophet's concerns...but the very large majority of justice actions intended against CH come from political parties, especially the far-right Front national, favorite target of CH, catholics mouvements or associations, military institutions, and so on.
Muslim associations and representations are on the list since a few years, when first caricatures of the prophet appeared...
Muslim associations and representations are on the list since a few years, when first caricatures of the prophet appeared...
5
Few answers to your question outis:
Charlie Hebdo has no taboo. Not like the NYT which is not showing the next Charlie Hebdo's front page for instance ... That is the idea. Total freedom (within the limits of law of course). There are the symbol of free press and total freedom (again within the limits of law). And that is why so many people in France are emotional about this particular terrorist attack (we had a lot of them and will have a lot of them in the future but this one is VERY particular).
Islam IS part of the French culture. There are 5 millions of muslims in France (8%). Jews for example represent only 1% of the French population.
And YES the paper attacked other religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism – all. And not just Islam. And the riches and the poors and the ignorants and the powerfuls, and even cartoonists yes ... Indeed statistics show that Islam was far less attacked than christianism.
Charlie Hebdo is not "fixated" and there is no "obsession". They answer to the attack of last week. they don't care about muslims or christians or jews. They do not convey any message but satire, humour and irony (they are against bigots before all).
Charlie Hebdo has no taboo. Not like the NYT which is not showing the next Charlie Hebdo's front page for instance ... That is the idea. Total freedom (within the limits of law of course). There are the symbol of free press and total freedom (again within the limits of law). And that is why so many people in France are emotional about this particular terrorist attack (we had a lot of them and will have a lot of them in the future but this one is VERY particular).
Islam IS part of the French culture. There are 5 millions of muslims in France (8%). Jews for example represent only 1% of the French population.
And YES the paper attacked other religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism – all. And not just Islam. And the riches and the poors and the ignorants and the powerfuls, and even cartoonists yes ... Indeed statistics show that Islam was far less attacked than christianism.
Charlie Hebdo is not "fixated" and there is no "obsession". They answer to the attack of last week. they don't care about muslims or christians or jews. They do not convey any message but satire, humour and irony (they are against bigots before all).
9
After the Sept 11 attacks in the US, many government officials (including the president) were imploring Americans to go about their routine affairs, so as to not convey the impression that terrorism had torn the fabric of our society. Most Americans did just that; only the government reacted with enduring hysteria, the effects of which resonate to the present day and the implications of which will be enduring.
Fortunately, the staff of Charlie Hebdo has the courage of its convictions. If the magazine followed the cowardly example set by many publications and entertainment venues here and overseas...well, the terrorists in the great beyond could congratulate themselves accurately claiming, "Mission Accomplished!"
Fortunately, the staff of Charlie Hebdo has the courage of its convictions. If the magazine followed the cowardly example set by many publications and entertainment venues here and overseas...well, the terrorists in the great beyond could congratulate themselves accurately claiming, "Mission Accomplished!"
20
Just saw the cover from the provided link further down in the Comments. First thing: how the heck does anyone know that that is Mohammed, or what he looked like? Secondly, there are plenty of men here in the Middle East that look and dress like that, every day. I live and work amongst many of them. It strikes me that the cover cartoon is a very subtle response to the thousands of Muslims who marched in solidarity along with Jews, Sikhs, presidents (not mine, unfortunately), premiers, and everyday folks. It is CH saying that we forgive you the crazies amongst you because the more rational among you stand with us in our grief. It is not Muhammed weeping for the dead.
11
If you read the Qur'an you will find Muhammad was emphatically not Charlie Hebdo. Granted, the Qur'an, like all so-called scriptures, contains a lot of internal contradictions; one often quoted passage says 'let there be no compulsion in religion', side by side with exhortations to make war on unbelievers and apostates.
I know Kipling is long out of fashion, but the old boy had some cogent things to say about prophets and their followers in this trenchant poem, 'The Disciple';
http://www.online-literature.com/kipling/913/
Note that the poem's last verse references Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism - all of which were familiar to Kipling, born in India; and all of which have had irruptions of fundamentalist extremist violence in the recent past. (Americans perhaps don't notice what the fundies have been up to in Africa, particularly in encouraging anti-gay violence.)
I know Kipling is long out of fashion, but the old boy had some cogent things to say about prophets and their followers in this trenchant poem, 'The Disciple';
http://www.online-literature.com/kipling/913/
Note that the poem's last verse references Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism - all of which were familiar to Kipling, born in India; and all of which have had irruptions of fundamentalist extremist violence in the recent past. (Americans perhaps don't notice what the fundies have been up to in Africa, particularly in encouraging anti-gay violence.)
1
So let me get this straight. The best the NYT can do is provide a link to the cover of Charlie Hebdo (so newsworthy it justifies a dedicated article), unwilling apparently to print the cover itself. So the Americans wax all weepy about the sanctity of freedom of expression when it's a question of a film showing the head of the North Korean leader explode, but when it's the case of Charlie Hebdo showing Muhammad weeping, they can't step to the plate. Where is Obama saying the NYT decision is regrettable?
180
Please abo and others like you, give it a rest. Open your own newspaper, or run for president. Sheesh.
2
You are right. The French teaching the American lessons about moral courage. So much for stereotypes.
The NYT is exercising its freedom of expression too. It does not have to reproduce Charlie Hebdo's offensive cover to be kosher. Charlie Hebdo is a fringe publication and much of the French press finds its cartoons too tasteless to be republished. I support their freedom of expression 100%, but I find their work mostly humorless, even though I am not a religious person at all. " I am NOT Charlie"; and to turn Charlie Hebdo into the measurement of the freedom of expression for all is a real blasphemy.
1
I'm in favor of all people saying "I am Charlie" in support of journalists and others' freedom of speech, even if insulting to others.
How about all people saying "I am Jewish" in support of people who were killed because of their religion and whose existence hurt no one's feelings?
How about all people saying "I am Jewish" in support of people who were killed because of their religion and whose existence hurt no one's feelings?
44
Could you persuade the Israelis to be saying "I'm Palestinian"?
2
Many people did just that on Sunday in Paris. They held signs in French reading "I am Charlie, I am Jewish, I am Ahmed".
Perhaps the media didn't show it well in the US I don't know, but a lot of people had signs with "I am a jew and I am Charlie", or "I am a cop and I am Charlie" written on. They were standing for every victims (cops, jews and cartoonists) and like you said for the freedom of speech.
Completely baffled by some of the comments I've seen criticizing the publication of supposedly inflammatory cartoons. If cartoons inspire you to acts of murderous vengeance, then by all means you deserve all the "inflaming" you can get. It seems that even (especially?) among secular, liberal, well educated people there is a kind of humorless, unimaniginative faux sobriety that would be more at home in a theocratic autocracy.
What is the alternative to disturbing the hornets' nest? Living with hornets!
What is the alternative to disturbing the hornets' nest? Living with hornets!
112
In many situations, people in free and liberal societies have recognized the need for some limits on speech -- if it inflames people and encourages them to act violently, for example. So, if a radio show encouraged people to slaughter Jews, Blacks, or Muslims or members of the intelligentsia or to rape children, I can imagine a civilized society objecting, and censoring.
In the article on how alienated and fearful French Jews feel, we have this: "In January 2013, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a comedian of French and West African heritage, had a series of his shows shut down by the French authorities. He had said it was a shame that a Jewish journalist had not been killed in the gas chambers. He has also drawn criticism for popularizing an a gesture that strongly resembles a Nazi salute."
There seems to be a double standard at foot. Dieudonné M’bala M’bala was censored, his speech considered too intemperate and insensitive, but not Charlie Hebdo. I am not suggesting more censorship, but I have heard a local spokesperson for Islamic culture claim that the much vaunted freedom of speech is important only in relation to the mocking of Muslims and Islam.
In the article on how alienated and fearful French Jews feel, we have this: "In January 2013, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a comedian of French and West African heritage, had a series of his shows shut down by the French authorities. He had said it was a shame that a Jewish journalist had not been killed in the gas chambers. He has also drawn criticism for popularizing an a gesture that strongly resembles a Nazi salute."
There seems to be a double standard at foot. Dieudonné M’bala M’bala was censored, his speech considered too intemperate and insensitive, but not Charlie Hebdo. I am not suggesting more censorship, but I have heard a local spokesperson for Islamic culture claim that the much vaunted freedom of speech is important only in relation to the mocking of Muslims and Islam.
1
See also the pathetic reaction of many "liberal" commenters to The Interview. I consider myself highly liberal but have nothing but disappointment for these folks. They can't be called anything other than the PC Police.
3
I totally agree. The only limits on free speech should be discretion, responsibility, and timing. If all those who vigorously oppose all forms of ISIS and Al Qaeda accept the fact that the world is in a state of war; a war unprecedented in complexity, then we better think at least twice before displaying our free speech values as a weapon in the war. In present circumstancs what some might consider funny and instructive of democratic values can be considered equal to yelling fire in a movie theater, especially when the firefighters have loaded guns instead of
water hoses.
water hoses.
I liked how the article captured the determination professionalism solidarity and pain of the surviving members of the C Hebdomad team. I am baffled why some would think it's a good idea for mainstream papers to republish the cartoons.
5
Simple...because it's the right thing to do.
3
Why?
Because it is a news story. Maybe people want to know what got these people so worked up.
It seems to me that this obsession with freedom of speech/press is largely selective, depending on what exactly is being satirized. The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons sparked the exact same response as this from the public and the media, and those who drew the cartoons were glorified as champions of freedom.
However, when a cartoonist (Maurice Siné) from the same publication wrote a single line deemed "anti-Semitic" (which went unnoticed for several days before a radio-host characterized it as that), he was fired and disgraced. It is also important to note that when asked to apologize for his comment, Maurice stated that he would rather "cut off his own hands" than apologize - surely this shows the same commitment to freedom of speech that has been so heavily glorified in response to the Muhammad cartoons?
I do not lean one way or the other on the religious aspects of the argument, but I believe that there can be no reliability without consistency.
However, when a cartoonist (Maurice Siné) from the same publication wrote a single line deemed "anti-Semitic" (which went unnoticed for several days before a radio-host characterized it as that), he was fired and disgraced. It is also important to note that when asked to apologize for his comment, Maurice stated that he would rather "cut off his own hands" than apologize - surely this shows the same commitment to freedom of speech that has been so heavily glorified in response to the Muhammad cartoons?
I do not lean one way or the other on the religious aspects of the argument, but I believe that there can be no reliability without consistency.
50
charlie hebdo has published plenty of other cartoons of jews, for example the one where an old orthodox jew is pushing a muslim in wheelchair, with the caption, "Don't mock!" (the cartoon refers to a movie that had recently come out, in which an old rich guy hires a young black guy from the projects to take care of him).
i'm jewish, and i'm sure i wouldn't love some of the jewish cartoons, but that doesn't mean they're antisemitic.
satire is meant to offend—that is different than simple hate speech and incitement.
i only know the basic elements regarding the story with maurice sine. he wrote something about sarkozy's son converting to judaism (a rumor) and marrying a jewish girl: that getting hooked up with the jews would bring him great success in life.
i don't think i know enough about that situation to support or criticize the outcome, but the fact is, charlie hebdo publishes plenty of other cartoons about jews that are certain to offend someone—but no one's getting fired or sued over it.
so i don't think anyone can attack charlie for behaving as if muslims are fair game, but jews are off limits.
i'm jewish, and i'm sure i wouldn't love some of the jewish cartoons, but that doesn't mean they're antisemitic.
satire is meant to offend—that is different than simple hate speech and incitement.
i only know the basic elements regarding the story with maurice sine. he wrote something about sarkozy's son converting to judaism (a rumor) and marrying a jewish girl: that getting hooked up with the jews would bring him great success in life.
i don't think i know enough about that situation to support or criticize the outcome, but the fact is, charlie hebdo publishes plenty of other cartoons about jews that are certain to offend someone—but no one's getting fired or sued over it.
so i don't think anyone can attack charlie for behaving as if muslims are fair game, but jews are off limits.
1
These scenarios are not quite comparable as no armed Macabees shouting Baruch HaShem shot up this publication's offices and killed the writer and his coworkers.
To make it clear; Siné himself said it was more about a lack of affinities with one responsable and different point of views on a political situation ( nothing to do with religion ), more about an opportunity to get rid of someone the editor (or whoever he was ) didn't get on with, a clash of personalities .
Siné has been cleared in court of any wrong doing and Charlie H condemned for wrongful termination of the contract.
Siné has been cleared in court of any wrong doing and Charlie H condemned for wrongful termination of the contract.
It is a shame that those who exercised their rights to free speech and free press fear retribution for what they said and wrote. While the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were of questionable and incendiary content, there is no excuse for the attacks made this past week. It is acceptable to disagree with what is published in the magazine, but they have a right to free speech and free press, and they should be able to speak freely without fear of another attack. I respect the fact that although they may face more adversity for continuing to publish similar cartoons, they are refusing to move away from the usual style of their publications. Their refusal to change shows that they will not allow the terrorists to compromise the rights they have as a publishing company.
21
So what do they mean by printing "All is forgiven" on the new cover?
Don't assume folks don't support freedom of expression whichever way it cuts, that would be a mistake. Do consider however that Jews are far fewer in number than Muslims in France and Europe as a whole and instances of violence against them are far greater in number. Jews are being systematically attacked and are leaving Europe in droves. Anti-Muslim violence, on the other hand is far more propogandized and far more infrequent.
If they really wanted to be exemplars for the championship of "free speech", they'd have released a cover lampooning the recent 'troubles' at their offices (since "nothing is sacred"...save for what they define as "free speech", of course.).
It would be awfully interesting to see how the French responded to that.
It would be awfully interesting to see how the French responded to that.
4
It's exactly what they did -- lampooning the killings -- when they wrote "All is forgiven"!
1
Will Charlie Hebdo lampoon the memorial of cellophane-wrapped flowers and scented candles that is accumulating outside its building? How banal! How sentimental!
1
But that is exactly what they did in saying, on their new cover, "All is forgiven" and displaying a picture of Mohammed with a "Je Suis Charlie" sign. There are nuances in French humor that escape most foreigners. The Charlie people really are equal opportunity satirists.
1
Bravo Charlie Hebdo.
30
Anyone who wants to view the cover of the new Charlie Hebdo issue is free to use the link in this NYT article to Libération's webpage.
Or better yet, buy a copy and support them yourself.
The people who committed these murders were recent converts, "reformed" criminals, who hijackmd Islam to provide a cover for their crimes. Yet the majority of Moslems must bear the shame.
It is the Imam who espouses violence in the name of Allah who ought to be on the cover of Charlie Hedbo!
Or better yet, buy a copy and support them yourself.
The people who committed these murders were recent converts, "reformed" criminals, who hijackmd Islam to provide a cover for their crimes. Yet the majority of Moslems must bear the shame.
It is the Imam who espouses violence in the name of Allah who ought to be on the cover of Charlie Hedbo!
18
On one note I think we can all agree: this account of Charlie Hebdo staffers picking up where their friends and colleagues had been was reporting at its best . . .
18
By refusing to publish the new cover -- which is a magnificent display of bravery and even forgiveness -- the NYT is taking the position that the image is nothing more than a "gratuitous insult."
That unfortunate conclusion is inescapable given the purported standard espoused by Mr. Baquet and reported by Ms. Sullivan.
That unfortunate conclusion is inescapable given the purported standard espoused by Mr. Baquet and reported by Ms. Sullivan.
82
What's appropriate in France and appropriate here are different things. Humor is not at all international. If I were a writer, a cartoonist or an editor here in the States (which I'm not), I'd have to agree with Dean Baquet. If I were a writer, cartoonist or editor in France, I'd definitely agree with the Charlie Hebdo people.
Where do I stand here? Of course I can't stand religious crazies, of any stripe, going on homicidal rampages. But France has a huge Muslim population that's not well integrated into their society. And these "cartoons" are making that situation much more difficult. I very much support a free press. But if that press is doing somewhat of the equivalent of using the N-word, I can't support that either. So where to come down on this issue?
My first inclination is to support the press. There are a lot of ideas out there I consider offensive, but would not consider it OK to censor them. On the other hand there are certain ideas (racial epithets in large part) that are not acceptable, and the majority of the press don't use them. I don't know the situation in France, but they need to find ways of resolving this. I'm not wise enough to tell them how to get that done.
My first inclination is to support the press. There are a lot of ideas out there I consider offensive, but would not consider it OK to censor them. On the other hand there are certain ideas (racial epithets in large part) that are not acceptable, and the majority of the press don't use them. I don't know the situation in France, but they need to find ways of resolving this. I'm not wise enough to tell them how to get that done.
21
How many of the issues of CH have you seen? How many of the cartoons? Here: NYT will likely censor an actual link but if you google to Corriere della Sera (Milan) and do it promptly you will find articles on the gathering in Paris and on CH, with many, many cartoons and covers reproduced.
It does seem to me that the 'mainstream media' are cowardly in this. Without the stinking (or perfumed) corpse at hand, this discussion and outrage are useless waggins in the air. And there might be more than meets the eye in what the content of CH actually is, in contrast to the innuendo and suggestion we are seeing.
It does seem to me that the 'mainstream media' are cowardly in this. Without the stinking (or perfumed) corpse at hand, this discussion and outrage are useless waggins in the air. And there might be more than meets the eye in what the content of CH actually is, in contrast to the innuendo and suggestion we are seeing.
12
"But if that press is doing somewhat of the equivalent of using the N-word.."
That's not what they are doing. They are exercising their freedom of religious choice - in this case, by choosing not to believe in the infallibility of the prophet.
The attack on religious freedom of choice is, to my mind, even more pertinent to the Charlie Hebdo murders than freedom of expression.
Western societies extend to all who arrive the freedom to practice their religion of choice. We shouldn't need to insist upon respect for the choice to disbelieve that religion. Apparently, we do.
That's not what they are doing. They are exercising their freedom of religious choice - in this case, by choosing not to believe in the infallibility of the prophet.
The attack on religious freedom of choice is, to my mind, even more pertinent to the Charlie Hebdo murders than freedom of expression.
Western societies extend to all who arrive the freedom to practice their religion of choice. We shouldn't need to insist upon respect for the choice to disbelieve that religion. Apparently, we do.
31
We have a large muslims population that is well integrated, that's the point. We love our multicultural society.
Charlie H don't insult anyone, they've been making making funny cartoons over 40 years and someday, someone decided they have to stop
300 years ago, after a long history of religious war, people established a constitution saying that religion must be kept apart and allow citizen the right to say anything and even making fun at religion. Only justice can decide if what's being said is offensive and so far Charlie H. was never found guilty. "
But what matters here, today someone says to you "don't do this or i kill you", you can bet that tomorrow he will come back telling you " don't do that" and the day after...
Charlie H don't insult anyone, they've been making making funny cartoons over 40 years and someday, someone decided they have to stop
300 years ago, after a long history of religious war, people established a constitution saying that religion must be kept apart and allow citizen the right to say anything and even making fun at religion. Only justice can decide if what's being said is offensive and so far Charlie H. was never found guilty. "
But what matters here, today someone says to you "don't do this or i kill you", you can bet that tomorrow he will come back telling you " don't do that" and the day after...
I have mixed feelings about publishing the cartoons. I abhor the terrorists and their actions and suppirt freedom of the press. However, after seeing some of the cartoons, they seem more like adolescent Mad Magazine cartoons intended to cause offense rather than satirical cartoons striving to make a point. If these sort of caricatures of Muslims and Jews appeared in an animated film, many would decry their racist stereotypes. In our grief and anger at how wrong and brutal these murders were, I wonder if perhaps we are making Charlie Hebdo into something it is not. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Lassana. Je suis Juif. Not sure Je suis Charlie.
26
In a sense you're right, Susan, to compare Charlie Hebdo with Mad Magazine, and (of course) in a sense you're wrong. If you go back and seriously study the issues of Mad you'll find that at no time at all did they publish truly offensive cartoons comparable to those in Charlie. Mad was very careful not to offend minority groups and they didn't. They hewed to the American standard in their humor, just as Charlie Hebdo reflects a (very) French standard. These things are national, not international, and no one seems to get it.
2
And who appoints the committee deciding between adolescent humor and adult satire? Who chairs the committee dividing reasonably instructive material from needlessly offensive trash? Who sits on the committee saying this is potentially good for you but for sure that's probably not? No one, I hope.
2
"Je suis Charlie" does not necessarily mean you like its contents. From what i've seen of it, I find its wit and graphics a bit course for my own particular tastes. But that's not the point: I support Charlie not because I love or even agree with its editorial content, but because I support a society that allows freedom of expression.
1
First: It's disappointing that the NYT didn't actually reproduce the cover image on its website, but just linked to Liberation. Where's the solidarity? The courage?
Second: It's ridiculous to call producing any image of Mohammed "blasphemy", and then defending the right to this supposed "blasphemy". Fact is, there's a tradition of Islamic images of Mohammed, so just because some nutters have called this blasphemy doesn't mean the terminological ground should be ceded to them.
Second: It's ridiculous to call producing any image of Mohammed "blasphemy", and then defending the right to this supposed "blasphemy". Fact is, there's a tradition of Islamic images of Mohammed, so just because some nutters have called this blasphemy doesn't mean the terminological ground should be ceded to them.
52
A picture would worth a thousand words.
41
I often talk to my young son about what it means to brave and tell him who my heroes are, and why. These extraordinary journalists, standing up tall for liberty and freedom in the face of horrific evil, are a wonderful example of what it means to be brave, have true courage, and they are certainly heroes of mine. But I can't tell my kid yet as that would mean telling him that there are monsters in the world who murder innocent people because they do not like their pictures, their words, or their being Jewish.
25
I feel like maybe I am a space alien. I do not believe that because the Times chooses not to publish the cartoon that the paper is suppressing free speech. Papers choose every day to publish some things and not others. I, for one, am glad that this paper has some common sense and decency. But I know, I am a space alien.
19
You're not a space alien, Hope, not yet. What you are is reasonable and there's nothing more suspicious than that these days.
1
Would you have censored Abu Ghraib? Those were indecent and utterly unpleasant photos. No one really wanted to view those - but they were newsworthy. The purpose of journalism is not to avoid offense but to tell painful truths.
I see a great difference between the two types of images and their newsworthiness. Not everything that is offensive is automatically published.
1
I could be wrong but I think some people in the free world who criticize those cartoons, including some journalists, were not offended to see one of the movie from Monty Python at a time when the Internet did not exist and all the attacks had not been committed...
I tell them not to be afraid and to look on the bright side of life otherwise barbarism have won.
I think this is the one of the meaning of the new cover.
Brian is Charlie !
I tell them not to be afraid and to look on the bright side of life otherwise barbarism have won.
I think this is the one of the meaning of the new cover.
Brian is Charlie !
13
"Brian is Charlie !"
Splitter!
Splitter!
I have a Muhammad in my name. I support Charlie Hebdo and will be buying this months copy even though I don't know any French.
56
Bravo.
14
All those who have been demanding that moderate Muslims need to speak up against terrorism: now is your opportunity to click recommend.
4
There's going to be an English translation this week!
Everyone here spouting some variation of 'they shouldn't poke the bear': how is your position different from saying a rape victim 'was asking for it' by the way she was dressed?
Stop blaming the victims and be more upset with the monsters who murdered over some cartoons than the cartoonists.
Stop blaming the victims and be more upset with the monsters who murdered over some cartoons than the cartoonists.
85
After reading lots of comments on this, I feel the need to say what really means for me to publish a Muhamad cartoon after this atrocious massacre.
First of all, Charlie Hebdo is not a mainstream Journal, but nonetheless very well known in France. Everyone knows it, and it's actually part of a very old tradition of France: we can criticize with words and cartoons any institution of any kind, and particularly any religion. Almost everyone in France knew the cartoonists that were murdered. Of course, most people would not agree with the drawings of these artists and find them offensive, and that's precisely the point of satire: it should offend, that's the whole point, that's a definition.
You have the right to be offended. You have the right to find these cartoons not funny. We have the right, in France, to ridicule, to mock, any religion, including Islam. The fact that some muslims do not like it, that's their problem. They can decide to leave in a country where this is illegal. Blasphemy is actually a right we fought for in France, and the first frenchman to fight for this right was Voltaire. Wolinski, Charb, and the others died for that right. That's why it was absolutely necessary to publish this drawing of Muhamad. We can't back down, we have to fight for this precious right, and if you are offended, then don't buy the Journal, and don't read it. I will, as usual, and I hope it will as dark, harsh and gritty.
First of all, Charlie Hebdo is not a mainstream Journal, but nonetheless very well known in France. Everyone knows it, and it's actually part of a very old tradition of France: we can criticize with words and cartoons any institution of any kind, and particularly any religion. Almost everyone in France knew the cartoonists that were murdered. Of course, most people would not agree with the drawings of these artists and find them offensive, and that's precisely the point of satire: it should offend, that's the whole point, that's a definition.
You have the right to be offended. You have the right to find these cartoons not funny. We have the right, in France, to ridicule, to mock, any religion, including Islam. The fact that some muslims do not like it, that's their problem. They can decide to leave in a country where this is illegal. Blasphemy is actually a right we fought for in France, and the first frenchman to fight for this right was Voltaire. Wolinski, Charb, and the others died for that right. That's why it was absolutely necessary to publish this drawing of Muhamad. We can't back down, we have to fight for this precious right, and if you are offended, then don't buy the Journal, and don't read it. I will, as usual, and I hope it will as dark, harsh and gritty.
140
So your stance is, "France, love it or leave it." Apparently the more offensive, the better you like it. Well you have your wish. France seems headed for maximum dysfunction. Good luck with that.
4
You insist on missing the point. Obviously Charlie Hebdo is not for you but no one forces you to read it. And no one should force me not to look at a cartoon they find offensive. It is infinitely more offensive to kill a cartoonist than whatever cartoon he/she draws.
3
Cyril is absolutely right: if someone objects to the free speech in a modern democracy, they are free to vote with their feet and move back into the 7th century where adulterers are stoned and there are public beheadings. No one is forcing these people to live in France (or elsewhere in Europe). If they want to live here, however, they have to accept the norms of society here.
4
Three different fairy tales: one believed by Jews, one by Christians and one by Muslims, all emerged from a fairly small part of the planet.
The people who believe in these fantasies have demanded (and received) an undo amount of indulgence in the modern age particularly in light of the atrocities and shameful hypocrisies which they attempt to excuse by citing their 'faith' (i.e. belief in fairy tales.
Enough coddling of 'religion' in the world. These three religions are the cause of so much suffering, so much hatred, so much intolerance, so much bloodshed.
The more they are insulted the better.
The people who believe in these fantasies have demanded (and received) an undo amount of indulgence in the modern age particularly in light of the atrocities and shameful hypocrisies which they attempt to excuse by citing their 'faith' (i.e. belief in fairy tales.
Enough coddling of 'religion' in the world. These three religions are the cause of so much suffering, so much hatred, so much intolerance, so much bloodshed.
The more they are insulted the better.
187
I couldn't agree more.
11
Yes! Yes!
8
BRAVO!
1
As for the next publication, I think the cartoon should have two men hugging, one with a sign saying "I am charlie" another saying " I am Ahmed" Have Ahmed's face hidden. It's a riddle-..Ahmed is the cop who died, but also the other name of the prophet Muhammed. , We need a cartoon that brings people together…..
18
Je Suis Charlie!
I want to subscribe . . . Please advise.
I want to subscribe . . . Please advise.
13
http://www.viapresse.com/abonnement-magazine-charlie-hebdo.html
I don't think they have an english version of the site though
I don't think they have an english version of the site though
2
What does it mean that not one defender of Free Speech at the Paris rally wore a shirt saying " Je suis Juif."
B and E
B and E
6
You didn’t watch very well. There were some...
14
There were plenty of it, and not necessarily worn by jews
16
Don't know about shirts, but on the NPR coverage of the rally I heard lots of references to posters, buttons, and the like saying "Je suis Juif." So perhaps you've not been well-informed.
8
Just subscribed to an annual subscription to Charlie Hebdo. I really don't have the ~200 bucks to spare at the moment, but I am so aggravated with the NYT right now for not publishing the cartoons that I felt I needed to do something to support the brave Frenchman at Charlie.
Looking through some of Charlie Hebdo's work over the last few days, I've come across tons of "offensive" material regarding Jews. As a Jew myself, I probably wouldn't support the magazine in other circumstances. But when being offensive turns into a death sentence, I have nothing but full support to those who continue to speak out.
Looking through some of Charlie Hebdo's work over the last few days, I've come across tons of "offensive" material regarding Jews. As a Jew myself, I probably wouldn't support the magazine in other circumstances. But when being offensive turns into a death sentence, I have nothing but full support to those who continue to speak out.
58
Equally opportunity offenders. They offend Muslims, Catholics, Jews, politicians....
9
It's offensive without hate. That's what's so marvelous. It clears one's head.
11
Perhaps the more sane thing to do is to take a break and rethink their purpose.
7
Their purpose is to be satirists. Your desire for them to cower in the face of thugs is deplorable.
47
That is music to the ears of the terrorists and gives them the incentive and will to perhaps go after the Huffington Post next. So many of you refuse to get it.
26
Guts?
I'm not one for mocking anyone's religion.
The West doesn't really 'get it'. The West has invaded Muslim lands for as long as I can remember---and they have used bombs, killing people.
If you think the cartoons in CH are worth it, if you think it stands for some great principle, stand back and see France become Iraq.
I'm not one for mocking anyone's religion.
The West doesn't really 'get it'. The West has invaded Muslim lands for as long as I can remember---and they have used bombs, killing people.
If you think the cartoons in CH are worth it, if you think it stands for some great principle, stand back and see France become Iraq.
8
I think "free speech" qualifies as a great principle.
23
I don't see Christians killing people for depicting Christ, or Jews killing people for depicting David. I suspect that most Muslims aren't aghast at a depiction of Mohammed, either. What we have here is a fanatical group of fundamentalists who stoke themselves up with self-righteous indignation over a literal interpretation of an old book. They are the problem, not the majority of Muslims.
If we are going to grapple with this problem, we need to take a hard look at the underlying motivation of these people. It's a relatively recent phenomenon, caused, perhaps, by events and policies that really have nothing to do with religion, but rather a reaction to perceived oppression. We haven't exactly been even-handed in our dealings with the Arab world. We support some of the worst despots because we have an economic joint interest.
We rail on and on about human rights, but the United States really determines its foreign policy based on self-interest. Why are we surprised when some people get fed up with our selfish motives and strike back at us? We are reaping what we have sown.
If we are going to grapple with this problem, we need to take a hard look at the underlying motivation of these people. It's a relatively recent phenomenon, caused, perhaps, by events and policies that really have nothing to do with religion, but rather a reaction to perceived oppression. We haven't exactly been even-handed in our dealings with the Arab world. We support some of the worst despots because we have an economic joint interest.
We rail on and on about human rights, but the United States really determines its foreign policy based on self-interest. Why are we surprised when some people get fed up with our selfish motives and strike back at us? We are reaping what we have sown.
16
Christians do not believe that their god and prophets should not be depicted (rendered in images). Muslims believe that the representation of Mohammed is an insult; they do not believe he should be depicted. You can't make Muslims not believe this just because Christians don't. Why can't we respect their beliefs? That's the question.
2
They can believe what they want and still not try to impose it on anyone else.
2
I think that the more appropriate question to ask is why should we be limited in our expression based upon their beliefs? If everyone must muzzle themselves out of fear of offending someone's beliefs, where is there room for free speech? Perhaps they should consider listening instead of trying to dictate social norms. After all, depicting Mohammed doesn't actually harm anyone, it merely goes against THEIR beliefs which are arbitrary, not logical.
7
I respectfully disagree with the decision not to republish the Charlie Hebdo cover. Although it may truly be made out of respect for the Islamic faith as a whole rather than out of fear of reprisal from radical Islamists, it has the appearance of being the latter, which sets a dangerous precedent and threatens to undermine American ideals of freedom of expression and American soft power at home and abroad.
Publishing the cover would have been a triumph for this news organization. Instead NYT took the easy way out. It's a shame.
Publishing the cover would have been a triumph for this news organization. Instead NYT took the easy way out. It's a shame.
95
Thank you for your supports in Charlie Hebdo. We know that you are with us.
But we know, now, that the devil should not be defied.
It must be eliminated.
Thank you.
Parisian.
But we know, now, that the devil should not be defied.
It must be eliminated.
Thank you.
Parisian.
6
I congratulate Charlie for their bravery which most others do not have including NYT.
I am disgusted by all the talk that says "Freedom of speech is important but..." or "I am for freedom of speech but...". There is no "but" people, you are for it or you are just pretending. Freedom of speech includes people you dislike and subjects you do not agree with as you all know I am sure.
I am disgusted by all the talk that says "Freedom of speech is important but..." or "I am for freedom of speech but...". There is no "but" people, you are for it or you are just pretending. Freedom of speech includes people you dislike and subjects you do not agree with as you all know I am sure.
106
Freedom of speech? We all censor what we say, at all times. There is no such thing as complete "freedom" of speech. All news outlets make decisions on an hourly basis about what to include and what not to include. They cannot include everything. Charlie Hebdo decided to include images that insult Muslims. Other news outlets will decide differently. That does not mean that they are suppressing "free" speech.
8
Freedom of speech does not have to be guaranteed or otherwise defended as a right, except insofar as it is offensive; if no one is offended, "free speech" passes by unnoticed. And if some Muslims are offended by Charlie Hebdo, after all some Muslims are offended by the very existence of non-Muslims to begin with. You're quite right; there's no "...yes, but..." when it comes to the right of free speech.
11
Wasn't a Maplethorpe photo of a crucifix in a can of urine removed from an exhibition years ago because Christians found it "offensive?"
When I saw this headline, I thought good for them! I can't imagine any other, or better, way to honor their lost colleagues.
And that's no small task. Just imagine how they must be feeling! Carrying on the spirit of comrades while grieving themselves. I hope they sell every single copy. I hope they are forced to do a second printing. What better message to deliver to the entire world.
And that's no small task. Just imagine how they must be feeling! Carrying on the spirit of comrades while grieving themselves. I hope they sell every single copy. I hope they are forced to do a second printing. What better message to deliver to the entire world.
25
"I may not agree with a word that you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
18
The latest Charlie Hebdo cover is wonderful. Amazing work from a group of artists that is certainly grieving.
Should cartoonists call a moratorium on lampooning Mohammed, and Jesus - not to stifle free expression, but because neither Mohammed (nor Jesus) is responsible for what is done "in his name"? Both certainly spun to dust long ago over what has been done "in his name".
Please freely lampoon those who (mis)interpret scripture for their own selfish goals; lampoon them often and savagely. Mohammed and Jesus both tried to improve humanity and hardly deserve to be ridiculed.
Should cartoonists call a moratorium on lampooning Mohammed, and Jesus - not to stifle free expression, but because neither Mohammed (nor Jesus) is responsible for what is done "in his name"? Both certainly spun to dust long ago over what has been done "in his name".
Please freely lampoon those who (mis)interpret scripture for their own selfish goals; lampoon them often and savagely. Mohammed and Jesus both tried to improve humanity and hardly deserve to be ridiculed.
9
There is no such thing as absolute freedom of the press.
6
Who sets the limits?
7
The cover sounds perfect because it expresses multiple thoughts -
We believe in freedom of expression and are not deterred.
We are all of one human race.
The true practice of religion should bind people together (Latin "religare"), oblige one to another and God. Certainly not alienate or destroy.
We believe in freedom of expression and are not deterred.
We are all of one human race.
The true practice of religion should bind people together (Latin "religare"), oblige one to another and God. Certainly not alienate or destroy.
9
From CNN
But for many Muslims, depictions of Mohammed, revered not only as a prophet but also as a moral exemplar, are no laughing matter.
Satirical representations of Muhammad are not new, although they are very modern, said Rashid.
"In the context of Europe, where in many countries Muslims feel like they are besieged, these images are not seen as criticism, but as bullying. Violence, as a response, is clearly wrong and disproportionate. However, it is not so much about religious anger, as it is about vengeance."
Just putting this here because I think there is a clear difference between thought provoking satire and bullying or shock jock lampooning. How many more innocents will need to be taken out by extremists before realizing that trying to impose pop culture and "free speech" on an increasingly radicalized group is just not smart. Allowed, legal, accepted actions still have consequences. When do you stop being a hero or victim and when do you start becoming another cultural wedge. Not trying to victim blame, but there has to be something more effective than flooding the media with Mohammed depictions. I know that bowing to violence isn't the solution, but it seems like spreading shared values with non-radicalized Muslims worldwide and creating more understanding and tolerance would be more effective.
But for many Muslims, depictions of Mohammed, revered not only as a prophet but also as a moral exemplar, are no laughing matter.
Satirical representations of Muhammad are not new, although they are very modern, said Rashid.
"In the context of Europe, where in many countries Muslims feel like they are besieged, these images are not seen as criticism, but as bullying. Violence, as a response, is clearly wrong and disproportionate. However, it is not so much about religious anger, as it is about vengeance."
Just putting this here because I think there is a clear difference between thought provoking satire and bullying or shock jock lampooning. How many more innocents will need to be taken out by extremists before realizing that trying to impose pop culture and "free speech" on an increasingly radicalized group is just not smart. Allowed, legal, accepted actions still have consequences. When do you stop being a hero or victim and when do you start becoming another cultural wedge. Not trying to victim blame, but there has to be something more effective than flooding the media with Mohammed depictions. I know that bowing to violence isn't the solution, but it seems like spreading shared values with non-radicalized Muslims worldwide and creating more understanding and tolerance would be more effective.
13
The basic rules are "love God and be kind, loving and helpful to each other.
So if God is the King of love and mercy
Then who is the prince of hate, violence and revenge?
So if God is the King of love and mercy
Then who is the prince of hate, violence and revenge?
No, you're not "trying" to victim blame, you're doing it.
12
If Muslims cannot deal with Western values, then perhaps they shouldn't live in the West.
12
Is this supposed to be satire? What's the point other than to prove how offensive one can be? There are no ideas here.
10
When being offensive spells out a death sentence for the speaker, I give nothing but my full support to those who dare continue speaking.
23
How is the cartoon offensive? It shows that Charlie Hebdo doesn't see the terrorist attacks as being a problem with Islam. It's saying that Mohamed, were he alive today, would be mourning the deaths of innocents and protesting the attacks and murders committed in his name.
36
Just saw the cover of the new Charlie Hebdo in an article in an Australian newspaper and the cover could almost be described as a conciliatory olive branch to the Muslim community, which makes it doubly disappointing for me as an American citizen living in Australia that the New York Times, which I have been reading for more than half a century, has elected to engage in self-censorship on this occasion.
62
Its always a sad sad day when we all fail to see the common thread which links us all as one. This world is the substance of one thing only, thinking mind in action. Yes freedom of speech is a necessity, but also a necessity us a fully developed mind. Why do you think all religion worships the "virgin mind" maybe because it is the only thing left in the world with innocence. as soon as we start judging others and letting those judgments into this electric universe all other minds interpret this information. now depending on circumstances aka everything ever stored in ones memory we make our judgement and can either A) blabber a rebuddle aka let the lever of our fulcrum swing to an outside stimulus or b) internalize that given stimulus. it may be more appealing and less stressful to externalize this but we have then created electric action which will always accrue another electric response . maybe if we were responsible adults and value a beautiful environment for our progeny we would give this more thought in the future
3
You assume that there are rational reasons for all groups But this is not true. In the last 100 years there have been a whole series of mass commitments to irrational movements that have as their ultimate outcome mass murder and suicide. Some of your ideas are hopeless attempts to deny mass irrationality because the world has to be rational, doesn't it? If not then what do we do??
1
Basically, we are afraid of an untimely death.
I completely agree i just would like the best for us as a whole. Greed and ego have little place with me anymore. I also realize that there is never going to be a perfect world, but would just like to see improvement and true democracy that way we all actually have freedom of equal expression
Editor Dean Baquet says "We have a standard that is pretty simple. We don't run things that are designed to gratuitously offend."
Reading this article, and then seeing the cover of Wednesday;s edition on the web, it is clear to me that it should meet the NY Times guidelines under Mr. Baquet. But the image is not in this article -- is its absence saying that the NYT believes the surviving staff of Charlie Hebdo designed the cover as a "gratuitous insult" to Muslims? Really????
Reading this article, and then seeing the cover of Wednesday;s edition on the web, it is clear to me that it should meet the NY Times guidelines under Mr. Baquet. But the image is not in this article -- is its absence saying that the NYT believes the surviving staff of Charlie Hebdo designed the cover as a "gratuitous insult" to Muslims? Really????
45
We are NOT all Charlie Hebdo.
I can see that I'm in a tiny minority here, but I am appalled by the "Je suis Charlie" attitude expressed in this article and the comments. Words (and cartoons) do hurt. As they say, "the pen is mightier than the sword." "Life and death are in the power of speech." "Wise people are careful with their words."
You are endangering all of us with your childish cartoons and your hatred. You are fanning the flames of war. I don't believe in murder, I don't believe in incitement, I don't believe in Islamic fundamentalism, and I don't believe in rights without limit, obligation, or responsibility. Free speech, when egregiously abused, can cause more problems than it's worth.
Who was it that said "sticks and stones...words will never hurt me"? What a fool. Words can hurt much more than sticks and stones, and there will surely be revenge. For many, Charlie Hebdo is the tyranny of the majority, the nidus of the next ISIS, the next Nazis, the next lone killer. Tone down the outrageous insults, and maybe we can all live a little longer and happier. Together.
"All is forgiven." If only.
I can see that I'm in a tiny minority here, but I am appalled by the "Je suis Charlie" attitude expressed in this article and the comments. Words (and cartoons) do hurt. As they say, "the pen is mightier than the sword." "Life and death are in the power of speech." "Wise people are careful with their words."
You are endangering all of us with your childish cartoons and your hatred. You are fanning the flames of war. I don't believe in murder, I don't believe in incitement, I don't believe in Islamic fundamentalism, and I don't believe in rights without limit, obligation, or responsibility. Free speech, when egregiously abused, can cause more problems than it's worth.
Who was it that said "sticks and stones...words will never hurt me"? What a fool. Words can hurt much more than sticks and stones, and there will surely be revenge. For many, Charlie Hebdo is the tyranny of the majority, the nidus of the next ISIS, the next Nazis, the next lone killer. Tone down the outrageous insults, and maybe we can all live a little longer and happier. Together.
"All is forgiven." If only.
25
What a perfect encapsulation of the problem of the heckler's veto.
If you want to shut someone up, then kill them. That's the message you're sending.
If you want to shut someone up, then kill them. That's the message you're sending.
23
"When egregiously abused." Did you see the covers in question? They are not offensive by normal, Western standards. The Passion of the Christ, with Jesus getting graphically scourged was offensive (and I'm not even religious). Charlie Hebdo simply drew a cartoonish characature of Mohammed. It can be deemed offensive only by those who say pictures of the prophet are not tolerated. What if they said all men must wear a beard - would all of us be childish for not wearing one?
6
Appeasement will secure peace for our time?
14
Charlie is playing chicken with the worst kind of monsters. It would seem that freedom wins if Charlie doesnt back down. But it may be the terrorists who win, ironically, as they may be getting the outcome they were seeking all along.
3
As the terrorists fled after the murders, they yelled triumphantly: "We have killed Charlie Hebo." I'm pretty sure that was the outcome they were seeking. I'm glad they didn't get that outcome.
2
I'm terribly interested to see how many media outlets show or reprint the cover. If all cable news, newspapers, and blogs display it that will send a strong message. If most do not, this will also send a message.
28
There's free speech and then there's common sense. Charlie Hebdo seems to be short on column B.
16
So would you have Charlie Hébdo give up? That's just what the Muslim terrorists want. The correct path is to go on, being creative and exercising the right to FREE SPEECH. Period.
23
Within years of the blasphemer murders at the Salem Witch Trials, on the other end of the religious spectrum, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, showing all things are possible even amidst the darkness.
Most Muslim "blasphemers" are Muslims themselves. Most Muslim blasphemers, doubters, and free speakers are killed, tortured and whipped by our closest allies in the Gulf states. We should keep this in mind while we move forward.
How many Muslim Thomas Jeffersons', writers, thinkers, leaders, and bloggers are rotting away in the the prisons of our Dictator and King friends? Perhaps now never to change history.
Most Muslim "blasphemers" are Muslims themselves. Most Muslim blasphemers, doubters, and free speakers are killed, tortured and whipped by our closest allies in the Gulf states. We should keep this in mind while we move forward.
How many Muslim Thomas Jeffersons', writers, thinkers, leaders, and bloggers are rotting away in the the prisons of our Dictator and King friends? Perhaps now never to change history.
14
Salem Witch Trials took place 1692-1693, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, thats 83 years and Jefferson wouldn't even be born until 50 years after the Trials. Although I generally agree with your sentiments on lightness vs darkness, your knowledge of history is very poor.
3
I am loathe to speculate or guess what the dead might have said or wanted done in the wake of their horrific murders but in this instance I can't help but think - and believe - that the next cover issue is exactly what Charlie Hebdo's dead employees would have wanted the magazine to do.
30
I don't speak French or have law enforcement experience but if I can help guard the Charlie Hebdo offices then I volunteer.
23
Only the sickest, most ignorant, and intolerant fool believes they you can kill a message by killing the messenger. All they do is prove the truth of the message, the courage of the messenger and their own lunacy and intolerance.
31
Hi Dan: I liked your comment. I believe hat Mustapha Ourad, copy editor, murdered in the editing room was alo muslim.
8
Instead of cartoons we should be increasing our military operations against ISIL and AQAP.
6
And this is why the employees at Charlie Hebdo do this, because they honor the people they have lost by carrying on and not being afraid. We may disagree with what they publish but it is simply our choice to not read it. It is not anyone's right to kill them for what they print. It is a ridiculous concept that no one in a free world should give in to. It is not about agreeing with what they say. It is about having the right to say it without being afraid of being killed. The fact that radicals and insane people will kill anyone for anything should not cause us to stop being free and civilized.
3
Am I the only person in the free, Western World that thinks it is ego driven idiocy - to recklessly satirize and mock certain important symbols &/or certain historical figures?
People had a cow over Maplethorpe's absurd Crucifix in Urine "artwork". And that was a minus zero compared to the current fade of offending devout Muslims and taunting fanatical psychopaths.
A cartoon never constructively changed anything - I don't care what anyone says.
I am 100% for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, I also have good sense. Do these people use goo judgment? Or do they throw rocks at wasp's nests and then just stand there - thinking they won't be stung?
There is also an eliminate of intelligentsia elitism in these satirical cartoon people - their ego outweighs any common sense.
People had a cow over Maplethorpe's absurd Crucifix in Urine "artwork". And that was a minus zero compared to the current fade of offending devout Muslims and taunting fanatical psychopaths.
A cartoon never constructively changed anything - I don't care what anyone says.
I am 100% for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, I also have good sense. Do these people use goo judgment? Or do they throw rocks at wasp's nests and then just stand there - thinking they won't be stung?
There is also an eliminate of intelligentsia elitism in these satirical cartoon people - their ego outweighs any common sense.
82
I agree with you totally!
2
It was Andres Serrano not Maplethorpe
3
I am offended that you are offended. Now what?
I think what's sickening is that you write ad naseum of their supposed "bad judgement" but make not one iota of effort to step back and say to yourself, just how barbaric this act was, in the name of anything, but even more so in the name of a religion. ...our are you saying that death is the way in which religious groups have a right to assert themselves just because something is "important" to their religion?
Quite frankly, your position disgusts me.
I think what's sickening is that you write ad naseum of their supposed "bad judgement" but make not one iota of effort to step back and say to yourself, just how barbaric this act was, in the name of anything, but even more so in the name of a religion. ...our are you saying that death is the way in which religious groups have a right to assert themselves just because something is "important" to their religion?
Quite frankly, your position disgusts me.
27
In over 20 years of reading your paper, this is the least proud I have ever been of The New York Times, which I will note, covered my wedding announcement, creating a personal connection to the paper. Not publishing Charlie Hebdo's cover is the ultimate in journalistic cowardice. The cover belongs as an illustration to your story. I have read the public editor's comment and it is not sufficient. Dean Baquet has failed the paper, New York City, and the country. He may choose to ignore or disagree with me, but he ought to know that he made the wrong decision for the readers, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, deist, all of us.
289
I have never been so in agreement with someone else's sentiments in my entire life as I am now.
8
I'm with you.
3
i couldn't agree more. it was bad enough not to reprint some of the past covers, but it should have been seen as absolutely imperative to show this new cover.
the nyt likes to consider itself the premier paper and news source, and a bastion of journalistic freedom and integrity. many would (or increasingly wish they could) agree. i've been subscribing to the nyt since i started grad school in 1995. we have seen this facade start to chip in recent years, and failing to show the new cover deals a major blow to the paper's standing in the world.
like many readers who have long admired the nyt, i've lost a lot of respect.
the nyt likes to consider itself the premier paper and news source, and a bastion of journalistic freedom and integrity. many would (or increasingly wish they could) agree. i've been subscribing to the nyt since i started grad school in 1995. we have seen this facade start to chip in recent years, and failing to show the new cover deals a major blow to the paper's standing in the world.
like many readers who have long admired the nyt, i've lost a lot of respect.
3
We are all Charlie!
15
not many
Is the New York Times going to refuse to publish Charlie Hebdo's cover image of the prophet Mohammad? Will it use the same rationale it deployed to refuse to publish the images of the cartoons that led to the Hebdo massacre? (I consider the decision not to publish the cartoons a violation of the paper's duty to report). Or will the "paper of record" now be compelled, finally, to publish the drawn image of the prophet Mohammad on its front page?
43
If our nation's Press, had 1/10th the guts of Charlie. I was disappointed and frankly disgusted by the number of news outlets who cowardly refused to reprint the allegedly "offensive" drawing of Muhammed.
It's the worst kind of creeping censorship; that is self-censorship.
Shame on all of you and Viva Charlie! Viva la France!
It's the worst kind of creeping censorship; that is self-censorship.
Shame on all of you and Viva Charlie! Viva la France!
43
The events at Charlie Hebdo were tragic and unforgivable; the killers are dead. Yet why is the fact that the very same publication had dismissed one of its staff for anti-semitism (who found redress in the courts) omitted from this story? So much for the "sacredness" of free-expression.
11
I was very pleased to see the photo of the uniformed men guarding free speech. Now, that's freedom!
5
If it is a satire magazine, then why is it waging a war on Islam?
If it is not a satire magazine, then why is it gratuitously offending the religious sensibilities of people?
Obviously, what's fueling the controversy is an unspoken hostility towards Muslims in France. It doesn't stop there though. Jews are complaining about antisemitism too. In fact, what we're seeing is Europe playing with the fire of religious hatred that led to 6 million dead in the Holocaust. Four million people do not spontaneously flood the streets for the right of cartoonists to print.
Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish offensive material if they choose, just as Adolf Hitler had a right to publish Mein Khampf. Take a deep breath and a long look before declaring "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" though.
If it is not a satire magazine, then why is it gratuitously offending the religious sensibilities of people?
Obviously, what's fueling the controversy is an unspoken hostility towards Muslims in France. It doesn't stop there though. Jews are complaining about antisemitism too. In fact, what we're seeing is Europe playing with the fire of religious hatred that led to 6 million dead in the Holocaust. Four million people do not spontaneously flood the streets for the right of cartoonists to print.
Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish offensive material if they choose, just as Adolf Hitler had a right to publish Mein Khampf. Take a deep breath and a long look before declaring "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" though.
19
You did note, they don't single out Islam, correct? Or did you assume this without verification?
4
Exactly right. Here's an article in the Atlantic quoting Charlie Hebdo's top editor:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-s...
<<“You’re not supposed to use religion for your sense of identity, in any case not in a secular state,” Biard said. “In principle, the Arabs in France are not Muslims,” he contended—that is, Arabs in this secular, assimilationist nation are citizens like any others, and would be well served to renounce whatever attachment they may feel to Islam. “How is it going to help these people to make them believe they’re Muslims?” he asked.>>
I can't sign onto that.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-s...
<<“You’re not supposed to use religion for your sense of identity, in any case not in a secular state,” Biard said. “In principle, the Arabs in France are not Muslims,” he contended—that is, Arabs in this secular, assimilationist nation are citizens like any others, and would be well served to renounce whatever attachment they may feel to Islam. “How is it going to help these people to make them believe they’re Muslims?” he asked.>>
I can't sign onto that.
1
And i guess your point is that those individuals who find something offensive have a right to kill for it? Or maybe just in the name of a religion? Either way , you may want to take as look at your position and reassess who is to blame for what happened, otherwise you advocate a very disturbing position.
9
Let this be clear. A Muslim can debate in good consciousness whether he or she can depict Muhammad --or not. But non-Muslims can, if they so desire, depict Muhammad. And nobody should be killed, Muslim or not, for doing so --and certainly anybody advocating killing others cannot participate in the national projects of Western countries.
Under the brave banner of Hebdo, our own countries need to truly think about how we interact with other countries who espouse positions that are anathema to ours in terms of human rights. It might, for example, be high time to stop being commercial partners with nations antithetical to the foundational aspects of Western Thought and Democracy.
Under the brave banner of Hebdo, our own countries need to truly think about how we interact with other countries who espouse positions that are anathema to ours in terms of human rights. It might, for example, be high time to stop being commercial partners with nations antithetical to the foundational aspects of Western Thought and Democracy.
35
Well said. Very distributing indeed to See so many comments tacitly supporting the murderous actions of these individuals, who did it in the name of their "religion", thereby giving their entire religion a bad name, all because they were "offended"...sad, very sad
6
just because one is against the caricatures does not mean that one supports the killings. What a simplistic leap that is.
the killers were born and raised in France. So what "nations" are we talking about?
1
Just trying to use an excuse to be racist while cloaking it under the guise of free speech. While obviously the attack was horrible and unjustifiable, this is also a twisted, veiled attempt to critique an entire spirituality (I am not Muslim, by the way). Hate speech is an exception to free speech.
48
How is making fun of a religion/superstition, racist?
8
You must not have looked at the cartoon. I can't imagine anyone who has done so arguing that it's hate speech to say that the staffers of Charlie Hebdo have forgiven the attacks and that even Mohamed, were he alive today, would be protesting the killing of innocents in his name.
7
A vile, disgusting, abhorrent exception. It's justifiable in the case of threats and worse ("we should hang that uppity n.....") because the (substantial) costs are outweighed by the (slightly more substantial) benefits, and even then it's extremely restricted, but the moment that criticizing a religion by - seriously? - publishing a cartoon image of a prophet counts as hate speech we are in deep, deep trouble indeed. Ideas - especially deeply-held ones - need to be able to withstand criticism or they are not worth holding. I am terrified by your viewpoint because it's how we get abstinence-only sex education, climate change and evolution denial, and far, far worse. These killers fancied themselves the police of your idealized world, and were punishing those they perceived to have violated the law. If that's the society you want.... well, we have nothing further to discuss.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
4
an image of a dark skinned bearded man in a turban does not make that image an image of Mohammed. I am no fan of ridicule, mockery, sarcasm; they are not my kind of humor, but OMG people take themselves and their beleifs far too seriously!
May those who died at the terrorists hands rest in peace and may their loved ones grieve in peace and be nurtured by the love of so many. Long live free expression no matter who agrees or disagrees with it.
May those who died at the terrorists hands rest in peace and may their loved ones grieve in peace and be nurtured by the love of so many. Long live free expression no matter who agrees or disagrees with it.
15
And that's exactly the point, you don't have to agree with it, but man, to tacitly support this brutal response by saying "they got what they had coming" is sickening
4
Bravo! Charlie Hebdo's group was BRAVE. They will live on through their art, which will always speak loud issues of life as it really is. We must all be brave, life is short. Long live their memory. May we never forget them.
64
Fantastic! What courage. I AM CHARLIE!
20
I read this and cannot help but recall another time when a relatively small group gathered together to construct and put their names to a document that was no less than an act of treason. All those present knew what they were doing and were fully aware they might very well swing from a noose for their actions. In fact one of those present at that time remarked to a co-conspirator saying, "You're lucky. You're fat. When you're hung you will die fast." I'm speaking, of course, of our Declaration of Indpedendence. Godspeed Charlie Hebdo – make your declaration and do not live in fear. And incididentally – the fat one was James Madison.
24
Why is the NY Times not showing the cover for the new issue with the picture of the Prophet? Are you afraid? Do you not support the principles of free speech? The best way to remove the stigma of showing an image of the Prophet is to show images of the Prophet everywhere...
32
When comedians tell their peers how successful they were with their stand up routine, they say "I killed out there!" The Charlie Hebdo satirists just produced killing humor.
When comedians tell their peers how badly their stand up comedy routine was received by the audience, they say "I died out there!" The Charlie Hebdo satirists just produced humor to die for.
A comedian yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, isn't funny. It's stupid, and against the law as well. Context is everything. So is knowing when to quit because you have the audience on your side. Sometimes, too much is simply too much, nothing more.
6
“Sometimes, too much is simply too much, nothing more” Not in this case, it was absolutely the right thing to do.
7
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not illegal if there is a fire within that theater.
3
Blasphemy is a crime only for the adherents of the faith. I want to respect the values of Islam, but I'm beginning to think the best protest would be for magazines and newspapers everywhere to put a picture of Mohammed on the front page or cover. There would be more targets than the terrorists could go after. This would no doubt annoy Muslim clerics and some governments, but it would get the message across that the fundamentalists have crossed the line.
39
If only the NY Times could be this brave.
160
In their defense, they are, but constrained by the realities of a dominating government and a heritage of many years to consider.
1
Patrick: What?
6
Every other paper in the US is running the image. Why can't the Times?
2
Charlie Hedbo defends itself from frequent charges of racism and religious bigotry by claiming to be an equal opportunity offender. There could be no better time to prove this by taking aim at the pieties of those who have exploited the attack for political ends: the public officials who would ban Muslim religious garb and Palestinian street demonstrations while proclaiming themselves defenders of free expression; those who decry the use of violence for political ends while episodically invading their former African colonies to install more reliably compliant puppets and acting as arms merchant to the world; and of course the various heads of state and foreign ministers who terrorize their own subject populations (Israel's Netanyahu and Jordan's King Abdullah to name but two) while marching in Paris and proclaiming Je suis Charlie.
There should be little doubt that French authorities will seize on recent events to put in place a few more elements of the repressive security state that every modern leader seems to want to build. At the end of the day the routinization of surveillance and soldiers on the street is a far greater threat to freedom than any handfull of murderous Islamists could hope to be. If Charlie Hedbo's mission is to deflate those who would infringe on our freedoms one hopes they keep this in mind and target their jokes accordingly.
There should be little doubt that French authorities will seize on recent events to put in place a few more elements of the repressive security state that every modern leader seems to want to build. At the end of the day the routinization of surveillance and soldiers on the street is a far greater threat to freedom than any handfull of murderous Islamists could hope to be. If Charlie Hedbo's mission is to deflate those who would infringe on our freedoms one hopes they keep this in mind and target their jokes accordingly.
16
Dear Chris your own and those who think like you have been brilliant advocates of Muslims and Palestinians since at least 1978. What wonderful job you have all done. Look at how far you have come! Palestinians have achieved so much thanks to you, and Muslims are loved all over the world. Don't ever change! Keep at it for another 30 years or so, I am sure it will work even better
10
There is too much there to comment on, but government will always seek more power, whether it be the military or the post office or the welfare office. Each of the civil servants who inhabit these offices try to protect themselves and increase their power. Often, out of heartfelt, if misdirected, righteousness. They will, as you suggest, use events, whether it be a "Great Recession" or a terrorist act, to augment their power.
Free Speech! Free Speech! Free Speech!
Until it comes to finding out about what our government is doing regarding surveillance, targeted killing by Drones, torture, etc. Then, not so much. As many veteran journalists have said before, the Obama administration is the most restrictive administration in recent history when it comes to access to information which is...... Free Speech!
The murders of the journalists were horrific, wrong, and must be condemned. But if their deaths are going to mean anything, the right of Free Speech must extend well beyond satire of Muslims/Islamists.
Until it comes to finding out about what our government is doing regarding surveillance, targeted killing by Drones, torture, etc. Then, not so much. As many veteran journalists have said before, the Obama administration is the most restrictive administration in recent history when it comes to access to information which is...... Free Speech!
The murders of the journalists were horrific, wrong, and must be condemned. But if their deaths are going to mean anything, the right of Free Speech must extend well beyond satire of Muslims/Islamists.
18
Maybe that's why Obama didn't March in solidarity with the world in Paris. I was embarrassed for my country.
1
"Where men burn books, men ultimately burn people." These words, in the German language, were written in 1820 by the German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine. What Heine wrote is directly applicable to the murder of Jews and others in France last week. If the media choose to censor themselves on the subject of Islam, then the terrorists will have succeeded.
185
By the same token lets not self censor [or under threat of law] anti-Jewish comments. Free speech, hate speech is for all. OR must be managed.
6
It is not the subject of "freedom of speech and expression" that is only at issue; it is the exercise of that right that is the object of morality at play in the decision to publish the offending cartoons under the particular circumstances. It is unsound to negate the element of discretion and prudence. Separation of Church and State is a weak argument to support CH's actions and business decisions. It doesn't offer a solution to resolve the moral play surrounding this case - it merely covers-up the offensive nature and provocation by a few who chose to insult the suicidal violent sensitivities of terrorists. The U.S. constitution provides for a right to bear arms. That doesn't automatically justify the gun owner to engage in swagger by pulling his gun in public in provocative spoofing of western gunslingers.
With authority or right to engage in objective behavior comes the balance to use that right subjectively with prudence and safety. The editors of HB appeared to relish their publication brand that took precedence over the circumstances that they ought to have known would inflame terrorists and "possibly" result in retaliation.
Most of the world's great newspapers and TV/digital media chose not to follow the lead of some aggressive media by refusing to tag along publishing anti-Islamic satire from CH and other lesser known publications. The news media have a right to freedom of speech/expression but they also have an obligation to their staff and readers.
With authority or right to engage in objective behavior comes the balance to use that right subjectively with prudence and safety. The editors of HB appeared to relish their publication brand that took precedence over the circumstances that they ought to have known would inflame terrorists and "possibly" result in retaliation.
Most of the world's great newspapers and TV/digital media chose not to follow the lead of some aggressive media by refusing to tag along publishing anti-Islamic satire from CH and other lesser known publications. The news media have a right to freedom of speech/expression but they also have an obligation to their staff and readers.
It sounded like you were saying that Libération is " a newspaper more akin to The Onion than to Le Monde." It took a second look to understand that you were talking about CH of course, and not Libé. I hope no one else makes the same mistake, as Libé is a serious newspaper and very much on the same wave length as Le Monde.
6
Bravo!
If there is a silver lining to this beyond-black cloud it is not only the courage of the survivors. It has been the beginning of push-back from tolerant Moslems.
Besides the ubiquitous 'Je suis Charlie', I would like to see an equally ubiquitous response from the Moslem world: "NOT IN MY NAME!"
How about Moslems the world over organizing a petition using just these words? It should get hundreds of millions of signers and send a message to to the small (but too large) minority of murderous fanatics in their midst.
With huge and deserved praise for the Charlie Hebdo victims and survivors, let us not forget two Moslems deserving of equal praise:
Ahmed Merabet - Murdered in front of the offices of Charlie Hebdo.
Lassana Bathily - risked his life protecting Jewish supermarket shoppers.
Dan Kravitz
If there is a silver lining to this beyond-black cloud it is not only the courage of the survivors. It has been the beginning of push-back from tolerant Moslems.
Besides the ubiquitous 'Je suis Charlie', I would like to see an equally ubiquitous response from the Moslem world: "NOT IN MY NAME!"
How about Moslems the world over organizing a petition using just these words? It should get hundreds of millions of signers and send a message to to the small (but too large) minority of murderous fanatics in their midst.
With huge and deserved praise for the Charlie Hebdo victims and survivors, let us not forget two Moslems deserving of equal praise:
Ahmed Merabet - Murdered in front of the offices of Charlie Hebdo.
Lassana Bathily - risked his life protecting Jewish supermarket shoppers.
Dan Kravitz
34
The cover they are flaunting is not in my name either. It is gratuitous and stupid.
2
You mean like this?
http://www.euronews.com/2014/09/25/british-muslims-message-to-isil-not-i...
They've been doing it.
http://www.euronews.com/2014/09/25/british-muslims-message-to-isil-not-i...
They've been doing it.
More than one writer has noticed our support for the brave staff at Charlie Hebdo to be free to publish anything, but in this country we have fallen into our own wave of fundamentalist censorship. Who dares publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons here? We are have fallen into a fanatical "political correctness" which coerces, or many times forces, people to stick to an artificially narrow view of society. Pity he (or she) who in the U.S. tries to mock Muslims, Gays, Lesbians, African Americans (except if you're one of them) or certain other groups. Does freedom of speech and freedom of the press stop when someone claims to be offended?
59
No, in the good old US it stops when there is the threat of legal lability.
Every newspaper in the world should use the new Charlie Hebdo cover image as their front page on Thursday!!!
196
Why isn't there an image of the cover in this story? I have seen it online and didn't find it offensive. Isn't NYTimes self-censorship going too far?
315
Absolutely, the WSJ has it, clear as day. I am hoping this is a glitch. Let's see the cover.
12
Exactly what I was wondering. I scrolled down a few of the comments to see if I had missed something or, if other readers had noticed the omission. Completely spineless and it is also disappointing to notice the number of readers who are desperately trying to equate government surveillance with the wave of attacks which now includes the use of ten year old girls forcibly conscripted as suicide bombers. I find the self-censorship of the Western media a far more worrying development than the covert (necessarily so) surveillance put in place by Western governments.
9
Pen is mightier than period.
Now they will get mad about this, let them be!!!
Pen is mightier.
Now they will get mad about this, let them be!!!
Pen is mightier.
5
I hope Charlie Hebdo will set up a funding website written in English that Americans and other English speakers can contribute to. The "I help Charlie" website referred to in this article is written in French and confusing to those of us who don't speak the language. I'm sure many Americans would like to contribute money to help Charlie Hebdo financially.
https://www.donspep.caissedesdepots.fr/?journal=CHAR
https://www.donspep.caissedesdepots.fr/?journal=CHAR
14
Dear Nancy,
I've checked the link and indeed the first steps to donate are only in French. Let me help you on that :
"Je fais un don ponctuel" means " I donate one time" ; "Je fais un don mensuel" means "I donate every month". Then you have to choose the amount, either 50, 100, 200 Euros or whatever amount you want.
Then you have to enter your personal information : "Vous êtes une personne physique" means "You're an individual" ; "Vous êtes une personne morale" means "You're a society or organization".
Regarding the other informations : "Civilité" : Monsieur is for Mr, Madame for Mrs and Mademoiselle for Miss ; "Prénom" : First name ; "Nom" : Last name ; "Adresse" : address (must be the same as credit card's owner) ; "Compl. Adresse" : more info about the address if needed ; "Ville" : City ; "Code Postal" : ZIP Code ; "Téléphone" : Phone number ; "Pays" : Country ; "Votre email" : your email address ; "Confirmez votre email" : confirm your email address
"J'ai lu et j'accepte les conditions générales d'utilisation du site." means "I've read and accept the general conditions of the site."
Afterwards, you access to the payment page ; at the bottom of to, you will find small flags where you can choose your language. I hope you will succeed to make your contribution successfully.
I was in the rally yesterday here in Paris and it was quite extraordinary. Cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were part of our family, as freedom is part of our soul. We'll never give in to obscurantism!
I've checked the link and indeed the first steps to donate are only in French. Let me help you on that :
"Je fais un don ponctuel" means " I donate one time" ; "Je fais un don mensuel" means "I donate every month". Then you have to choose the amount, either 50, 100, 200 Euros or whatever amount you want.
Then you have to enter your personal information : "Vous êtes une personne physique" means "You're an individual" ; "Vous êtes une personne morale" means "You're a society or organization".
Regarding the other informations : "Civilité" : Monsieur is for Mr, Madame for Mrs and Mademoiselle for Miss ; "Prénom" : First name ; "Nom" : Last name ; "Adresse" : address (must be the same as credit card's owner) ; "Compl. Adresse" : more info about the address if needed ; "Ville" : City ; "Code Postal" : ZIP Code ; "Téléphone" : Phone number ; "Pays" : Country ; "Votre email" : your email address ; "Confirmez votre email" : confirm your email address
"J'ai lu et j'accepte les conditions générales d'utilisation du site." means "I've read and accept the general conditions of the site."
Afterwards, you access to the payment page ; at the bottom of to, you will find small flags where you can choose your language. I hope you will succeed to make your contribution successfully.
I was in the rally yesterday here in Paris and it was quite extraordinary. Cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were part of our family, as freedom is part of our soul. We'll never give in to obscurantism!
What a powerful message to add "all is forgiven" on the cover. That message needs to resonate through radical Islam, which seems absent of the trait of forgiveness. It peddles in retribution and revenge, it seems.
208
Knowing (albeit distantly) Charlie Hebdo, I rather read the "all is forgiven" as sarcasm, not sincerity. I think they're making a point, not an absolution.
sending messages that resonate with the radicals islamists is an oxymoron. But we need to recognize the sensibilities of ordinary muslims. sending a message to a few by insulting all is not a good approach.
1
Thank God for satire.
25
Where is the picture of the front page?
10
Every newspaper in the free world should publish the cartoons that provoked the murders of these courageous journalists. I note that the New York Times has not done so.
Journalistic outlets in the Muslim world should also do so, in an act of defiance against the cowardly murderers who committed these grotesque crimes in the name of their religion.
"The surest way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke is watching you.
Journalistic outlets in the Muslim world should also do so, in an act of defiance against the cowardly murderers who committed these grotesque crimes in the name of their religion.
"The surest way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke is watching you.
37
I grieve the deaths of the men and women of Charlie Hebdo and abhor the terrorists who murdered them. However, having seen the cartoons, I would not characterize them as journalism. If these stereotypical images of Muslims and Jews were in an animated movie, the Hollywood folks who so "courageously" said Je suis Charlie at the Golden Globes would be protesting them as racist.
1
Marvelous ! These brave remnants of Charlie Hebdo are protecting us in a way because if the gun is able to control speech over there, it will come here with all the more urgency to try the same thing
16
Free speech is a wonderful thing, but too many are selective admirers. While Muslim/Islamist satire garners almost uniform support in the West, not so much for Jewish satire.
Little reported is the fact several years ago Charlie Hebdo FIRED a columnist for writing about Sarkozy's son in a manner that was considered anti-semitic (he said Sarkozy's son might want to convert because Jews were more business minded). Add to that, France criminally prosecuted him for inciting racial hatred.
What about Free Speech? Where was the "I am Charlie" crowd? No mass marches in solidarity when the subject of the satire was Judaism.
In our own country, free speech protester demonstrating against police killing in NYC were blamed for inciting the Brooklyn police killer.
Most people, hypocritically, support Free Speech when it aligns with a cause they support, or is aimed at a group they hate, but oppose Free Speech when the issue satirized is closer to home.
Little reported is the fact several years ago Charlie Hebdo FIRED a columnist for writing about Sarkozy's son in a manner that was considered anti-semitic (he said Sarkozy's son might want to convert because Jews were more business minded). Add to that, France criminally prosecuted him for inciting racial hatred.
What about Free Speech? Where was the "I am Charlie" crowd? No mass marches in solidarity when the subject of the satire was Judaism.
In our own country, free speech protester demonstrating against police killing in NYC were blamed for inciting the Brooklyn police killer.
Most people, hypocritically, support Free Speech when it aligns with a cause they support, or is aimed at a group they hate, but oppose Free Speech when the issue satirized is closer to home.
84
Uh, maybe it could be the fact that no one was gunned down in an act of cold blooded murdered. Oops...I mean 12 people weren't gunned down.
Do you really take this comparison seriously??
I hope not.
Do you really take this comparison seriously??
I hope not.
12
So you only support Free Speech rights if the speaker is murdered? So long as speakers are just fired, imprisoned, prosecuted than there is no problem?
My point is if you really support universal rights of Free Speech you should also object to CH firing a journalist for Jewish satire and for criminal prosecution. If you don't than you are not really in favor of Free Speech.
My point is if you really support universal rights of Free Speech you should also object to CH firing a journalist for Jewish satire and for criminal prosecution. If you don't than you are not really in favor of Free Speech.
10
That is a weak analogy. No Jewish extremist killed anyone because of what you characterize as the anti-Semitic remark. You are obviously leaving out some key facts about what really happened.
7
This makes me tingle it is so brave -- not the courage of facing some cheap terrorists (although that is nothing to scoff at) -- but that they're undaunted in the face of sadness of the absence of their colleagues and friends. Their determination and personal strength is truly beyond words.
173
I dream of a day when I can go and watch the Play "Book of Islam" and laugh my hearts out of the religion that I grew up and not worry about being bullied by jihadists.
37
To me, your comment is one of the best I have read. Yes, no one was killed over Life of Brian, Or The Book of Mormon, though i expect some adherents of those religions found them offensive. You can certainly protest against speech you find offensive but when you kill the speaker you reveal the very weakness of your own beliefs.
1
Think that will go on sale in Yemen? Now people will be disappointed if there ISN'T a Mohammed cartoon every week. I have noticed that the big media companies are pretty much staying out of this - expect this one that wants to build an American style theme park in Yemen (probably not a good idea):
http://mankabros.com/blogs/those_damn_kids/2014/09/10/yemen-theme-park-i...
http://mankabros.com/blogs/those_damn_kids/2014/09/10/yemen-theme-park-i...
3
God bless Charlie!
9
I am the only one that finds this article disturbing? While the Charlie Hebdo newspaper lost a lot of their staff and the people at their paper feel a need to continue what they are doing in the name of freedom of speech, what about the people who had nothing to do with taunting these religious fanatics, like the maintenance man, security guard, policeman & policewomen and the people in the supermarket. Taunting off-balance people is not a game with consequences.
14
They weren't taunting anyone. They are being satirists and that is the job they perform in a free society. I find your comment disturbing. I find their actions brave and powerful. They are fighting for freedom-- yours and mine to think and act as free individuals.
41
In the dictionary, next to the word "hero", there should be a picture of the editorial staff. . . .AND the maintenance man, the security guard, and the police officers. Because that's exactly what they are.
Without our heroes, the world would be doomed.
Without our heroes, the world would be doomed.
9
I would add that, though I support Charlie Heddo's right for free speech, it takes little wit to insult people through graphic imagery that lampoons religion. I think even Richard Dawkins wouldn't approve. I'll take The New Yorker cartoons myself. More wit and thought. But that's just me.
2
Grace under pressure! A bright spot in these dark times.
19
As I was reading this very good article on the NYT webpage, I could not escape to notice a much smaller piece of news at the end of the same page reporting of a terrorist attack (presumably by ISIS) in Iraq, in which 23 people lost their lives. These people have no names but they are certainly Arabs and Muslims. The article is 6 lines long. There will be no show of solidarity, no high ranking dignitary will spend a word of condemnation. And of course, this is because now we are used to such tragic events happening daily in remote places. However, this should just be a demonstration, if there was a need, that the first and most numerous victims of Islamic terrorism are the multitudes of Muslims and Arabs, who are everyday in the first line of fire and sacrifice their lives because they refuse to accept and succumb to the murderous ideology that a small faction tries to impose upon them. We should think about how pointless and unfair it is to ask the largest majority of peaceful Muslims to condemn the terrorism. This is like asking the lambs to condemn their butchers. Instead we should support them and to our best to protect them in this common struggle against practices and ideologies that belongs to the middle ages.
72
How about the 2000 who lost their lives in Nigeria last week and the 30,000 who were displaced from their homes by Boko Haarm? I stand with the French, but we need to recognize that radical Islam is a global problem.
11
Any death on the east of Bosphorus are not humans and they do not matter.
Here's another story that never made headlines: US/NATO forces bombed the building housing the Serbian State TV/radio killing sixteen people and injuring scores.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3
A war crime, inarguably, but there would be no mourning in the west for the civilian victims because they were official enemies, ditto for the hundreds of civilian victims of the US drone campaign. The criteria for terrorism, it seems, is dependent on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3
A war crime, inarguably, but there would be no mourning in the west for the civilian victims because they were official enemies, ditto for the hundreds of civilian victims of the US drone campaign. The criteria for terrorism, it seems, is dependent on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.
2
I'm getting really annoyed with all the articles about Charlie Hebdo in the Times, with none of them showing the cartoons. Not publishing the cartoons is bowing to political correctness and terrorism. Stop being cowardly and publish the cartoons. The NY Times has always been my favorite paper, but I am incredibly disappointed in it right now.
450
I find most of the offending cartoons in Charlie Hebdo rather juvenile in their gratuitous insulting of whomever. The NY Times has its own editorial policy - I support it in this judgment.
21
Dear Patricia,
There's been a lot of debate and explanation about this. What it comes down to, I think, is that to publish images of Mohammed would be unnecessarily offensive to nearly all Muslims. The aid of Muslims is vital in defeating, and annihilating jihadism. We won't get that aid if we gleefully, vengefully, insult and attack them; in fact we'll make the situation a lot worse. Just as the NYT doesn't provide images of the shredded bodies in Syria because it would prevent too many readers from reading the story, or returning to get more news, it doesn't intentionally infuriate readers who need to receive information.
Personally I think the idea of getting offended over depictions of a prophet is middle-ages like and extremely silly, and ideally Muslims would get over it. But that's not going to happen in the next couple of days, so for now, it's best that we convert Muslims to modernity carefully, rather than vilify and infuriate them out of a desire for vengeance.
There's been a lot of debate and explanation about this. What it comes down to, I think, is that to publish images of Mohammed would be unnecessarily offensive to nearly all Muslims. The aid of Muslims is vital in defeating, and annihilating jihadism. We won't get that aid if we gleefully, vengefully, insult and attack them; in fact we'll make the situation a lot worse. Just as the NYT doesn't provide images of the shredded bodies in Syria because it would prevent too many readers from reading the story, or returning to get more news, it doesn't intentionally infuriate readers who need to receive information.
Personally I think the idea of getting offended over depictions of a prophet is middle-ages like and extremely silly, and ideally Muslims would get over it. But that's not going to happen in the next couple of days, so for now, it's best that we convert Muslims to modernity carefully, rather than vilify and infuriate them out of a desire for vengeance.
13
It would also show that despite the tragedy of death that these people are not Ben Franklin poor richard's almanac. They are kind of jerks who are nihilistic non spiritual atheists. That would temper the enthusiasm. I have heard that the cartoons, show nuns, priests, Mohammed, Buddha and Jesus in various states of undress and in sexual relations.
7
Two religions in mortal conflict-- The mystical religion of radical Islam and the secular religion of freedom of expression(free speech)Disrespect supplies both sides with horrid outcomes. Unfortunately, not everyone has accepted Western pluralism nor profane expression. Both sides are guilty of trying to damage or suppress what the other holds dear.
5
Sufism is mystical, radical islam is not. Rather, it is heirarchical and opposed to Sufism; the radicals have attacked the tolerant Sufis and destroyed Sufi shrines. Ultimately the argument that expression of thoughts, no matter how offensive, is equivalent to targeted massacres of those who disagree with you (cartoonists, or other religions, or other sects like the Shias), is absurd beyond belief. Such false equivalencies, are used by the lunatic fringes in every society to justify their atrocities.
5
There is no "secular religion" of freedom of expression, or otherwise. The difference between secularism and religion is that religions require faith, or to put it another way an uncritical acceptance of received wisdom. This is a way of being that is in conflict with the notion of secularism which is rooted in inquiry and critical thinking, and freedom of speech is one of the tools necessary to keep our collective minds open.
History is full of examples of people, acting on faith, suppressing those who think things that challenge their faith. I for one am glad we moved past the time when Galileo was persecuted and lived out his life under house arrest for asserting that the earth orbits around the sun - only the most prominent example among an unfathomable history of this sort of nonsense.
No one on the secular side is trying to suppress religious expression. Mocking is not suppression, and if something cannot stand up to ridicule it is its own weakness that is at fault for any "damage". Respect needs to be earned, and if someone's beliefs are not worthy of my respect I should not be compelled to give it to them.
Your false equivalency indicates a lack of critical thinking.
History is full of examples of people, acting on faith, suppressing those who think things that challenge their faith. I for one am glad we moved past the time when Galileo was persecuted and lived out his life under house arrest for asserting that the earth orbits around the sun - only the most prominent example among an unfathomable history of this sort of nonsense.
No one on the secular side is trying to suppress religious expression. Mocking is not suppression, and if something cannot stand up to ridicule it is its own weakness that is at fault for any "damage". Respect needs to be earned, and if someone's beliefs are not worthy of my respect I should not be compelled to give it to them.
Your false equivalency indicates a lack of critical thinking.
1
Thanks to these folks, uncowed and courageous, standing up for the freedom of expression when far too many of us have decided to give up that fight. They won't be censored by terrorists or by the PC police.
28
"It showed a figure of the prophet Mohammed holding a sign saying “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”), with the words “All is forgiven” above it on a green background."
If they want to put their own lives at risk by doing this, it's fine with me. But they need to consider the safety of others in their proximity and in Paris. Should they be able to mock Mohammad -- Yes. Is it a smart thing to do -- No.
If they want to put their own lives at risk by doing this, it's fine with me. But they need to consider the safety of others in their proximity and in Paris. Should they be able to mock Mohammad -- Yes. Is it a smart thing to do -- No.
19
Is it a smart thing to do -- only if you value freedom of the press.
28
Phil....you are clearly not Charlie Hedbo.
25
Are they mocking him?
3
This article made me more emotional than reading about the tragedy itself.
"Shared joys make a friend, not shared sufferings."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
"Shared joys make a friend, not shared sufferings."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
5
Please..Charlie Hebdo!..Continue to offend us.
I want to be so much offended that I will subscribe to their magazine.
I want to be so much offended that I will subscribe to their magazine.
62
We are all Charlie Hedbo.
Here's to the very brave soldiers of free speech.
"The pen is mightier than the sword".
Here's the cover of the next issue.
http://www.liberation.fr/
Here's to the very brave soldiers of free speech.
"The pen is mightier than the sword".
Here's the cover of the next issue.
http://www.liberation.fr/
176
I like the simple but strong and poignant message.
19
Thanks, Socrates,
for the link
for the link
6
What a fabulous cover! Shame that NY Times doesn't put it up in their report!
When someone loses their sense of humor they have also lost their humanity, the ability to see the absurdity of life as it tends to be lived in the world of dramatic contradictions and fateful endings.
The nihilistic ISIL idiots, like the Taliban have appointed themselves in the position of divine rulers of the world, according to their interpretation, ready to punish and murder all whom would disagree.
The only rational response to that degree of insanity is humor and a courageous young woman to call them out.
The nihilistic ISIL idiots, like the Taliban have appointed themselves in the position of divine rulers of the world, according to their interpretation, ready to punish and murder all whom would disagree.
The only rational response to that degree of insanity is humor and a courageous young woman to call them out.
45
Without humor it is too hard to go on.
16
When you want to know what courage looks like, read this story.
107
The photograph in this article has touched me more than anything else in recent memory. Mr. Obama, please look at it while you dance around the issue of Muslim terrorism, refuse to call a spade a spade, and refuse to send any high-ranking officials to the rally! I express my shame on behalf of like-minded fellow Americans at the absence of our leaders in Paris.
64
I express my shame, too, at the fact that none of our leaders attended the Rally in Paris. Not even Secretary of State John Kerry went - sad because he quite possibly flew right over France on his way back from trade negotiations in India.
.
But let's not allow this to be a war on Islam. The fact is, we are at war with blood thirsty terrorists. They don't worship Allah. They think they do, but in fact they worship the false prophet of bloodshed. Ahmed Merabet's brother put it best in his Eulogy: these are monsters pretending to be Muslims.
.
But let's not allow this to be a war on Islam. The fact is, we are at war with blood thirsty terrorists. They don't worship Allah. They think they do, but in fact they worship the false prophet of bloodshed. Ahmed Merabet's brother put it best in his Eulogy: these are monsters pretending to be Muslims.
13
Obviously, it didn't bother the French. They still have his photo on the wall. There is something wrong with people who think Obama does EVERYTHING wrong. Get over it!
39
Bigger things have happened...and are happening. So sorry about the shame you are feeling. You'll get over it. In a month we'll be asking, 'Charlie who?'
3
The best of humanity. Extraordinary.
31
You can already see the next cover of Charlie Hebdo's next issue on daily Liberation's site. It is both provocative and deeply moving.
23
Publish or Perish.
Good Luck!
Do your best!
Do not Rest!
Good Luck!
Do your best!
Do not Rest!
12
January 12 2015
Fine reality is operational for liberty - with increase security, for sure.
Let's set a cartoon with Slman Rusdie in discourse with the prophet Muhammad: " What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
Peace is in the heart with the mind free to live creatively - of course a House of worthship by grace, is only a joy for loving peace celebration - truly......
JJA Manhattan, N. Y.
Fine reality is operational for liberty - with increase security, for sure.
Let's set a cartoon with Slman Rusdie in discourse with the prophet Muhammad: " What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
Peace is in the heart with the mind free to live creatively - of course a House of worthship by grace, is only a joy for loving peace celebration - truly......
JJA Manhattan, N. Y.
7
Amongst journalists, the Charlie Hebdo staff is clearly a leader. They satirized everyone, including their military. Were the racist? When the NYT shows the artform of a crucifix in urine or it showcase the discussion on the book of Mormon, does it condone racism? You decide. As a avowed atheist, I respect the people's need to have a religion, but in my eyes, everyone's religion is the same and equally open to criticism.
60
By continuing to write, the staff of Charlie Hebdo are sending out a message that the only way to beat terror, is to just keep going.
97
All the best to these stoic humorists, this is a ridiculously grief-filled time for them, and to strive to put together a funny magazine seems incredibly difficult. I salute their effort and hope that Charlie Hebdo continues on and thrives. The terrorists' weapon is hatred and fear; that can only really be defeated with laughter and hope.
And how can the terrorists counter laughter and hope? Well, the walnut-brained jihadists can't, there's no way to effectively squash those concepts. They'll figure that out eventually, or die, whatever.
As for a notion for a future cartoon, I got an idea from that concept of Schwartzenegger ripping up a copy of Charlie Hebdo. They could do a Terminator spoof where the time-traveling android arrives back here in the present, amidst car chases, explosions, and gunfights, and demands of everyone that 1) they respect freedom of speech, and 2) are they Sarah Connor? Just an idea, and if that made you laugh, I've accomplished my mission of revenge.
And how can the terrorists counter laughter and hope? Well, the walnut-brained jihadists can't, there's no way to effectively squash those concepts. They'll figure that out eventually, or die, whatever.
As for a notion for a future cartoon, I got an idea from that concept of Schwartzenegger ripping up a copy of Charlie Hebdo. They could do a Terminator spoof where the time-traveling android arrives back here in the present, amidst car chases, explosions, and gunfights, and demands of everyone that 1) they respect freedom of speech, and 2) are they Sarah Connor? Just an idea, and if that made you laugh, I've accomplished my mission of revenge.
6
Dang it I missed a good pun; the Terminator would ask people, "Are you Sharia Connor?".
4
Am I the only one secretly hoping there will be a Mahommed cartoon in there somewhere?
31
The front page will show a crying Mahommed displaying a "Je suis Charlie" sign. http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2015/01/12/a-quoi-ressemb...
21
Me too, and I'm not secretive about it. That makes at least two of us, and from different ends of the pond.
6
@Fenella,
Or, a Jesus hanging out with Cameron and Boris Johnson sniffing coke in a strip bar!
Or, a Jesus hanging out with Cameron and Boris Johnson sniffing coke in a strip bar!
1
It seems a publication that traditionally shows humor is very capable of showing absolute bravery as well. Their strength is a model for the world.
Best to you, Charlie.
Best to you, Charlie.
338
Yes, and NYTimes should have reprinted the image from the tomorrow's CH Wednesday editition with English translation, not only embedding a link to it in this article!
13
Bravery . . . or disdain. Call it what you wish, depending on what your predisposition is towards something in the first place. Things in this world are never absolute - as you'd might like to think - only relative to your world and not necessarily the entire world you'd like to feel you're speaking for.
...And might add, in my opinion, will continue to [be heroic] in a way, as long as [Charlie Hebdo] continues the "tradition" of presenting what sounds to me like, er, [almost] a kind of "gallows" (?) humor.
Please pay attention to my construct here as I don't want to be grossly misinterpreted.
I'm most definitely on the side of free speech and deplore fanatical violence.
Viva la Charlie Hebdo!
Please pay attention to my construct here as I don't want to be grossly misinterpreted.
I'm most definitely on the side of free speech and deplore fanatical violence.
Viva la Charlie Hebdo!
6
Extremists, like most criminals, have a poor time handling taunts. So let us taunt them more and draw them out for the public to see and judge accordingly.
26
I am in total agreement that we cannot cower to any person or group who would deny us our freedoms. I quote the famous person whose nom-de-plume was Voltaire:
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
The tragic video (I could not watch to the end) of the terrorist approaching a downed and wounded French policeman and then killing him will forever be imprinted in my brain. I cannot explain why this affected me so much compared to the daily newspaper feed that we all receive from around the world of killings.
Perhaps it was solely one person who we saw alive one second, and knew that his life was extinguished the next.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
The tragic video (I could not watch to the end) of the terrorist approaching a downed and wounded French policeman and then killing him will forever be imprinted in my brain. I cannot explain why this affected me so much compared to the daily newspaper feed that we all receive from around the world of killings.
Perhaps it was solely one person who we saw alive one second, and knew that his life was extinguished the next.
22
Beautiful, independent, thinking people. Unafraid to document and emblazon the hypocrisy of life, every life. An endangered species.
46
I don't mean to be in any way a Pollyanna, but the heroism continues in these events!
15
“The only thing that is sacred is free expression,” Ms. Rhazoui said"
I couldn't agree more. I hope the staff at Charlie Hebdo find the strength to continue their important work.
I couldn't agree more. I hope the staff at Charlie Hebdo find the strength to continue their important work.
95
Actually, if the only sacred thing is free expression, what is there to express?
Wishing the newspaper staff all the best as they recover from this horrible experience, and move forward together as friends and colleagues. And I'm looking forward to seeing some biting satire.
66
So many empty chairs against the back wall. So utterly tragic.
21
One of the most poignant songs in Les Miserables? "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." That's what I thought of when I saw this picture, as you must have as well. Keep on keepin' on, Charlie!
4
I wonder if this wonderful novel could appear with those words today.