In this modern era, there is not any justification of violence. Our world should be in uniform culture.
1
The NYT owes it to its readers to be honest and forthright. The truth is the paper in 2007 made the editorial judgment to publish the highly offensive photo of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, enraging Christians worldwide. It did so a day after a Times editorial claimed the paper does not publish images that deliberately offend religious sensibilities, The difference is the paper has always been quite willing to take on the sensibilities of Christians but not Muslims and has little fear that Christian anger will lead to violence we just witnessed in France.
17
It should occur to those who promote freedom of speech in any form that such freedom can itself amount to a form of violence. Violence of the word by insult and mockery of what others hold dear and are willing to die for has been met by violence of the gun, as we have seen. Why should one form of violence be privileged over another? The problem the West is missing is that violence by the word against Islam is still violence. The values revered by Muslims and other great religions must be respected, lest violence against such values begets more violence.
1
To have one of my favorite publications show such timidity is heartbreaking, and likely won't be forgotten. In my thirty some years there haven't been many moments of this magnitude where you could judge a papers mettle, and I don't know if there will be another to regain my respect. To choose self-censorship out of fear in the free world is the only offensive act taking place here. Signed, cancelled subscriber.
15
Is the cover immature and provocative, yes. It doesn't have to be noble in order to be protected as free speech. It may not be my kind of free speech, but that's irrelevant.
6
The proof of religious tolerance is demonstrating respect for its beliefs.
4
NYT won't republish the latest Charle Hebdo cover because it is "gratuitous and violent", and yet they had no problem publishing the video and images of Ahmed Merabet as he is about to be murdered by the terrorists? That wasn't gratuitous and violent?
How ironic that NYT only a month ago chastised Sony for not initially releasing "The Interview"! Who is capitulating to extremism now? You should not become a journalist if you are afraid that you might "offend" someone.
How ironic that NYT only a month ago chastised Sony for not initially releasing "The Interview"! Who is capitulating to extremism now? You should not become a journalist if you are afraid that you might "offend" someone.
20
The principled response in support of freedom of speech would have been for the newspaper of record. the NYTimes, to lead the mainstream media in publishing the original Danish cartoons as well as the latest one. But the Times failed that test and now every media outlet has to make its own principled and much more dangerous decision as to whether to publish the latest cartoon.
Reporter Bilefsky states the Times' reason - "content that is deemed offensive and gratuitous". Really? But the Times is itself consistently "offensive and gratuitous" in its insults of, and attacks on, Israel. Just yesterday, in his lead paragraph, Bilefsky wondered why French Jews would even consider going to Israel.
Why the double standard?
Reporter Bilefsky states the Times' reason - "content that is deemed offensive and gratuitous". Really? But the Times is itself consistently "offensive and gratuitous" in its insults of, and attacks on, Israel. Just yesterday, in his lead paragraph, Bilefsky wondered why French Jews would even consider going to Israel.
Why the double standard?
6
Many comments here talk of free speech as if it is an absolute right. It is not. Free speech is not an abolute right - in the US, in France, or anywhere else. Any freedom is governed by the laws of morality. My freedom of movement is governed by such rules that I do not steal somebody else's car for a joyride or to get to places. I cannot jump the turnstiles to avoid paying for my ticket. I cannot bump into those little kids almost invisible, and women who do not get out of the way, no matter what.
You cannot badmouth your neighbor, show off your talent for graffiti on your neighbor's walls.
Almost universal, including in France, you cannot promote hatred, incite violence or treason. Because otherwise freedom itself is under threat.
Even Voltaire whose free speech quote is often parroted here and elsewhere, is a believer in freedom of religion which of necessity include freedom from harrassment in whatever mode or manner the belief system of another.
Freedom of speech is a democratic ideal that is defended from encroachment by governments that seek to legitimize its overreach thus weakening democracy itself. On any other day that freedom must not be seen as license to scandalize, even kill with a pen.
You cannot badmouth your neighbor, show off your talent for graffiti on your neighbor's walls.
Almost universal, including in France, you cannot promote hatred, incite violence or treason. Because otherwise freedom itself is under threat.
Even Voltaire whose free speech quote is often parroted here and elsewhere, is a believer in freedom of religion which of necessity include freedom from harrassment in whatever mode or manner the belief system of another.
Freedom of speech is a democratic ideal that is defended from encroachment by governments that seek to legitimize its overreach thus weakening democracy itself. On any other day that freedom must not be seen as license to scandalize, even kill with a pen.
5
Has Charlie Hebdo every starize Christianity, Judaism or any other 'major' religion? (I really do not know.) If they have then, I would consider their current actions passable. However, if all they have been doing is focusing on Islam then, I cannot condone their current actions.
Yelling, "FIRE", in the middle of a crowd is not freedom of speech.
Yelling, "FIRE", in the middle of a crowd is not freedom of speech.
4
Freedom of the speech, press and expression should never be compromised,
People should be able to make their own choices regarding what they read, watch or browse internet sites.
Once you let others contol information it leads down a very slippery slope that leads to not only the stifling of the individual, but also gives power and control to the few over the many.
People should be able to make their own choices regarding what they read, watch or browse internet sites.
Once you let others contol information it leads down a very slippery slope that leads to not only the stifling of the individual, but also gives power and control to the few over the many.
4
Every publication in the world that values free speech should publish this cover. This awful sort of war is won by common humanity, not split ideological hairs. With apologies to those upset by graven images; this world is under siege by graven acts.
7
This is of course a pointless argument and will never be resolved. Morality and rights are not universal, they are all relative. The best we can hope for is some sort of uncomfortable truce between Islam and liberal democracy.
2
So far the NYTimes has not reprinted the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Yes, they are offensive. Yes, in normal circumstances they should be ignored because they're offensive. These are not normal times.
6
Just think of it: If there were no Muslims in our countries, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
Alas!!
Alas!!
4
Charlie Hebdo, so courageous and defiant. This must be the world's response to terrorism.
5
It's funny to me how every major news organization around the world is reporting about the new cover , but not one of them has the courage to actually show it. The terrorists have won.
11
Since no one knows what the prophet looked like, why are Muslims taking offence at some cartoonists idea of what he imagines how he appeared? Perhaps it is not the image, but the political message of the cartoon that is not acceptable.
People died in Egypt for political freedom, did they not? The Muslims who want to be free should support the cartoons.
People died in Egypt for political freedom, did they not? The Muslims who want to be free should support the cartoons.
4
Frankly, no religious, ethnic, social group has the right to force another group to do or not do certain things under threat of death, or under any sort of threat.
That it happens nevertheless in many places is absolutely beside the point.
What those criticizing the decision to publish the latest edition fail to realize is that by murdering innocent journalists and artists, the paper really was put in the position, as a matter of national honor and defending the principles held dear, to stick to their guns and not blink in the face of such murderous, outrageous terrorist attacks.
If people do not care for any image published, do not seek the publication out, do not look at the cover image or read the content. It is like watching certain programming on television - if one find's certain topics and representations offensive, change the channel or turn the TV off.
But do not walk around with firearms demanding at point blank range that others must conform to your idea of what is profane or otherwise unacceptable. That is nothing less than a direct challenge to society that your personal beliefs should be treated by everyone within that society as you expect them to be treated.
In other words, you are expecting modern, liberal, democratic societies to behave like totalitarian theocracies (again, at the point of a gun).
In many ways, such brutal action is an explicit admission that the intellectual or political argument or debate, such as it is, has been lost.
That it happens nevertheless in many places is absolutely beside the point.
What those criticizing the decision to publish the latest edition fail to realize is that by murdering innocent journalists and artists, the paper really was put in the position, as a matter of national honor and defending the principles held dear, to stick to their guns and not blink in the face of such murderous, outrageous terrorist attacks.
If people do not care for any image published, do not seek the publication out, do not look at the cover image or read the content. It is like watching certain programming on television - if one find's certain topics and representations offensive, change the channel or turn the TV off.
But do not walk around with firearms demanding at point blank range that others must conform to your idea of what is profane or otherwise unacceptable. That is nothing less than a direct challenge to society that your personal beliefs should be treated by everyone within that society as you expect them to be treated.
In other words, you are expecting modern, liberal, democratic societies to behave like totalitarian theocracies (again, at the point of a gun).
In many ways, such brutal action is an explicit admission that the intellectual or political argument or debate, such as it is, has been lost.
4
Debate on free speech? Okay, class, let's debate:
• As of two months ago, it's a crime in France to verbally support ("faire l'apologie") terrorism. In the past few days at least eight people have been jailed. One man was sentenced to a four-year term. He was also deprived of voting rights because, as one official said, those who don't share our Republican values should not be allowed to vote." Discuss.
• In France, it's illegal to hide one's face in a public place. This does not apply to motorcyclists. It does apply to the burqa since, as politicians explain, you never know what's hidden underneath. (Underneath what? Discuss.)
• In France you may be asked to remove a headscarf if a cop or teacher determines that it constitutes a religious statement and not a fashion statement. Would a headscarf covered with anti-religious statements constitute a fashion statement?
• It is no longer a crime to "insult a head of state" under French law. Actually, the law was abrogated in 2013 because it was found to be in violation of European Human Rights. A new law was passed reinstating the old one, except that now a complaint must be filed by the President himself (or herself, perhaps, and very soon.) Since God has never been known to file a complaint against anyone or anything, can we assume that French cartoonists consider it a safer bet to insult God than to insult the President of France? Discuss.
Hysterix le Gaulois
Paris Desk
WOID
• As of two months ago, it's a crime in France to verbally support ("faire l'apologie") terrorism. In the past few days at least eight people have been jailed. One man was sentenced to a four-year term. He was also deprived of voting rights because, as one official said, those who don't share our Republican values should not be allowed to vote." Discuss.
• In France, it's illegal to hide one's face in a public place. This does not apply to motorcyclists. It does apply to the burqa since, as politicians explain, you never know what's hidden underneath. (Underneath what? Discuss.)
• In France you may be asked to remove a headscarf if a cop or teacher determines that it constitutes a religious statement and not a fashion statement. Would a headscarf covered with anti-religious statements constitute a fashion statement?
• It is no longer a crime to "insult a head of state" under French law. Actually, the law was abrogated in 2013 because it was found to be in violation of European Human Rights. A new law was passed reinstating the old one, except that now a complaint must be filed by the President himself (or herself, perhaps, and very soon.) Since God has never been known to file a complaint against anyone or anything, can we assume that French cartoonists consider it a safer bet to insult God than to insult the President of France? Discuss.
Hysterix le Gaulois
Paris Desk
WOID
5
NYT not publishing the Charlie cartoon is all about avoiding controversy and trouble. Admit it you're scared and have been humbled into submission by terrorist threat. There is no other real conclusion and you know it.
7
The problem is cristal clear, too many muslims are trying to impose their beliefs (and prejudices) to the French People, and the non-muslims French (including many agnisticists) are trying to resist and protect our liberties.
3
Isn't the problem here that, for the Muslims objecting to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, they simply cannot grasp the concept of free speech? Those of us who live in western democracies understand this concept thoroughly, but for the vast majority of Muslims (meaning: not the relatively few living in western democracies, but the hundreds and hundreds of millions living under theocratic dictatorships), the concept of free speech simply doesn't compute. You can say the words "free speech" but to them, it's just random words. We scratch our heads and wonder why they aren't hearing us. That's because, in fact, they can't hear us.
3
I applaud the Times' valorous stand for public decency but lament its half-hearted implementation. Many people's feelings, for example, are hurt by what they consider the blasphemous theory of evolution. Other potentially offensive ideas are legion. By publishing these, readers might form their own opinions which in turn might give additional cause for offense. My modest proposal would be to create a committee for potentially offensive thoughts amongst the editorial staff to root out any potentially hurtful speech from its pages. This would also create jobs, surely a beneficial side effect in the current labor market. Problem solved.
3
In France, if one deny the holocaust it is an offence. If a demonstration is held for palestine cause in paris, then the person will be subjected to one year imprisonment with 1000 Euro fine. What kind of freedom of speech and expression is that? There are laws in Europe which prohibits insulting and blaspheming prohet Jesus, but why there is no such law for the prophets of other religions? Laws should not discriminate people basing on their religion
2
This is a war.
Belligerents on one side are the upholders of unrestricted free speech whose forefathers obtained that right for them by rebelling and fighting countless wars against the monarchs and the colonial powers – in the U.S. 223 year old Bill of Rights, and in Europe 799 year old MagnaCarta. For this side, the free speech is basic human right which is not negotiable whatsoever, and they are ready to shed the blood now so this basic right is handed over to the future generations. Any infringement makes them furious, but they cool down for the rule of law. Forty percent of humanity is on this side.
Belligerents on the other side are the upholders of respect and reverence for their last Prophet who delivered Divine messages compiled in their Holy Scripture for 22 years starting 1404 years ago, to protect whose honor they are prepared to shed their blood, and achieve martyrdom. Any infringement of their fundamental religious right makes their blood to boil and adrenaline to surge, which cools down in the vast majority of the adherents, but in a minority it propels them to inflict unspeakable human cruelty – martyrdom Vs terrorism. They make headlines on a larger scale every year, and every month, and on smaller scale every week, and every day. They die in the act of making their point, and so their actions go unpunished because the highest punishment for any breach of law is death penalty. 23% of humanity is on this side.
This war has no end in sight.
Belligerents on one side are the upholders of unrestricted free speech whose forefathers obtained that right for them by rebelling and fighting countless wars against the monarchs and the colonial powers – in the U.S. 223 year old Bill of Rights, and in Europe 799 year old MagnaCarta. For this side, the free speech is basic human right which is not negotiable whatsoever, and they are ready to shed the blood now so this basic right is handed over to the future generations. Any infringement makes them furious, but they cool down for the rule of law. Forty percent of humanity is on this side.
Belligerents on the other side are the upholders of respect and reverence for their last Prophet who delivered Divine messages compiled in their Holy Scripture for 22 years starting 1404 years ago, to protect whose honor they are prepared to shed their blood, and achieve martyrdom. Any infringement of their fundamental religious right makes their blood to boil and adrenaline to surge, which cools down in the vast majority of the adherents, but in a minority it propels them to inflict unspeakable human cruelty – martyrdom Vs terrorism. They make headlines on a larger scale every year, and every month, and on smaller scale every week, and every day. They die in the act of making their point, and so their actions go unpunished because the highest punishment for any breach of law is death penalty. 23% of humanity is on this side.
This war has no end in sight.
People around the world tend to forget France has very strong heritage of irreverence. Read what Voltaire was saying about Religions 300 years ago. The country has fought over two centuries to free itself from the influence and the "laws" (the dogma) of the Catholic Church. A word has even been created in French to define a State free of religions: "laic". As such any citizen is entitled to say or draw whatever he wants about whatever religion. And because it has become a matter of principles, the French population is going to stand by Charlie Hebdo.
4
Post the current Charlie Hebdo cartoon on every lamp post, every billboard, every bus, every construction barrier throughout the Western world as a statement of solidarity for free expression. Those who would attack Western values must be shown through proliferation and repetition that they cannot intimidate.
4
What the magazine is doing is crazy. They may net be necessarily be a believer, but they are supposed to have a respect for others religion or belief, even if he is an atheist. Otherwise it causes clashes and outrage in this small world. They are insulting our prophet, they are insulting the religion of over 1,5 billion people. It is not the freedom of expression, it is the freedom of blasphemy.
We Muslims believe all the Prophets. We have deep respect for them.
If the magazine has the courage and the balls, why they don't show insulting illustrations of Jesus, Moses and David.
We Muslims believe all the Prophets. We have deep respect for them.
If the magazine has the courage and the balls, why they don't show insulting illustrations of Jesus, Moses and David.
2
I've been a NYT subscriber for years now, and I must say that I'm disappointed with the paper's decision not to publish the drawings from Charlie Hebdo. From a purely journalistic perspective, the images are integral to the story. By not publishing them, the NYT has decided not to tell the full story. Is this yet another time with the paper has chosen caution over showing the hard truth, even if it is uncomfortable and might offend?
5
The French not only have the better political system (strict laicism), they've got guts, too. Giving in to islamist demands is giving in to terror.
4
There are many offensive things depicted online and in different publications throughout the world. If exposed, sensible people glance at these things for a moment, make a connection that what they are looking at is nonsense, and then choose to ignore what they just saw and move on with their day. Even if the artists at Charlie Hedbo are insulting to an entire religion, so what. It's provides no right to gun people down. This is not a deep concept, and I believe it can be understood by people of a relatively young age... so the fact that this causes so much controversy shows how far humans still have to go in terms of living together in a peaceful civilised way. I pray for my great great great great great (to the 10th power) grandkids.
2
The front page photo in the International New York Times, the day after the Charlie Hebdo attack, of a policeman, prostrate on a pavement in Paris, at the very moment of his execution, without pixalating the victim's face, was considered O.K. by the NYT & inoffensive to the victim and his family. This, despite it being the SOP of quality newspapers and T.V. worldwide not to use 'execution' footage and in many cases, if the photo shows the hostage being held under duress to pixalate the face of hostages. Your decision however was to use a photo that clearly showed the gunman aiming at the policeman's head and the pleading face & raised arm of this policeman, milliseconds before his death, making the photo nothing more than a front page photo of a murder. I can only presume that your editors decided this was the best way to report the story even if had the policeman been an American policeman being executed on the streets of New York, I very much doubt you would have used such a photo,
Yet you decide that reproducing the latest Charlie front page cartoon is offensive and can't feature it in your reporting of the story, the story being what is the latest Charlie front page.
On both these decisions you are seriously out of step with other quality newspapers in Europe and elsewhere, and both decisions raise serious question marks about your self-proclaimed declarations that the NYT provides the best journalism in the world.
Yet you decide that reproducing the latest Charlie front page cartoon is offensive and can't feature it in your reporting of the story, the story being what is the latest Charlie front page.
On both these decisions you are seriously out of step with other quality newspapers in Europe and elsewhere, and both decisions raise serious question marks about your self-proclaimed declarations that the NYT provides the best journalism in the world.
2
Conservative, religous people has a exceptional gift for feeling offended and victimized.
2
Is this really above all a debate about free speech? What if we start a debate that Muslims maybe have to reform their outdated views. Does anyone even know what offends ultra-orthodox Jews? I do not, probably because they do not make such a big fuss about it. In India cows are sacred, look what we do with cows in the West. This should be above all a debate about why your inner proclivity for feeling offended should so much limit all the people around you. Cartoon or caricature does not equal hate.
I think this really has almost nothing to do with religion, but maybe it is a problem of a perceived cultural supremacy of the West and a perceived threat to the conservative ways of living of Muslims. Muslim societies in their own countries are facing painful reforms and the violence and radicalism are more or less side effects of these painful tensions. However what we have to do is to have a wide and open debate and not shy away from it, because maybe some aspects of it can be offensive to some. And most of all, Muslims have to sort it out within themselves.
I think this really has almost nothing to do with religion, but maybe it is a problem of a perceived cultural supremacy of the West and a perceived threat to the conservative ways of living of Muslims. Muslim societies in their own countries are facing painful reforms and the violence and radicalism are more or less side effects of these painful tensions. However what we have to do is to have a wide and open debate and not shy away from it, because maybe some aspects of it can be offensive to some. And most of all, Muslims have to sort it out within themselves.
6
NYtimes, you are 100% correct not to print that cartoon. There is absolutely no need, it pours oil on the fire. Muslims do need to calm down if tbey do happen to see it though. There is a ridiculous movie about the Exodus showing at the moment. It is offensive to me, but i keep calm!
1
Dignity is NOT cowardice. The NY Times likely considered the matter and decided that there is 'news' and the there is 'dignity' to consider. In a period when anything goes and reporters and photographers chase any story so that they may paste their name to it the term dignity has lost its relevance. Respect for one's privacy was once deemed with dignity. Mourning was deemed with dignity. Intimacy was deemed with dignity. Deferring a snapshot of an innocent embarrassment was deemed dignity. What distinguishes the Times is that it has resisted becoming a tabloid. It is a tough choice. The Time's choices on a story should continue to merit individual dignity while reporting what is the essential story.
That said, what is then the essential story in the massacre? Is it the horror? Is it the tragedy? Is it the rallying public response? Is it the redeeming quality in human's to act courageously in the face of threats? The Paris tabloid chose to stay the course with a cartoon. But elsewhere in the drama there were actual individuals engaged in real life, death-facing drama, and it would not have been out of character for the tabloid to come up with a creative rendition which celebrates the triumph of individuals who stand-up in the face of threat. To honor the tabloid's dead not with a caricature front page but with a tribute to those who stand-up to threat.
As news life goes it is gore and hype that to often trumps dignity and pause in a cruel story.
That said, what is then the essential story in the massacre? Is it the horror? Is it the tragedy? Is it the rallying public response? Is it the redeeming quality in human's to act courageously in the face of threats? The Paris tabloid chose to stay the course with a cartoon. But elsewhere in the drama there were actual individuals engaged in real life, death-facing drama, and it would not have been out of character for the tabloid to come up with a creative rendition which celebrates the triumph of individuals who stand-up in the face of threat. To honor the tabloid's dead not with a caricature front page but with a tribute to those who stand-up to threat.
As news life goes it is gore and hype that to often trumps dignity and pause in a cruel story.
3
I saw the cartoon. It's nice. How is it possible to be offended for that? My dear Muslim friends, we have a problem.
7
I went with my family to the Paris march on Sunday. Some French people didn't go because they were afraid of a terrorist attack on that day, and so was I. But I went and brought my family knowing full well that a crazy bomber could kill us. Courage is not the absence of fear, courage is to be scared and still do it.
In the United States of America, the country of Freedom, not having the courage to show a simple cartoon is a betrayal of what the USA stands for. Standing behind "respect" for Muslims is a pitiful excuse.
In the United States of America, the country of Freedom, not having the courage to show a simple cartoon is a betrayal of what the USA stands for. Standing behind "respect" for Muslims is a pitiful excuse.
3
Those who are willing to exchange freedom of speech for a sense of security does not deserve neither liberty and neither sense of security.
2
I suppose the land of the free and the home of the brave is for US marines in foreign countries wearing full body armour amongst their 35kg of kit. Keeping the image that is central to this article out of frame in the video is the height of cowardice and does a disservice to NYT readers by not allowing them to judge for themselves. I've seen the cover and there's nothing the slightest bit provocative about it. Hidden vulgarity? The height of paranoia!
6
As a born Muslim I have to agree with the Mayor of Rotterdam, also a Muslim. If these people don't like the freedoms of the west they need to leave and return to their native countries. Many say they were born in France but there is no reason immigration has to go from poor country to rich. It can go the other way although it rarely does. It might even help the poorer countries. I could certainly see offering a choice of a jail sentence or deportation to Egypt, Algeria, or Mali. My guess is that most of them would take the jail sentence.
6
Fuels debate where ? not in Europe... In US where newspapers doesn't even show cover or past covers i guess freedom of expression depends on what muslim likes or not. In Europe we don't do that. Someone who doesn't like full right to expression, inducing "offending" of their prophet can pack and move to their country or states that are theocracy not democracy.
3
I see that for some, publishing a cartoon and shooting twelve people or so are equally offensive.
i could list about fifty-eleven pictures and books that offend some people equally as much--including Harry Potter, held to be demonic by certain fundamentalist wackos--but I think I'd rather just say this:
Grow up.
i could list about fifty-eleven pictures and books that offend some people equally as much--including Harry Potter, held to be demonic by certain fundamentalist wackos--but I think I'd rather just say this:
Grow up.
4
Here we go again with Charlie Hebdo as if nothing had happened! In their latest issue, they attack every aspect of culture and civilisation:: moslems, jews, politics. And in France in the name of freedom of the press , the authorities accept this kind of trash. In the Usa, many organisations would sue the newspaper and it would would be condemned. But here the liberty seems to be absolute which is untrue for Dieudonné, another humorist who was arrested by the police this morning for his views do not coincide with those of the socialist government. We are to enter a rough period for freedom for all citizens: we are going to be spied, threatened and shut up for views which differ from those of the government. But in March there will be new elections ans we hope that the people will respond to the new climate set up nowadays in France.
2
It appalls me that there are so many people who are falling over themselves to appease Muslims. If these people wish to live in a western country then they need to be aware that the lampooning of religious figures is part of our culture. Muslims should not expect to come to any western country where secularism is the 'order of the day' and start dictating to us what is acceptable. If these people do not like the status quo then they should leave with the intention of residing in a country where the religious landscape is more to their liking.
Already these people have demanded their own separate prayer rooms at various establishments, their special meals and other considerations. We in Australia (and I am sure that the situation is similar in America) generally accede to these demands. If we do not, or if we take too long to contemplate the consequences of these requests, then this is immediately interpreted as a sign of 'racism'. This is a blatant form of religious and political blackmail.
I, for one, have simply had enough of it. Adherents of this 'religion' are currently committing the most heinous and barbaric acts imaginable in many different parts of the globe. I think that the time has come for less accommodation and outright appeasement and for more firm action.
Already these people have demanded their own separate prayer rooms at various establishments, their special meals and other considerations. We in Australia (and I am sure that the situation is similar in America) generally accede to these demands. If we do not, or if we take too long to contemplate the consequences of these requests, then this is immediately interpreted as a sign of 'racism'. This is a blatant form of religious and political blackmail.
I, for one, have simply had enough of it. Adherents of this 'religion' are currently committing the most heinous and barbaric acts imaginable in many different parts of the globe. I think that the time has come for less accommodation and outright appeasement and for more firm action.
3
I support freedom of speech.
That said, in supporting it, I believe there is such a thing as exercising it with consideration of others and consequences.
While I do not oppose Charlie Hebdo's right to publish what it publishes, I do think today's issue could have stepped back, if just a while. Given all that has happened, today's issue has too much potential to inflame a glowing ember - potentially to the risk of human life.
Good journalism should be honest and factual. Satire is part of that, too. But with all of that goes responsibility and there, we need to pause and consider the ramifications of what is published during tense times - times when human lives may be at risk.
I mourn the loss of these journalists for I enjoy satire. I am sad for France and for those who were so brutally killed.
I would like to see some cooling off all around if just for a while.
That said, in supporting it, I believe there is such a thing as exercising it with consideration of others and consequences.
While I do not oppose Charlie Hebdo's right to publish what it publishes, I do think today's issue could have stepped back, if just a while. Given all that has happened, today's issue has too much potential to inflame a glowing ember - potentially to the risk of human life.
Good journalism should be honest and factual. Satire is part of that, too. But with all of that goes responsibility and there, we need to pause and consider the ramifications of what is published during tense times - times when human lives may be at risk.
I mourn the loss of these journalists for I enjoy satire. I am sad for France and for those who were so brutally killed.
I would like to see some cooling off all around if just for a while.
2
I don't think all should be forgiven, as much as I don't think virgins are waiting for those responsible. How do you respond to brainwashing terror....?
2
When I was a kid growing up in Africa, it was unthinkable/haram/apostasy to paint a picture of the prophet Mohamed, or any of his early disciples, let alone a caricature!. That same ban extended to TV/Cinema, Print. No TV channel/movie will have an actor portraying the prophet Mohamed in any drama of any kind.
Fast forward, decades later,.. Je suis Charlie!. To be totally honest, I am ambivalent about the magazine cover, but the rallying cry of Allu Akbar from the magazine staff when the cover was announced, hilarious, a larry david moment.
Fast forward, decades later,.. Je suis Charlie!. To be totally honest, I am ambivalent about the magazine cover, but the rallying cry of Allu Akbar from the magazine staff when the cover was announced, hilarious, a larry david moment.
1
Another article that pit this whole thing as an issue between the East and West, the sanctity of religion versus the freedom of expression. Let's not forget that these brothers were born in Paris but grew up in the ghetto surrounded by other Muslim immigrants. How much effort does France actively invest in integrating them into mainstream French society? Behind the banner of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, how many French people really see these Muslims as their brothers and not the Other?
4
Unlike Charlie Hebdo's previous covers, this one doesn't satirize Muhammed or appear to insult Muslims -- it depicts Muhammed in a positive light. The issue now is that the depiction itself may be inappropriate -- but there seems to be considerable debate about that, since it was non-Muslims who published the cartoon. Why the confusion? In the history of Islam, this can't be the first time the situation of a non-Muslim depicting the Prophet has arisen. It would be interesting to hear from Muslim scholars / community leaders / random people about this. The article quotes an apparently radical preacher, but I don't assume he speaks for all Muslims.
1
The prohibition of making images of the prophet is reflected in Judaic prohibition of "graven images" of God, man or any of his creatures lest they be used as objects of idol worship or defamation. I think satire can be practiced without "up in your face" provocation.
1
To be candid, the Muslim community's advice regarding free speech is the very last thing I want to hear right now.
6
I deeply respect everyone to live up to his or her standards and rules, if they're not against human rights. So, wherever a muslim doesn't want to draw a picture of his religion founder, I respect that - without fuss or quibble.
And vice versa: I demand strongly the same rights for everyone, particularly to live up to their standards and rules, if not against human rights.
That is to say: Everybody who has a problem with the new cover of Charlie Hebdo - he is not forced to look at it. Dear haters, let us alone with your constant whiney claims for concerns and thoughtfulness, while you yourself are not ready to concern and be thoughtful!
And dear moderate muslims, it's not enough to say: We are no terrorists. If you want to live in democracy, you should say: Even as a muslim who condemns the Charlie Hebdo satire, I will ever defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish whatever they feel they have to.
This would be the hour when our cultures could start a dialogue worthy of it's name.
And vice versa: I demand strongly the same rights for everyone, particularly to live up to their standards and rules, if not against human rights.
That is to say: Everybody who has a problem with the new cover of Charlie Hebdo - he is not forced to look at it. Dear haters, let us alone with your constant whiney claims for concerns and thoughtfulness, while you yourself are not ready to concern and be thoughtful!
And dear moderate muslims, it's not enough to say: We are no terrorists. If you want to live in democracy, you should say: Even as a muslim who condemns the Charlie Hebdo satire, I will ever defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish whatever they feel they have to.
This would be the hour when our cultures could start a dialogue worthy of it's name.
4
Western society already debated free speech hundreds of years ago. Islam is still back at the Inquistion.
6
It' shameful that the NYT did not run the Charlie Hebdo cover. This should have been a moment of international solidarity. Also the picture, not just the story about the picture, was the news. The newspaper of record should have run it. It's like the US not showing up for the march in Paris. Spineless.
7
I think freedom of speech is incredibly important and should be protected by law; i.e. the publication should be allowed to print a depiction of Muhammed without government punishment. That said, some things are in poor taste. In America, for example, a cartoon depicting black stereotypes could be deeply offensive. Legal, but not encouraged. Freedom of speech is great, but there are definitely some images that are insensitive to print and that shouldn't necessarily be celebrated.
1
There is no debate to be had about free speech.
The moment we debate when it is okay, when it is safe, when it is proper to exercise this right- in that same moment we are talking about restricting speech, the very loss of the right we are discussing.
The moment we debate when it is okay, when it is safe, when it is proper to exercise this right- in that same moment we are talking about restricting speech, the very loss of the right we are discussing.
2
If the word ''Respect'' were used with ''respect'' literally, this world would definitively be a better place. My freedom begins where your freedom ends. Always.
The Egyptians have no right to say anything the Muslim Brotherhood burnt doewn 67 churches and marched Catholic Nuns naked through the streets of Cairo. In Mprrocco one can hand a Bible to a friend. In Pakistan Asia Bibi is on death for merely sharing her faith while doing laundry...
2
I am sad they died, however they seem like the kind of guys at work in the mail room or help desk who laugh at South Park or Family Guy. Nihilistic, Aethiestic, Puerile humor (just like the Seth Rogan movie recently). I don't feel like they are the Rosa Parks of the free speech movement, and I dont feel like rallyiing behind them. Google "charley Hebdo disgusting" and look at the images(I dont speak French ) and see for yourself. The media is not publishing the images as it would vastly lower support for them..vile stuff
1
From Wikipedia:
"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."
Free speech or hate speech? Who decides?
"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."
Free speech or hate speech? Who decides?
2
Thanks, Khalil Charles of the Muslim Association of Britain, for precisely instructing us non-Muslims on what we can and can't think, speak and do about the murder of over a dozen people in the name of your deity and your prophet. Incidentally, what are the consequences if we do not obey?
5
He doesn't need me to defend him but the representations here of Dieudonne are unfair and false. He's a satirist, and a good one. It is wrong to guess his intentions while ignoring what he's actually saying and doing. When he said he felt like Charlie Coubaly it seemed obvious to me he was saying he felt like the cartoonists, assassinated over misunderstanding and ill will, AND like an assassin as many in France despise him based on mischaracterizations in the media of him as a bigot and worse.
1
Do mainstream muslims really care that much if the prophet is pictured? Like do mainstream catholics really care if the pope bans the use of contraceptives? Is this not all about a small minority of hot heads within a vast majority of reasonable folks?
3
Thank you for posting a link to the cartoon. I wish, though, that the Times could have found the courage to reproduce the image.
We need to stand up together against barbarism. No matter how blasphemous or offensive one may personally find an image, one is not allowed to murder because of it. This is not the Europe of the 17th century, and blasphemy is no longer a capital offense.
To cower in the face of this atrocity and barbarism (hiding under the veil of 'not wishing to offend') is to deny this truth.
We need to stand up together against barbarism. No matter how blasphemous or offensive one may personally find an image, one is not allowed to murder because of it. This is not the Europe of the 17th century, and blasphemy is no longer a capital offense.
To cower in the face of this atrocity and barbarism (hiding under the veil of 'not wishing to offend') is to deny this truth.
3
To those who disagree I suggest drawing a cartoon illustrating your point of view. It seems to be more powerful than terror.
Don't punish the outspoken, punish the killers. What kind of world are we living in where this is even up for discussion?
4
To submit to demands of a foreigner based upon his or their claims about their religion is to become a servant and adherent to that religion. Once a society not a part of ISlam such as France or the USA admits that Islam may dictate what it prints, says or publishes, there is no end.
Women can be made to wear burqas in Paris and NYC and give up jobs because Muslims threaten to kill "us". Our schoolchildren must read only Islamicist approved and submitted books and propaganda or we will be "killed".
This is exactly-not similar to-,exactly what North Korean or other hackers demanded Sony Pictures do or be killed. After Sony adhered to the demands, they further warned any foreign individuals attempting even going to a theater to see the forbidden film would be killed, also.
This is the only issue of any importance. Not to publish now is to submit to being the prisoners and slaves of Islam forever. Once they have succeeded in halting one publication, they will demand rights to do whatever else they desire and threaten violence if not obeyed.
This is how bullies take your lunch money. This is how Germany took over Europe in WWII. Never submit to aggression or refuse to impede it.
Try and remember. . .
Women can be made to wear burqas in Paris and NYC and give up jobs because Muslims threaten to kill "us". Our schoolchildren must read only Islamicist approved and submitted books and propaganda or we will be "killed".
This is exactly-not similar to-,exactly what North Korean or other hackers demanded Sony Pictures do or be killed. After Sony adhered to the demands, they further warned any foreign individuals attempting even going to a theater to see the forbidden film would be killed, also.
This is the only issue of any importance. Not to publish now is to submit to being the prisoners and slaves of Islam forever. Once they have succeeded in halting one publication, they will demand rights to do whatever else they desire and threaten violence if not obeyed.
This is how bullies take your lunch money. This is how Germany took over Europe in WWII. Never submit to aggression or refuse to impede it.
Try and remember. . .
4
Prior to the attacks in France, I had never heard of Charlie Hebdo. As I haven't read the magazine, I am unsure if I'd find it funny or just obnoxious.
Although I believe in free speech, in the USA there are legal limits on Free Speech, and probably too many limits. But there are times when Free Speech is so provocative, that decency and common sense demands some limits. In the USA, the usual metaphor for unlawful speech is when attempts to cause a riot by one yelling fire in a theater where there is no fire.
I respect Islam, but I have no sympathy for the Islamic perpetrators of the violence in France, and I do not understand what provoked them, but violence should always be avoided especially in response to free speech. Violence should certainly be avoided when religiously based, and yet most wars of the last 1700 years have been religiously based, mostly in the name of Jesus the ‘Prince of Peace’.
It is quite clear that the this week’s cartoon of Mohammad on Charlie Hebdo, was obnoxious and a deliberate provocation, lacking social redemption and is a crying shame. I urge Muslims to act more mature than Charlie Hebdo, and disregard any calls to violence. Please honor Mohammad by showing mercy and being better than those who knowingly provoke violence. Toleration of others should be central to any religion. God bless us all, everyone.
Although I believe in free speech, in the USA there are legal limits on Free Speech, and probably too many limits. But there are times when Free Speech is so provocative, that decency and common sense demands some limits. In the USA, the usual metaphor for unlawful speech is when attempts to cause a riot by one yelling fire in a theater where there is no fire.
I respect Islam, but I have no sympathy for the Islamic perpetrators of the violence in France, and I do not understand what provoked them, but violence should always be avoided especially in response to free speech. Violence should certainly be avoided when religiously based, and yet most wars of the last 1700 years have been religiously based, mostly in the name of Jesus the ‘Prince of Peace’.
It is quite clear that the this week’s cartoon of Mohammad on Charlie Hebdo, was obnoxious and a deliberate provocation, lacking social redemption and is a crying shame. I urge Muslims to act more mature than Charlie Hebdo, and disregard any calls to violence. Please honor Mohammad by showing mercy and being better than those who knowingly provoke violence. Toleration of others should be central to any religion. God bless us all, everyone.
3
The question to be asked in Western capitals is whether cartoon provocateurs of Islam increases or diminish bloody attacks against the civilian population. The free speech concept is a democratic value to be preserved. However, in the world war era post 9/11, ANY speech has political and religious consequences.
1
Great result for the terrorists indeed (ironic), Charlie Hebdo has solved its Financial problems for the next 50 years, their drawings are shared by millions of people including the cover page, people in France will not accept any more threats. According to their own objectives, they are real loosers
3
First they came for the cartoonists who depicted Muhammed, but I was not a cartoonist who depicted Muhammed. . . . That is the point, and that is the concept behind the ubiquitous "Je suis Charlie." If believers in Islam around the world are permitted to dictate what everyone else may think, read, write, draw, and say, it's all over. Undoubtedly, there is a deep cultural, as well as a religious divide here. The notion of free speech is alien to most, perhaps all of the Islamic world. Only last week a Saudi Arabian blogger, Raef Badaw, was subjected to the first 50 lashes of a 1000-lash sentence of public flogging for the crime of "insulting Islam."
The problem here is not that believers in this or that take offense, for to give and take offense is and always will be part of the human condition. Rather, the problem is the deep-seated cultural and religious belief that "because I am offended by what you write, that gives me the right to kill you." That is precisely why it is important to defy the act of intimidation that occurred in France last week. After all, the Quran, even the Old Testament, are offensive to me. Does that give me the right to kill people who believe in them?
There is nothing greater in importance to human dignity, civilization, and our development as a species, than the Enlightenment principle of freedom to dissent from orthodoxy. Without that freedom, we are doomed to live under a pall of intellectual oppression. That is what is at stake here.
The problem here is not that believers in this or that take offense, for to give and take offense is and always will be part of the human condition. Rather, the problem is the deep-seated cultural and religious belief that "because I am offended by what you write, that gives me the right to kill you." That is precisely why it is important to defy the act of intimidation that occurred in France last week. After all, the Quran, even the Old Testament, are offensive to me. Does that give me the right to kill people who believe in them?
There is nothing greater in importance to human dignity, civilization, and our development as a species, than the Enlightenment principle of freedom to dissent from orthodoxy. Without that freedom, we are doomed to live under a pall of intellectual oppression. That is what is at stake here.
2
When terrorists destroyed our twin towers, did we decide to give in and be humble? No, we rebuilt an even taller World Trade Center. Charlie Hebdo's decision to again depict the prophet is the only possible, non-cowardly response. I'm actually impressed by how they managed to do this in such a mellow way that cannot possibly be considered offensive by any rational human being (suggesting that the prophet weeps for the victims). They managed to stand tall and forgive at the same time. Respect.
I have no respect for any apologists for this fundamentalist religious insanity. Shame on them.
I have no respect for any apologists for this fundamentalist religious insanity. Shame on them.
4
Nazis marching in Skokie seems the right parallel. When people draw lines about what can and cannot be expressed, there will never be 'agreement' so better not draw lines. The problem is extremism, from these Islamic killers to Christians who shoot and bomb abortion doctors and clinics, and Orthodox Jews imposing their values on local community school boards in New York state or in Israel settlements. Fundamentally, around the world, the root of the problem is religion, an outdated magical belief system.
3
A cartoon of Mohammed, say, having sex with a dog, is, to use the NYT words, "deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities." While such a cartoon is offensive and should be shunned by all civilized people, there still should be no law against publishing it, let alone allowing crazed Muslims to kill the cartoonist. However, in the case of Charlie Hebbo's cover today, there is no such deliberate intention. In fact, the cartoon on the cover, is quite sympathetic to Mohammed, who is shown supporting Charlie Hebdo's right to publish. The only people who could be offended by such a cartoon are the crazed Muslims who think anyone purporting to draw Mohammed should be killed. Congratulations to the NYT for joining with such people to suppress America's freedoms under the First Amendment.
The NYT is either cowardly, which is possible, or it is incredibly politically correct, which is much more likely -- or it is both. Whichever, the NYT is despicable.
The NYT is either cowardly, which is possible, or it is incredibly politically correct, which is much more likely -- or it is both. Whichever, the NYT is despicable.
5
You have some weird kind of Freedom of speech in the US. You can't show the cover of Charlie in your video, but you can find Mein Kempf on Amazon. You can have Fox News lying hard and encouraging hatred toward muslims, but you can't show a cartoon of Muhammed. Boy, i'm glad to live in France rather than the US.
2
Dar-al-Ifta does not get it. In France, we can draw and publish cartoons lampooning the President, the Prophet, Jesus, Mohammed, Sarkozy, whomever. If you don't like it, you can change it: you can either sue, if you can make the case that a law has been broken or your rights have been violated; or you can elect representatives who share your view and can work with their peers in the Chambre des Députés to enact laws that reflect your point of view. If your lawsuit fails, you must accept that your view is not that of our country. You can work through the political process to change it. If you do not like the process or do not have the patience for it, you can leave. We would prefer to have your voice heard and exercised in open debate, but we will not stop you from voting with your feet.
5
A cover depicting a crying Jesus, with the words "All Is Forgiven" in the background would have been consistent with the teachings of Jesus, made a better point, and insulted no one.
2
I applaud the courage of the voice of Charlie Hebdo. We must remember that a large part of the world has not had access to education and is therefore illiterate. I advocate offering free literacy classes in France and throughout the Muslim world as part of the offensive to combat terrorism and to protect all citizens, especially those citizens who are vulnerable because of their faith or profession, from the effects of terrorism's hatred. Fundamentalist Islam can flourish among those who do not have access to a balanced view through the written word. Literacy goes a long way to put any picture or cartoon into context. How does a person understand a cartoon without the caption! The context of the 'voice' of an cartoon may be more understandable when the caption is read AND visualized. Through literacy, assimilation, while always maintaining cultural traditions, will defuse some of the anger of fundamentalists. Education will always go a long way toward defusing hatred. Malala Yousafzai is absolutely 100 percent correct - it begins with access to education for all citizens of all countries throughout the world. She bravely has said, "Let us remember: One book, one pen, one child, and one teacher can change the world." She is someone we should all listen to if we want understanding, inclusion and peace from terrorism. Literacy classes within the Mosque's and within disenfranchised communities is the perfect answer to misguided propaganda.
Perhaps useful to recall that there were historical Islamic images of Prophet Muhammad:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
3
I think your reporting on the meaning of the cartoons has been kinda clueless. You should read this: https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-spe...
"Hey! Look at this incredible stuff Daniel Ellsberg has given us! Let's publish it on the front page tomorrow!."
"Sorry, a lot of this will enflame tensions with the military and with the White House. Let's carefully edit it to make sure no one is bothered needlessly."
"Sorry, a lot of this will enflame tensions with the military and with the White House. Let's carefully edit it to make sure no one is bothered needlessly."
1
live and let leave
To those who have formed their opinions from second hand information, I invite you to look at the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo (i.e. Charlie weekly, to those of you who do not know French). The cartoons (one can scarcely call them caricatures) are mild. The objection made by Muslims is that the Prophet should not be depicted AT ALL.
In a theocracy (or even in a Muslim-dominated society), that could be both understandable and acceptable. All societies are not the same and do not have the same values or rules. However, our society (at least before the 60s) believed in one set of rules for all. Prostration before the shrine of multi-culturalism has meant that we have carved out exceptions to the rules for one 'minority' or 'victim' group after another.
In our Western society, by our standards of taste, decency, and tolerance -- and by our values for the freedom to speak, oppose, criticise and even mock -- these cartoons are innocuous. The question is whether we require everyone living here to adapt to and adopt our values or whether we will kowtow to each and every group and person that has different values.
The left-wing may have many valid criticism of the right-wing, but in this matter, the right-wing is right.
In a theocracy (or even in a Muslim-dominated society), that could be both understandable and acceptable. All societies are not the same and do not have the same values or rules. However, our society (at least before the 60s) believed in one set of rules for all. Prostration before the shrine of multi-culturalism has meant that we have carved out exceptions to the rules for one 'minority' or 'victim' group after another.
In our Western society, by our standards of taste, decency, and tolerance -- and by our values for the freedom to speak, oppose, criticise and even mock -- these cartoons are innocuous. The question is whether we require everyone living here to adapt to and adopt our values or whether we will kowtow to each and every group and person that has different values.
The left-wing may have many valid criticism of the right-wing, but in this matter, the right-wing is right.
1
I am reminded of all those articles saying: if only Obama would be reasonable and meet those nice Republicans in the middle (of course the goalposts kept moving further right). Freedom of expression trumps somebody else's religious discomfort. A resounding "get over it" is appropriate.
2
Do the 'God's need to be protected by their followers? Can 'God' feel insulted by humans? If yes, 'God' needs to be redefined.
1
In the heat of the moment, the legal aspects of the Paris incident - one party claiming the extreme right freedom of expression and the other the right to put such opinion makers into the graves - have not received much attention . The ICCPR - International Convention on Civil and Political Rights passed by the UN in 1966 - has to be the cornerstone of this dispute:
Article 19. 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2). Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3). The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 20. 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Article 19. 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2). Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3). The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 20. 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
1
They are being deliberately provocative. There is a difference between free speech and inciting people to be terrorists. I'm not condoning the killings, but when the editor posted that ISIS had not attacked yet, and kept publishing cartoons of Mohammed, the editor was taunting the terrorists. And innocent cops died, innocent Jews died, in the Paris attacks. I am episcopalian, but I would never draw a picture, good or bad, of a religious leader which religion prohibited that, nor would I take a picture of the Amish when I lived in PA. Respecting the religious beliefs of others is just common sense. Taunting terrorists causes the innocent to be murdered.
Stop it already. A crying Muhammad is not "hate speech." A crying Jesus or Moses is not "hate speech." Stop trying to be so "balanced", so PC, and if you don't have the courage to run the cartoons printed by Charlie Hedro, at least recognize theirs!
4
What about MY right of freedom FROM religion? Are we now going to be told what we can or can't read, watch, or in this case, draw, by zealots that have chosen to believe in some myth? And all "religions" are guilty of what this current crop of thugs, bullies and zealots are now doing.
2
It is important to be able to freely make statements that may offend people, particularly if you think that the statements are true. Freedom of speech is not just freedom of polite, non-offensive speech. The proper response to opinions that you despise is to argue against them, and if you want to go further to ridicule and/or satirize them. Violence in response to opinions should never be accepted in a society that supports freedom of speech and expression.
If we want to maintain a modern secular democracy that values freedom of speech and expression we must be vigilant not to allow beliefs that are not based upon any evidence to change public policy or restrict individual freedom.
If we want to maintain a modern secular democracy that values freedom of speech and expression we must be vigilant not to allow beliefs that are not based upon any evidence to change public policy or restrict individual freedom.
Freedom of speech in the form of satire and cartoons have been accepted and even embraced in Western culture for a long time. Such freedoms are an important and sacred value in Western society, so important that many have died to protect their right to be free. We should not be so quick to give up what is important and sacred to us in the face of threats of violence.
1
I'm with Obama: The French are without a center on this issue, i.e., cartoonists terrorizing Islam, on the one hand, and Muslim ghettos fraught with crime and poverty on the other.
When they decide that Islam is, in fact, not a threat to Western culture as we know it, then perhaps Obama will deign to make a visit, unless, of course, they've got a couple of good courses to play in Normandy.
When they decide that Islam is, in fact, not a threat to Western culture as we know it, then perhaps Obama will deign to make a visit, unless, of course, they've got a couple of good courses to play in Normandy.
Since Adolph Ochs purchased the New York Times and shaped it into a pivotal promoter of free speech, it has retained this position. I am disappointed, and rather annoyed by NYT's tepid response to this important event. In a time where freedom of the press has been reversed in many of the world's corners, the need for journalistic leadership is greater than ever. The NYT is the buoy of free speech and the values we hold dearly and has perhaps a greater responsibility than its peers to stand up in times of trouble. Yes, the cartoon is relevant and yes I would like to see the NYT print it. Furthermore you should not seek out the thoughts of Anjem Choudary(albeit the Indepent did so first), who is a known extremist promoting the killing of jews and other "infidels". To include the thoughts of this man is the same as asking Adolph Hitler for his opinion on religious freedom. Disguisting.
2
There is a difference between hate speech and satire. True freedom of speech must include the ability to satirize political, religious, and secular institutions. Also, if there is some level of speech that is to be criminalized because society deems it hateful, then the prosecution of the crime should be by proper civil authorities, with all required due process and other constitutional guarantees. If and when speech reaches the level of criminality, as determined by proper constitutional authority, then prosecution and punishment should not be administered ad hoc by thugs, terrorists or vengeful true believers.
I am sorry to see that the Editorial Board of the NY Times will not publish the cover of the latest Charlie Hebdo Magazine on the cover of the NY Times.
They may claim good taste or an reticence to offend Moslems, Hoever in my opinion it a display of craven editorial cowardice and nothing more noble.
It is time for the Editorial Board to grow a spine.
Je suis Charlie!
They may claim good taste or an reticence to offend Moslems, Hoever in my opinion it a display of craven editorial cowardice and nothing more noble.
It is time for the Editorial Board to grow a spine.
Je suis Charlie!
3
I feel that if Muslims want tolerance from the West - which they deserve, and which we need, for our own sakes as well as theirs to keep on striving for - they need to respond likewise towards Western culture.
We need to be careful that we don't become so 'guilty' that we give up our own rights. Freedom of speech is one of the building blocks of our culture; it forces all of us to take responsibility for our own emotions. If somebody says or does something that I don't like my culture doesn't allow me to kill them. And I like that, it’s very important to me.
If I go to live in a Muslim country and I settle there, I'm expected to respect their culture, as are my descendents. If we don't like it, we must leave. I wouldn’t dream of trying to impose my values on a country whose culture is established. The same has to be true in reverse. This clashing of values cannot be resolved by bullying.
Why do Muslims leave their countries and come to the West in the first place? Because it offers more freedom. It doesn't make sense to me that they should then try to impose on their adopted country elements of their own culture which are intricately linked to the reason they didn't have enough freedom at home.
I would have had immense respect for the NYT if they had shown that cover. why provide a link that doesn't work, anyway?
We need to be careful that we don't become so 'guilty' that we give up our own rights. Freedom of speech is one of the building blocks of our culture; it forces all of us to take responsibility for our own emotions. If somebody says or does something that I don't like my culture doesn't allow me to kill them. And I like that, it’s very important to me.
If I go to live in a Muslim country and I settle there, I'm expected to respect their culture, as are my descendents. If we don't like it, we must leave. I wouldn’t dream of trying to impose my values on a country whose culture is established. The same has to be true in reverse. This clashing of values cannot be resolved by bullying.
Why do Muslims leave their countries and come to the West in the first place? Because it offers more freedom. It doesn't make sense to me that they should then try to impose on their adopted country elements of their own culture which are intricately linked to the reason they didn't have enough freedom at home.
I would have had immense respect for the NYT if they had shown that cover. why provide a link that doesn't work, anyway?
4
If people want to oppose something, they can march with signs, Killing is murder. Anyone calling for the murder of anyone or any group should be jailed or deported.
2
If we know that certain behavior on our part evokes murderous behavior by others should we curtail our behavior if that same activity is commonplace in other contexts? Or should we examine the root cause of the murders? What in the world is causing the ultimate response: killing? Indeed, we may all suffer a periodic impulse to "kill" as in traffic, or in a sport, that we have all managed to recognize as a mindless insignificance. When organized people sanction such an impulse and some act on it we are obliged to confront and end this behavior. Confronting it with violence is not as effective as ridicule. ISIS stands on the bodies of it's dead proudly recruiting more martyrs, but is unhinged with ridicule.
It should become the goal of all actors including the NYT to mount a ridicule offensive on these cruel fanatics that will heap scorn on their nonsensical claims. Print the cover!
It should become the goal of all actors including the NYT to mount a ridicule offensive on these cruel fanatics that will heap scorn on their nonsensical claims. Print the cover!
If all media would show the cover, and stop being gutless and only providing a link to it like here in this NYT article, perhaps the radicals would realize violence is fruitless. I believe, historically, the prophet's image was depicted until modern Islam came along. Am I incorrect? It is important that the dialog continues. These terrorists are thugs, nothing more.
High respect to the NYT but in this case the company let me down as a reader. That is, for me to get a full understanding of the story I need to see the cartoon.
Christianity and Judaism have gone through their own 'growing pains' to eventually modernize and move away from the archaic and violent activities prevalent in the Dark Ages (i.e. the Crusades). Islam needs to embrace this same kind of transition to modernism. Muslims need to learn to laugh at cartoons instead of murdering the cartoonists.
1
It's hard to get through all the comments now so sorry if this is redundant. The Times is citing it's policy of not publishing content deemed "offensive and gratuitous." Given that this cover was worthy of an article - and many, many more articles in almost every major paper in the world, its publication in the Times cannot be said to be (and here I am pasting from Merriam-Webster's web-based dictionary because it's free and it came up high on my Google results but any dictionary will clarify this point):
1. a : given unearned or without recompense
b : not involving a return benefit, compensation, or consideration
c : costing nothing : free
2: not called for by the circumstances
We use the term in reference, for example, to violence that doesn't move the story forward or with low value add-ons with purchases - they aren't substantive or related to the core. Once you've decided it's worth an article, once1774 readers have comments (6:20AM Wed) then it's news and you're not not publishing it because it's gratuitous. Maybe they meant "or" and find it offensive - but that's not what they wrote, and words are their business and their craft. Maybe they meant "in the US we're so scared of offending anyone that we can no longer report the news." I doubt they were afraid for physical hard - I think it's a continuation of the mindset that we just can't criticize or offend anyone. The cover is offensive. Print it. Post it. Report it!!!
1. a : given unearned or without recompense
b : not involving a return benefit, compensation, or consideration
c : costing nothing : free
2: not called for by the circumstances
We use the term in reference, for example, to violence that doesn't move the story forward or with low value add-ons with purchases - they aren't substantive or related to the core. Once you've decided it's worth an article, once1774 readers have comments (6:20AM Wed) then it's news and you're not not publishing it because it's gratuitous. Maybe they meant "or" and find it offensive - but that's not what they wrote, and words are their business and their craft. Maybe they meant "in the US we're so scared of offending anyone that we can no longer report the news." I doubt they were afraid for physical hard - I think it's a continuation of the mindset that we just can't criticize or offend anyone. The cover is offensive. Print it. Post it. Report it!!!
2
It is ridiculous that any religion should consider a cartoon blasphemous. There are comic books about Jesus used to indoctrinate our youth in churches. If we followed the Muslim example, we'd have to take down Michaelangelos and Di Vincis along with many other works of art. These people are looking for an excuse to justify violence and suppression. And all over an image of somebody Nobady has laid eyes on in 1200 years. If your religion thinks an image is wrong, keep it out of your house and place of worship, but don't try to tell me what to believe. I can make up my own mind, and I have freedom of speech. If there are multiple expressions in the world that portray your religion in a negative light, maybe your religion is at fault and should change.
2
Reading this paper, I did not catch where the NYT was willing to head.
The purpose of Charlie Hebdo is to focus on what is a problem today, e.g. Islamic fundamentalism, and they use cartoons for this purpose. I am not a regular Charlie reader, but I know for sure that this is not targeted against Islam, rather against behaviors which lead to suppressing part of our freedom.
Let us remember that such contents are legal in France, as blasphemy is not illegal here, and also as the French Republic has not been linked to any religion whatsoever since 1905, when state and churches where strictly separated. And frankly, I do not believe that Muslims are targeted that much. As a Christian, I can tell you that Charlie has made many more headlines against the Pope and the Catholic Church, and guess what, I have laughed. Often. Sometimes I thought that they were over-reacting and over-exaggerating, but still, I have laughed. Because I believe in free speech as a major vector of freedom, and forbidding any speech or cartoon would be a blow to my own freedom.
So let Charlie Hebdo live, so that my freedom is guaranteed. And I shall pray for the soul of the 17 victims, be they believers of not.
The purpose of Charlie Hebdo is to focus on what is a problem today, e.g. Islamic fundamentalism, and they use cartoons for this purpose. I am not a regular Charlie reader, but I know for sure that this is not targeted against Islam, rather against behaviors which lead to suppressing part of our freedom.
Let us remember that such contents are legal in France, as blasphemy is not illegal here, and also as the French Republic has not been linked to any religion whatsoever since 1905, when state and churches where strictly separated. And frankly, I do not believe that Muslims are targeted that much. As a Christian, I can tell you that Charlie has made many more headlines against the Pope and the Catholic Church, and guess what, I have laughed. Often. Sometimes I thought that they were over-reacting and over-exaggerating, but still, I have laughed. Because I believe in free speech as a major vector of freedom, and forbidding any speech or cartoon would be a blow to my own freedom.
So let Charlie Hebdo live, so that my freedom is guaranteed. And I shall pray for the soul of the 17 victims, be they believers of not.
1
Question: What if I'm offended by the Quran? Am I allowed to ban it? What if I'm offended by the Bible?
3
It's easy to say "free speech" but if Jews and Christians are prepared to have stuff they consider blasphemous posted by Muslims and defend it as free speech then fine but of course they're not. Anything that large numbers of people consider to be hate speech, probably is.
2
1
We all understand that killing cartoonists over an image is a tragedy and has no excuse. However, humiliating people for benign religious beliefs (such as never drawing an image of Mohammed) is simple cruel. What is the point? All language games are vulnerable to attack. We can agree to attack positions that create suffering and injustice...no doubt. But beliefs that have no impact on others...leave those alone. And for those who are a little slow: I am not saying the attacks were justified--no no no: never! A tragic and absurd response without question. So sad; so out of proportion. What I am saying is that the images were humiliating to those who care about such matters. Let's at least say that. Now draw as many cruel and humiliating images you need to so as to satisfy whatever requires those depictions in the name of freedom or whatever. And may no one harm you for those insensitive depictions. There is some strange twisted civility in this I guess. Je suis Charlie.
3
Describing the debate as "pitting free speech against religious sensitivities" is misleading. In any event, no secular society should be involved in concerns about "religious sensitivities." The whole idea of a secular society is freedom from religious zealots controlling your life. Beyond that, there is the problem of having to cater to each individual's "sensitivities," which is impossible, and to cater to them regardless of how irrational and repressive they are.
1
"Just one week after Islamist gunmen slaughtered 12 people in an attack on its offices, the weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo returned to newsstands across France on Wednesday with a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad on its cover. In some places, vendors reported that it had sold out before daybreak."
Thats how France is responding for threats to freedom of speech. You wont quiet city that starts revolution.
Thats how France is responding for threats to freedom of speech. You wont quiet city that starts revolution.
Who can be held responsible for the present issue of the magazine: the terrorists or the editorial board? The obvious answer is the three terrorists who killed the cartoonists last week. Had there be no killings, the Editorial Board had no plan to bring the special issue.
A cartoon can't be drawn for which I would seek justification to harm the artist, let alone kill him/her and unwitting bystanders. Perhaps, if I was a tormented 12 year old. Je Suis Charlie
Cowardly of the NY Times to not stand along side journalists, cartoonists, and other editors in this matter. The desire to cover ones own backside, instead of standing in unity is clearly coming through. If all major news publications stood up and published the cover, the terrorists would have far less effect in their actions.
This was not a cover which was spiteful or insulting. It was a cover which simply went against the beliefs of what was acceptable by a minority of readers in the US. Nonetheless, the NYT seems to be losing its backbone as a publication on the front lines of debate and opinion when it matters. It is sad to see such a historical publication go less and less to the wayside by trying to straddle political correctness too often.
This was not a cover which was spiteful or insulting. It was a cover which simply went against the beliefs of what was acceptable by a minority of readers in the US. Nonetheless, the NYT seems to be losing its backbone as a publication on the front lines of debate and opinion when it matters. It is sad to see such a historical publication go less and less to the wayside by trying to straddle political correctness too often.
It doesn't fuel any debate with me. While it's not real sensitive, Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish whatever the heck they want as long as it's not slander, libel, etc. Society needs the pushers of peoples' buttons even if they make us mad sometimes. Eventually, the more conservative Muslims will have to enter the modern world and learn how to ignore free speech they don't like or else risk living in the middle ages forever. We let the KKK, Nazis, etc. have their say without fear of violence. I hope some of those who say the rest of the world should live by their rules or else fear violence can grow up, stop being bullies, and start to wonder why it is that people of other faiths can live with criticism of their religion but they can't.
Given this, non-Muslims can aid this by trying for greater assimilation and equality for Muslims who are in the West. We should do this for all people, not just Muslims. Also, Israel has every right to exist without fear of violence but needs to accept a Palestinian country's right to exist with the same rights.
Given this, non-Muslims can aid this by trying for greater assimilation and equality for Muslims who are in the West. We should do this for all people, not just Muslims. Also, Israel has every right to exist without fear of violence but needs to accept a Palestinian country's right to exist with the same rights.
1
There are two defiant sides to this. One side draws silly pictures and the other demonstrates the will to execute journalists at the drop of a hat. So, who at Charlie Hebdo will volunteer themselves, in exchange, when the next journalist is kneeling in front of a video-cam with a cute little slogan tied around their neck?
The cartoons in Charlie are not, and have never been, either hateful, or directed at Islam. They are, and always have been political statements aimed at the violent radicalism that has now taken the lives of Charlie's editors and cartoonists and other French citizens. Of course, to some, they are offensive. Political satire is not kind.
For the NYT not to republish the current cover of Charlie, particularly when the cover responds to the assassination of Charlie's editors, is unacceptable. No one will find it credible, 50 years from now, that the Times declined to publish the cartoon because the editors believed that the cartoon might offend some readers, particularly given that the only element in the cartoon that can be reasonablely construed as potentially objectionable to such readers is the very depiction of Muhammad. Would the NYT decline to publish a photo of a group of women because some religious groups believe that women should not be photographed?
Given the message of the current Charlie cover - forgiveness, and the betrayal of Islam's values by terrorists - it appears that the New York Times is concerned, not with the sensibilities of Muslim readers, but with the retaliatory threats of extremists. History will record hundreds of French citizens lining up to buy Charlie, holding messages – reproduced in BuzzFeed – defending free expression -- while the NYT offered a lame excuse for failing to join the chorus of freedom. Je suis Charlie.
For the NYT not to republish the current cover of Charlie, particularly when the cover responds to the assassination of Charlie's editors, is unacceptable. No one will find it credible, 50 years from now, that the Times declined to publish the cartoon because the editors believed that the cartoon might offend some readers, particularly given that the only element in the cartoon that can be reasonablely construed as potentially objectionable to such readers is the very depiction of Muhammad. Would the NYT decline to publish a photo of a group of women because some religious groups believe that women should not be photographed?
Given the message of the current Charlie cover - forgiveness, and the betrayal of Islam's values by terrorists - it appears that the New York Times is concerned, not with the sensibilities of Muslim readers, but with the retaliatory threats of extremists. History will record hundreds of French citizens lining up to buy Charlie, holding messages – reproduced in BuzzFeed – defending free expression -- while the NYT offered a lame excuse for failing to join the chorus of freedom. Je suis Charlie.
2
I am disappointed to see the debate shifting toward whether or not the cartoons are offensive. The issue is whether or not anyone has the right to react to an offense by killing the offender. In western democracies, they don't. I am under no obligation to follow Jewish law or respect Christian beliefs. Why should I have to bow to Muslim beliefs about who gets to have their picture drawn and who doesn't? Mr. M’bala M’bala may have had his shows banned but he wasn't shot. If he had been, I would join a rally in his support.
1
“If freedom of expression can be sacrificed for criminalizing incitement and hatred, why not for insulting the Prophet of Allah?” Mr. Choudary wrote...
---------------------------------------------------------------
By his own admission he doesn't "get" it; has no understanding of the concept. Perhaps... he didn't get the necessary education - perhaps he's just an unfortunate emotionally and intellectually stunted human being.
I don't know but I despair for Mr Choudary.
I do not despair for Islam.
Islam has it's voices of reason - they are not loud because the MSM doesn't air them; they are not very many - because we don't know who they are because the MSM doesn't air them - but they are out there.
Reza Aslan comes to mind.... and it behoves us to remind the media that they are not supposed to FORM public opinion - they're supposed to report ALL sides of opinion to the public so the public can form its own "informed opinion."
And it it those like Reza Aslan who have confidence in the intelligence and character of their audiences who will win, while those like Choudary will fall away murdered by their own hands.
This matter affects 1.6 billion Muslims who are not all of one mind. They are all individual beings each capable of forming his/her own opinion. And those who stay and live in the 'secular world of free speech' have already - just by being here - indicated they have no innate desire for oppression.
It's up to us to choose. Do we help - or do we merely condemn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
By his own admission he doesn't "get" it; has no understanding of the concept. Perhaps... he didn't get the necessary education - perhaps he's just an unfortunate emotionally and intellectually stunted human being.
I don't know but I despair for Mr Choudary.
I do not despair for Islam.
Islam has it's voices of reason - they are not loud because the MSM doesn't air them; they are not very many - because we don't know who they are because the MSM doesn't air them - but they are out there.
Reza Aslan comes to mind.... and it behoves us to remind the media that they are not supposed to FORM public opinion - they're supposed to report ALL sides of opinion to the public so the public can form its own "informed opinion."
And it it those like Reza Aslan who have confidence in the intelligence and character of their audiences who will win, while those like Choudary will fall away murdered by their own hands.
This matter affects 1.6 billion Muslims who are not all of one mind. They are all individual beings each capable of forming his/her own opinion. And those who stay and live in the 'secular world of free speech' have already - just by being here - indicated they have no innate desire for oppression.
It's up to us to choose. Do we help - or do we merely condemn.
2
When the Wahibi decide that girls deserve an education equal to boys, when a man does not count his wives like property, Islam may awaken. Not before.
There is a limit to role playing.
Charlie Hebdo's cartoons have not helped Islam. The message is not heard.
Are they deaf?
Does Islan have a sense of humor?
Did any prophet ever crack a joke?
Jesus have a sense of humor?
Religion without humor is sad. We need to take all this stuff with a smile.
There is a limit to role playing.
Charlie Hebdo's cartoons have not helped Islam. The message is not heard.
Are they deaf?
Does Islan have a sense of humor?
Did any prophet ever crack a joke?
Jesus have a sense of humor?
Religion without humor is sad. We need to take all this stuff with a smile.
Charlie Hebdo did the exact right thing. We are all getting shoved into smaller and smaller boxes. The zone of what offends gets bigger and bigger--it grows each year. Soon, we will have to repress all thoughts other than pleasantries. And, like the classic character from literature who holds all in, we will eventually explode. There is no substitute for full honest, what's on your mind communication. We've seen the world get more and more violent the more communication is restricted--even for well meaning reasons. Violence, frustration and anger only grow when the real thoughts of people are silenced.
Has anyone bothered to check in on what China has to say about this. It is farcical...the so called "leaders" marching hand in hand with the French are mostly representitive of some of the most repressive regimes in the world. Hypocrisy is the winner in all of this. The NYT is no better than any of them.
When in France, do as the French do.
If the cover of Charlie Hebdo-which I think is perfect- offends you, stop looking at it for goodness' sake.
If the cover of Charlie Hebdo-which I think is perfect- offends you, stop looking at it for goodness' sake.
Anjem Choudary and Dieudonne M'bala M'bala are a couple of raving psychopaths.
It is appalling that the Times sees fit to quote them.
The shock is doubly compounded by the Times' acquiescence to intimidation in failing to reprint the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons.
It is appalling that the Times sees fit to quote them.
The shock is doubly compounded by the Times' acquiescence to intimidation in failing to reprint the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons.
1
Human Rights and Freedom of Expression are not compatible with Sharia law. Muslims cannot impose their world-view on other people. If immigrants in Europe do not like it, they can go back home. Any Muslim country that doesn't like the West and thinks that there is a conspiracy by the West against it can simply walk out of the United Nations and lower their flag in New York.
Having one foot in the international system when it suits them and the other foot in the Sharia law when it suits them, is called hypocrisy and double standards.
This vicious duality has to end.
Before speaking about a drawing by a French newspaper let Muslim clerics tell us the reasons of the carnage in Iraq and Syria. When Muslims kill each other because of religious Fatwas we hear nothing from Dar al-Ifta.
Having one foot in the international system when it suits them and the other foot in the Sharia law when it suits them, is called hypocrisy and double standards.
This vicious duality has to end.
Before speaking about a drawing by a French newspaper let Muslim clerics tell us the reasons of the carnage in Iraq and Syria. When Muslims kill each other because of religious Fatwas we hear nothing from Dar al-Ifta.
2
And yet U.S. media seems to be afraid to show any of these cartoons? Our brave talk & solidarity doesn't seem to mean much.
What debate is this fueling?
Being an enthusiastic reader of the NYT, I am left disenchanted by this article.
You guys are a mainstream news outlet. Freedom of speech is a principle I'm sure you understand well. Hence I'm very disappointed to see NYT using the garb of a 'Debate' in order to hide cowardice.
Charlie Hebdo has put out a cover depicting Muhammad, a deed for which 8 employees of the magazine were gunned down last week. That the new cover has immense news value is a no-brainer.
Unlike more controversial depictions, the new cover is not even crass.
Yet you have decided not to publish it. And now to justify your absolute lack of courage in your own profession, you put out an article calling it a debate. Instead of confusing your readers, I'd much rather you just came out and said you are concerned about security like Jyllands-Posten did.
When people compare Muhammad cartoons to insults against Jews, its pertinent to note that the holocaust was a historic fact caused by anti-semitism. You can't blame societies to be a little wary. The same does not apply to Islam.
The debate according your article is whether we can compare Mr. M’bala M’bala to Mr. Stéphane Charbonnier. One defends his religion by defending a terrorist. One draws cartoons that lampoon all religions and terrorists There is no comparison. There is no debate.
Being an enthusiastic reader of the NYT, I am left disenchanted by this article.
You guys are a mainstream news outlet. Freedom of speech is a principle I'm sure you understand well. Hence I'm very disappointed to see NYT using the garb of a 'Debate' in order to hide cowardice.
Charlie Hebdo has put out a cover depicting Muhammad, a deed for which 8 employees of the magazine were gunned down last week. That the new cover has immense news value is a no-brainer.
Unlike more controversial depictions, the new cover is not even crass.
Yet you have decided not to publish it. And now to justify your absolute lack of courage in your own profession, you put out an article calling it a debate. Instead of confusing your readers, I'd much rather you just came out and said you are concerned about security like Jyllands-Posten did.
When people compare Muhammad cartoons to insults against Jews, its pertinent to note that the holocaust was a historic fact caused by anti-semitism. You can't blame societies to be a little wary. The same does not apply to Islam.
The debate according your article is whether we can compare Mr. M’bala M’bala to Mr. Stéphane Charbonnier. One defends his religion by defending a terrorist. One draws cartoons that lampoon all religions and terrorists There is no comparison. There is no debate.
1
When free speech ends in violence it is no longer free speech it is a hate crime. What they have in France is a government that in their quest to make people safe they will curb real free speech which exasperates the situation. The world, all the world needs to end repression of the masses or at least ease up on it. Making the basic things in life affordable for all will end the vicious cycle we see there and here in the USA.
Considering the appropriate boundaries of the principle of free speech a distraction from the real issues:
First, freedom of speech exists only when our judgment of it is blind to the form of the actual expression itself. Subjected to judgment and censorship, of any type, makes that perceived freedom no longer a true freedom.
Second, religious identity does not equal political sovereignty. Actions illegal in sovereign countries are not to be argued by any group as justified based on the assumed privilege of judgment reserved only for sovereign nations. If the people sharing beliefs are to enjoy the privilege of such judgment, then they must share equally the consequences of the actions resulting from those judgments--as would any other sovereign nation.
Violence should never be tolerated by peoples not collected under sovereignty (or maybe not even when they are, as we Americans are quickly learning) and the democratic right to absolute and unquestioned speech must be preserved—for without it, we have accomplished nothing.
First, freedom of speech exists only when our judgment of it is blind to the form of the actual expression itself. Subjected to judgment and censorship, of any type, makes that perceived freedom no longer a true freedom.
Second, religious identity does not equal political sovereignty. Actions illegal in sovereign countries are not to be argued by any group as justified based on the assumed privilege of judgment reserved only for sovereign nations. If the people sharing beliefs are to enjoy the privilege of such judgment, then they must share equally the consequences of the actions resulting from those judgments--as would any other sovereign nation.
Violence should never be tolerated by peoples not collected under sovereignty (or maybe not even when they are, as we Americans are quickly learning) and the democratic right to absolute and unquestioned speech must be preserved—for without it, we have accomplished nothing.
1
Having lived in numerous Gulf Islamic countries for a number of years, I have come to appreciate Islam and its followers. Their commitment and dedication is un-surpassed. Not once have I been accosted for my faith(Christian) - I practice it daily in my daily actions as do my Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Christian and Atheist friends. Are the fundamentals - so much different to most other religions and cultures - not really.
Yet I am not allowed to openly practice my religious beliefs in a place of worship - no church for me. I would have to go underground. However, in my country of origin, temples, mosques, synagogues coexist with religions and churches of many denominations.
I guess my point is - If you don't like what is being served up, you don't have to eat it. And if you don't like what is in print, don't buy it or read it! We all have options and choices.
My parents migrated to make a better life, and so they did, for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren who are eternally grateful.
They had to make change and made a commitment to fit in. I guess the Mayor of Rotterdam has made a clear point! My parents and siblings loved it and adapted and fitted in and made the most of their opportunities.
Long live the freedom to choose - knowing the difference between what is right and wrong.
Bottom line for me is family, friends, community, health and happiness. Waking up each morning and trying to make a positive contribution.
Yet I am not allowed to openly practice my religious beliefs in a place of worship - no church for me. I would have to go underground. However, in my country of origin, temples, mosques, synagogues coexist with religions and churches of many denominations.
I guess my point is - If you don't like what is being served up, you don't have to eat it. And if you don't like what is in print, don't buy it or read it! We all have options and choices.
My parents migrated to make a better life, and so they did, for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren who are eternally grateful.
They had to make change and made a commitment to fit in. I guess the Mayor of Rotterdam has made a clear point! My parents and siblings loved it and adapted and fitted in and made the most of their opportunities.
Long live the freedom to choose - knowing the difference between what is right and wrong.
Bottom line for me is family, friends, community, health and happiness. Waking up each morning and trying to make a positive contribution.
1
There is no debate on freedom of speech. It is a given.
What there must be is a debate about intimidation supported by "religious" leaders inciting criminals to believe that they are great men because they murder people.
What there must be is a debate about intimidation supported by "religious" leaders inciting criminals to believe that they are great men because they murder people.
1
What is evident: we are waiting for tightening of immigration policy.
Of course, it is a positive consequence.
European countries should think about their safety, national security.
I hope, our authorities will study this lesson and tighten our immigration policy.
Of course, it is a positive consequence.
European countries should think about their safety, national security.
I hope, our authorities will study this lesson and tighten our immigration policy.
Indeed, this is dangerous and provocative. But that is the *point* of freedom of speech. Should we risk our lives for that freedom, like Charlie Hebdo has? Yes. Yes, we should. So that one day, Egyptians will also have a society strong enough for some Cairo based magazine to publish scandalous cartoons (about prophets or anything else), without its generals (or dictators, or whatever) promptly jailing all involved.
1
Freedom of Speech is a complex right, a fact seldom acknowledged in these debates. It has never been an absolute privilege and is always under review. Just when and why it should be restricted is complex and merits far more discussion than we've seen to date. I would be curious to hear those who defend publishing cartoons of Mohammed - an action deeply offensive to millions of demonstrably decent, law abiding muslims - explain how this act differs to publishing cartoons deeply offensive to other minority groups. In most western liberal democracies, media (including cartoons) that offend the mores of Jews and homosexual are frequently classed as 'hate speech' or "discrimination" and banned. Similarly advertisements deemed overtly offensive to women are pulled. But where's the difference? Could it be that society cares more for the sensitivities of some minority groups that others? On what principle do we permit cartoons that offend muslims, but ban cartoons that offend Jews? Why NOT use a principal that publications or speech that offend a large enough group of citizens be subject to ban. Let freedom of speech be moderated by public demand. As an athesist straight male I have no problem with banning cartoons offensive to muslims, just as I have no problem banning cartoons offensive to women and gays.
1
Apparently the depiction of Mohammed is prohibited to orthodox Muslims. But such a depiction by a non-Muslim is not necessarily an ‘insult’. It depends upon how and why it is done. If it is intended to satirize those who hide their crimes behind a cloak of religion, that is appropriate. If it is intended to denigrate Islam and foment hatred against all Muslims, that is defamation. Charlie Hebdo belongs to the former category.
For Muslims to blame or hate non-Muslims who do not conform to Muslim belief is the height of self-centeredness, and a denigration--defamation, if you will--of other religions.
Saying God’s name is prohibited to orthodox Jews. But Jews do not go around resenting, hating or killing others who do so who have no such proscription in their beliefs.
Instead of feeling offended and warning others not to offend the sensibilities of Muslims, Muslims around the world should be preaching tolerance and acceptance. More importantly, they should be shouting from the rooftops that resenting--or killing--others for such things is completely anti-Islam.
For Muslims to blame or hate non-Muslims who do not conform to Muslim belief is the height of self-centeredness, and a denigration--defamation, if you will--of other religions.
Saying God’s name is prohibited to orthodox Jews. But Jews do not go around resenting, hating or killing others who do so who have no such proscription in their beliefs.
Instead of feeling offended and warning others not to offend the sensibilities of Muslims, Muslims around the world should be preaching tolerance and acceptance. More importantly, they should be shouting from the rooftops that resenting--or killing--others for such things is completely anti-Islam.
7
There is no freedom of expression or freedom of religion UNLESS a cartoon of Mohammed can be printed after people are murdered for printing a cartoon of Mohammed. What did people expect to be depicted in defiance of a barbaric attempt to intimidate???
5
How can you — and so many news outlets — show repeated images and videos (in graphic detail no less) of the terrorists doing their terrorising, but not show (in equally graphic detail) the cartoonists doing their cartooning? Either show both, or show neither. In showing only one, you've veered from the truth -- which is not only a crime against journalism, but an offence to our humanity.
7
I find it disturbing that the Charlie magazine, once again, does not acknowledge that ‘any’ depiction of the prophet Muhammad is offensive to Muslims. Is ‘all’ forgiven? Do we forgive the terrorists? Does the Muslim Community forgive Charlie when the magazine has not asked to be forgiven? While all of France may say they are Charlie, and I can appreciate the thought that an attack on one French person speaking is an attack against them all; Charlie is not God forgiving itself.
The founders of the U.S. Constitution introduced Freedom of Religion to keep the government from appearing to ‘take sides’ with certain religions which would, otherwise, have threatened peace between U.S. Citizens in American Society. Our American Media, some, among the best in the world, followed that sought peace with building on it by ‘competing’ with other media organizations for the success to reach ‘all’ people, readers or viewers by not offending them. A media organization who would discount their Muslim readers or viewers would, most probably, be outcast in America.
While I can appreciate the Charlie magazine ‘willing’ to take on the ‘politics of religion’ (which we all know there are, while we deal with the religious-politics of violent extremists), there are ways to do it and not to do it; speaking for ‘any’ world religion’s prophets, their selves, is not the way. One must be objective to create, lead and enter an international conversation, worth listening to.
The founders of the U.S. Constitution introduced Freedom of Religion to keep the government from appearing to ‘take sides’ with certain religions which would, otherwise, have threatened peace between U.S. Citizens in American Society. Our American Media, some, among the best in the world, followed that sought peace with building on it by ‘competing’ with other media organizations for the success to reach ‘all’ people, readers or viewers by not offending them. A media organization who would discount their Muslim readers or viewers would, most probably, be outcast in America.
While I can appreciate the Charlie magazine ‘willing’ to take on the ‘politics of religion’ (which we all know there are, while we deal with the religious-politics of violent extremists), there are ways to do it and not to do it; speaking for ‘any’ world religion’s prophets, their selves, is not the way. One must be objective to create, lead and enter an international conversation, worth listening to.
This cover is not about free-speetch, it is about LOVE
The loving of the gone journalists & the loving of disagreament itself !
Conflicts are necessary to live among each other, in peace.
You are fools to be affraid to publish the cartoon
The loving of the gone journalists & the loving of disagreament itself !
Conflicts are necessary to live among each other, in peace.
You are fools to be affraid to publish the cartoon
6
In every religion there are some bigot fundamentalist who are responsible for clashes unfortunately government support them for vote bank. If government secular enough can forcefully ban on these element than only peace is possible.In France excessive freedom of speech creating chaos and anarchy If government baned to cartoonist to jeering mocking insulting injuring Mohamed this accident not happened instead of baning government of France encouraging that magazine to publish provocative cartoon on name of freedom of speech want increase tempo clashes excessively.We must remember the wise advice of philosopher Spinoza "Individualism without anarchy and communism without inanimate
I look forward to seeing the NYT's apply this same standard to Christians' religious sensibilities.
5
I hope you don't similarly look forward to Christians reacting equally violently to their offense? The NYT is not declining to publish the cartoon(s) because of some deference to the religious sensibilities of Muslims. It is declining to publish them out of a concern for the physical safety, even the lives, of its journalists.
It's an act of cowardice, plain and simple. It is a sad day indeed when the new york post shows more editorial courage than the venerable grey lady.
It's an act of cowardice, plain and simple. It is a sad day indeed when the new york post shows more editorial courage than the venerable grey lady.
1
The problem is about intolerance and not about Free Speech.
Indeed, there may be a limit to Free Speech. After all, you don't shout fire in a theater to hide the malicious intent behind Free Speech and you don't fan flame of a burning house by claiming it is an artistic expression. However, the ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram of the world are an evil personification of intolerance. While they deserve ridicule, but there is only one way to truly defeat them. Isolate them, deny them of sympathizers and crush them. By doubling down on Free Speech only allow them to have an excuse of attracting the maladjusted to their rank
Indeed, there may be a limit to Free Speech. After all, you don't shout fire in a theater to hide the malicious intent behind Free Speech and you don't fan flame of a burning house by claiming it is an artistic expression. However, the ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram of the world are an evil personification of intolerance. While they deserve ridicule, but there is only one way to truly defeat them. Isolate them, deny them of sympathizers and crush them. By doubling down on Free Speech only allow them to have an excuse of attracting the maladjusted to their rank
1
Free speech works by common consent in a society that is founded on reason and that values social justice. If the society's own value system rewards incendiary and/or puerile statements, I question the quality of its "freedom."
Freedom requires responsibility. It works only to the degree the people are worthy of its benefits. Weimar was a free society, yet tolerating Naziism in its midst led to its overthrow. Current usage of "free speech" is based on extreme libertarian doctrine, itself where we're at in Europe and America, where an alternative strand of social philosphy has been neglected, discarded, even vilified: the RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I submit, Charlie Hebdo went, knowingly went, too far: this was not gutsy, courageous exercise of free speech, but the desire to shock and hurt--flippancy, rock-bottom cynicism about what human beings are entitled to, including their self-respect and profound convictions.
This is no way apologizes for the murders; they and their perpetrators must be CONDEMNED in the harshest terms and penalized accordingly. That they occurred testifies to the deeper malaise in Western Civilization, the indifference to human dignity, the alacrity in finding solutions to differences through war and intervention.
Individuals are responsible for their acts, here the murderers. But reason demands asking about an antecedent causation--the West's invasion of Muslim countries and commission of unspeakable atrocities. Sadly, no one has clean hands.
Freedom requires responsibility. It works only to the degree the people are worthy of its benefits. Weimar was a free society, yet tolerating Naziism in its midst led to its overthrow. Current usage of "free speech" is based on extreme libertarian doctrine, itself where we're at in Europe and America, where an alternative strand of social philosphy has been neglected, discarded, even vilified: the RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I submit, Charlie Hebdo went, knowingly went, too far: this was not gutsy, courageous exercise of free speech, but the desire to shock and hurt--flippancy, rock-bottom cynicism about what human beings are entitled to, including their self-respect and profound convictions.
This is no way apologizes for the murders; they and their perpetrators must be CONDEMNED in the harshest terms and penalized accordingly. That they occurred testifies to the deeper malaise in Western Civilization, the indifference to human dignity, the alacrity in finding solutions to differences through war and intervention.
Individuals are responsible for their acts, here the murderers. But reason demands asking about an antecedent causation--the West's invasion of Muslim countries and commission of unspeakable atrocities. Sadly, no one has clean hands.
10
I just wonder how many people actually looked at Charlie's cartoons.
They never attacked or humiliated a religion, but yes, obviously did so for those interpreting and using it against basic tolerance and for justifying or rationalizing murder.
If some didnn't understand, this misinterpretation must in no way becomes the very ground base of western societies thinking. Otherwise...all is lost.
Something more: political correctness in such matter almost implies the Muslim world is just not capable of understanding...isn't that despising?
They never attacked or humiliated a religion, but yes, obviously did so for those interpreting and using it against basic tolerance and for justifying or rationalizing murder.
If some didnn't understand, this misinterpretation must in no way becomes the very ground base of western societies thinking. Otherwise...all is lost.
Something more: political correctness in such matter almost implies the Muslim world is just not capable of understanding...isn't that despising?
1
5
I have been a New York Times reader more than 40 years and am sick at the paper's editorial hypocrisy: The Times web site runs ISIL Propaganda video of western hostages talking under duress (Talk about offensive!), but won't show Charlie Hebdo's cover of today that offends only one very small group of extremists. Puhl---lease!
21
What if EVERY news outlet publishes the cover image of the new issue of Charlie Hebdo?
8
That would require more courage and resistance to politically correct behavior than the NYT can muster!
The title of the article already tells it all: "...debate about free speech".
A mix of political correctnesss and realpolitik (not offend and no risks).
And if you consider the guys (Charlie's) have managed to remain what they deeply are while paying a tribute to an Islam (the?) of peace and tolerance and forgiveness...the amazing neutrality (because that's a desperate attempt to that: neutrality) of the NYT is even more...find your own words.
Je suis Charlie.
A mix of political correctnesss and realpolitik (not offend and no risks).
And if you consider the guys (Charlie's) have managed to remain what they deeply are while paying a tribute to an Islam (the?) of peace and tolerance and forgiveness...the amazing neutrality (because that's a desperate attempt to that: neutrality) of the NYT is even more...find your own words.
Je suis Charlie.
3
I am come from a muslim country and a muslim family. Although I do not agree with this cartoon it shouldn't evoke violence from Muslims. We were taught since childhood Mohammad forgave all even those who would throw garbage & stones on him as went around the streets.
I can understand people have different opinions and they may not agree with me but one thing I am sure everyone can agree with, Freedom of speech is NOT negotiable.
For my muslim brothers reading this, remember preaching is considered a muslim duty and we can not preach our religion without using reason to point out flaws in someone else's god.
If you believe God created everything - HE DOES NOT NEED YOU TO PROTECT HIM
I can understand people have different opinions and they may not agree with me but one thing I am sure everyone can agree with, Freedom of speech is NOT negotiable.
For my muslim brothers reading this, remember preaching is considered a muslim duty and we can not preach our religion without using reason to point out flaws in someone else's god.
If you believe God created everything - HE DOES NOT NEED YOU TO PROTECT HIM
29
As a progressive and a lifelong reader, I find the NYTimes decision not to publish the current cover of Charlie Hebdo as disappointing as their stated rationale is appalling. My criticisms are as follows:
1.) inconsistency - the NYTimes routinely publishes images and stories that are offensive - from images of Serrano's Piss Christ (a work I very much enjoy, but many find abhorrent) to pictures of graphic violence. this puts their current decision at odds with prior decisions, and smacks of political correctness
2.) hypocrisy - the NYTimes , as recently as several weeks ago, wrote editorials strongly supportive of first amendment freedoms. Yet when given the opportunity to unequivocally enforce their beliefs, they caved
3.) weakness of rationale - the stated rationale for not publishing the Hebdo cover was that it might "offend" some readers. But they could easily have published a link with a disclaimer to avoid offending sensitive readers. Those who might be offended could choose not to click the link or open the image. And anyone who has actually seen the image will tell you there is nothing remotely offensive about it. It is a poignant, relevant commentary on the insanity of religious radicalism.
4.) precedent - bowing to terrorist threats or the demands of religious fundamentalists in its self censorship sets a dangerous precedent. This undermines their credibility as an organ for free expression.
What a shame and a disgrace.
1.) inconsistency - the NYTimes routinely publishes images and stories that are offensive - from images of Serrano's Piss Christ (a work I very much enjoy, but many find abhorrent) to pictures of graphic violence. this puts their current decision at odds with prior decisions, and smacks of political correctness
2.) hypocrisy - the NYTimes , as recently as several weeks ago, wrote editorials strongly supportive of first amendment freedoms. Yet when given the opportunity to unequivocally enforce their beliefs, they caved
3.) weakness of rationale - the stated rationale for not publishing the Hebdo cover was that it might "offend" some readers. But they could easily have published a link with a disclaimer to avoid offending sensitive readers. Those who might be offended could choose not to click the link or open the image. And anyone who has actually seen the image will tell you there is nothing remotely offensive about it. It is a poignant, relevant commentary on the insanity of religious radicalism.
4.) precedent - bowing to terrorist threats or the demands of religious fundamentalists in its self censorship sets a dangerous precedent. This undermines their credibility as an organ for free expression.
What a shame and a disgrace.
31
I thoroughly agree.
And thanks to people like you, the French know many US citizens are not as, say... prudent as the NYT, the latter being read by many english speaking people in this country.
And thanks to people like you, the French know many US citizens are not as, say... prudent as the NYT, the latter being read by many english speaking people in this country.
On the one hand, a cartoon drawing of Mohammed is an act of defiance demonstrating that threats will not succeed and the satirists will not be intimidated. However, cartoon satire, in and off itself and isolated from the violence in question, is cheap. It is seen on playgrounds throughout the world. It's too easy. People paid with their lives, but was the cause really noble or ignoble? Yes, it is a form of free speech and is defensible; but it's like sticking your tongue out.
9
and what's wrong with sticking you tongue out, especially if it's in the face of intolerance?
If that is so, then the world needs to stick its tongue out at Muslim terrorists. We cannot give in to terrorists in any way because then they have won.
Well put.
1
i applaud the NY Times for not giving into majority pressure and holding true to its values of decency and considerations for others feelings. This isn't about the terrorists, they are dead and cannot be hurt by these actions. it's about religious sensitivity of billions of people, about holding close what is very deep and personal.
10
No, it's completely not about religious sensitivity, but rather it's about giving in to extremists whom are using this not because they're offended, but rather as a vehicle to promote their own agenda, mostly within their own part of the world... Radical Islam is not so much about defeating the West as it is about taking over within the muslim part of the world, no matter how cruel these attacks may have been, they're only a side show for the real fight which is within in Islam and muslim countries themselves. By not publishing these images, you are giving in to these elements and our cowardly acts to suppress free speech because we're "sensitive," will do nothing but portray us as weak and defeated by the likes of of ISIL, propaganda they will then go on to use promoting their agenda in the part of the world that really matters to them, i.e., the Middle East...
1
What about MY sensibilities? religious people jump up and down on them all the time, and I don't shoot them.
1
You aren't applauding decency but cowardice. Great image from the land of the free and home of the brave...
2
At the risk of endorsing anything ever uttered by W, my response to those extremists who declare this cover (one the NYT is too afraid to publish) an "act of war", I say bring it on.
12
Whoa, even a few liberals are willing to defend speech that is politically incorrect!
In a free society freedom of speech must include the 'freedom to offend'. There is no clear line here if one tries to claim exclusion when it come to the case religion.
When an evangelical Christian tells me: "if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior you are going to hell", he/she offends me. Extremely! This has happened to me on more than a few times.
If I, in response, say "you are stupid to believe in something called GOD" or something like that, I get told off for offending the 'sensibilities of religious people'.
Moslems are offended by cartoons, and we need to be decorous about 'feelings'? Oh, please!
Charity begins at home. Let us relegate religion to our homes (and churches) and ban all religions, each and every one of them, from the public sphere.
Or be ready to be offended by free speech.
When an evangelical Christian tells me: "if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior you are going to hell", he/she offends me. Extremely! This has happened to me on more than a few times.
If I, in response, say "you are stupid to believe in something called GOD" or something like that, I get told off for offending the 'sensibilities of religious people'.
Moslems are offended by cartoons, and we need to be decorous about 'feelings'? Oh, please!
Charity begins at home. Let us relegate religion to our homes (and churches) and ban all religions, each and every one of them, from the public sphere.
Or be ready to be offended by free speech.
36
There is no debate on Free Speech. If you don't like the publication don't buy it. Simple as that.
21
I don't understand the logic behind The New York Times decision not to publish the cartoons. In a related article, it is explained that the editorial judgment is based on "free expression versus gratuitous images that at least some viewers find offensive". If that is so, then to be consistent, the NYT should probably not show pictures of women without burkas. Also, it should not show people of the same sex kissing or showing any form of affection from one another.
Should't the editorial judgment also consider the fact that when the majority of viewers agree that something is not offensive, then it is reasonable to print it because it is socially acceptable.
If respecting the taboos of minorities is a core principle, then at least apply the judgment consistently on all types of images and pictures, including nudity, women, and sexuality. Also be fair to all religions of the world, not just a few, and respect their believes of what can be shown. Otherwise, one has to conclude that you are not showing the cartoons out of fear and not because of your editorial judgment based on fair journalistic principles.
Should't the editorial judgment also consider the fact that when the majority of viewers agree that something is not offensive, then it is reasonable to print it because it is socially acceptable.
If respecting the taboos of minorities is a core principle, then at least apply the judgment consistently on all types of images and pictures, including nudity, women, and sexuality. Also be fair to all religions of the world, not just a few, and respect their believes of what can be shown. Otherwise, one has to conclude that you are not showing the cartoons out of fear and not because of your editorial judgment based on fair journalistic principles.
50
The NYT's editorial board's explanation and justification is pure poppycock. Journalism and editorial discretion is not a democracy. Popular agreement among its readership should not factor in the reasons to either print or not print something.
The NYT's online version provides a link to the Charlie Hebdo cover. That's great, but what does that do for the Times' print readership? Does the NYT aspire to be nothing more than a news aggregator?
The Times had the opportunity to not just be a part of the discussion on free speech and the freedom of the press, but to actually take part in its expression. It failed miserably.
The NYT is *not* Charlie.
The NYT's online version provides a link to the Charlie Hebdo cover. That's great, but what does that do for the Times' print readership? Does the NYT aspire to be nothing more than a news aggregator?
The Times had the opportunity to not just be a part of the discussion on free speech and the freedom of the press, but to actually take part in its expression. It failed miserably.
The NYT is *not* Charlie.
17
Spot on!!! Having lived in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia I witnessed first hand the extreme censorship of blacking out all female face/arm/leg images from each copy of various Western publications, also on Record Store Jacket Covers such as Madonna, etc... Was hard to believe such extremism existed until I saw it myself.
It is a rule, we defend what we believe is weak, otherwise there is no reason to defend it. The people who feel that a cartoon can insult and diminish their God, obviously belief their faith is weak.
14
In their comments about this coming front page readers talk about “Bravery” and also about “Hate” “Provocation”, “lack of maturity”, etc. Charlie’s editorial board says that the cover conveys “Love” (Besse), “Kindness”, “cute” (Ségolène Vison). How is such a level of misunderstanding possible?
Take a real look at the new front page: it says “All is forgiven”. For radical laics, this is not religious forgiveness, it is only human forgiveness: you cannot forgive someone you do not respect…
It figures Mohammad, which is forbidden by Islam, but there is no more reason for this prohibition to apply to non-Muslim people then there is for you to observe Shabbat if you are not Jewish!
This picture is not conceived of as an insult to Muslims and it in fact does quite the opposite: it refers to the dozens of Imams who demonstrated this week with signs saying “Not in my name” (ALL representatives of Muslim congregations in France have gathered at the Great Mosque in Paris, condemned the attack and expresses their solidarity) and to all the Muslims who attended the demonstrations with signs “I am Charlie”. It says in a funny way “We know this is not Islam”. And finally it also says: “We are still who we were last week and the years before that, because we think what we do – a political brotherly, if sometimes very biting, laugh is essential to a healthy society, and to kill us is not the way to change this belief”.
Take a real look at the new front page: it says “All is forgiven”. For radical laics, this is not religious forgiveness, it is only human forgiveness: you cannot forgive someone you do not respect…
It figures Mohammad, which is forbidden by Islam, but there is no more reason for this prohibition to apply to non-Muslim people then there is for you to observe Shabbat if you are not Jewish!
This picture is not conceived of as an insult to Muslims and it in fact does quite the opposite: it refers to the dozens of Imams who demonstrated this week with signs saying “Not in my name” (ALL representatives of Muslim congregations in France have gathered at the Great Mosque in Paris, condemned the attack and expresses their solidarity) and to all the Muslims who attended the demonstrations with signs “I am Charlie”. It says in a funny way “We know this is not Islam”. And finally it also says: “We are still who we were last week and the years before that, because we think what we do – a political brotherly, if sometimes very biting, laugh is essential to a healthy society, and to kill us is not the way to change this belief”.
22
Some of these comments seem to accept the notion that Charlie Hebdo and others who lampoon Islam or its prophet are dealing with rational thinkers. Surely they are not. To walk into a newsroom and murder a dozen writers and editors with an AK-47 at pointblank range because they poke fun at a religious figure is lightyears away from being commonsensical and justifiable. It is the most repugnant thing one human being may do to another. These so-called "terrorists" are no more than a handful of murderers, and we should not glorify them with the name of "terrorists" or stop the world because three people undertook such crimes. In baseball, if a fan goes onto the field during a game television purposely does not show him on TV. Why? So as not to encourage that behavior. But we have stopped the entire world in its footsteps because three men killed a dozen writers and a handful of visitors to a kosher deli. Yes, that is all beyond horrendous...but we glorify these killers with our coverage. It's time to stop giving them the notoriety they so urgently demand. And they should not be called "terrorists," but truly what they are: the pathetics, a bunch of low level murderers who deserve not to be so politely "brought to justice," but put in jail.
14
If you don't have the Freedom to express opinions about religion, then you have no Freedom.
25
And I would say you don't really have (so to speak) religion, either, if you don't have the right to actively choose whether to accept or reject it for yourself. If you believe because you have to, how is that real belief?
Why is it so difficult to just condemn the attacks without having to condone religiously offensive images. I dont practice any religion But that does not mean I will go about offending other's beliefs. Terrorists dont belong to any religion even if they affiliate themselves with one. But if we are going to condone the lovely images of the Prophet by Charlie Hebdo, they are not very different from the(ridiculously targeted hate fomenting) speeches given by Indian Politicians as a right to freedom of expression. The sad truth is very few of these great leaders of free speech would have friends who are muslim or would have even read the quran. And it is somehow becoming justified to perpetuate offending revered figures. Islam is not the problem if you've read the quran. I was born into a Hindu family and even I've read the Quran simply out of interest. It is always easier to see from the eyes of the majority than it is from the persecuted minorities in your countries. First engage with the minority before deciding to stigmatize them with your terrible sense of 'targeted and ill founded' humour. We should uphold free speech in any country that brings change, inspires and reforms the world. These targeted cartoons were not that change. lets start with every death at the hands of a terrorist deserves equal world recognition regardless of where they are from, even if they are Nigerian or Pakistani or French. Kudos to free and apparently secular media.
7
To all who believe that which incites extremism should not be published, you should remember the many heretics who died speaking or writing words which offended others. Galileo recanted, but he dared to publish the heresy of science--in the face of death. Jesus and Muhammad were both heretics during their lives. The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo are satirists and provocoateurs. You need not like their work, but you must respect their courage and their effectiveness. They have paid a high price for the discussion of free speech we are having today. We would not be having this discussion without them!
25
At 7am Charlie Hebdo is already sold out in most places around me. The one place where there was still a copy had a line of one hundred people waiting to buy one. Vive la France!
29
Yes, vive le France! Vive le Paris! A country and city I consider my second home.
1
Bravo!! That is great to hear!
1
The irony is, that many of the people commenting here in favor of free speech, are the very people that shout down or support the shouting down of conservative republican politicians when they speak in public. Or wish to have right wing personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck silenced and taken off the air. Tisk, tisk.
16
And just like Charlie Hebdo, mutatis mutandis, Rush and Beck and others' popularity soars stratospherically in response to the Liberals' obloquy.
So you want to remove the free speech rights of liberals by preventing them from voicing their opinions about Rush and Beck?
By the way, there is a big difference between satirists and liars
By the way, there is a big difference between satirists and liars
The NYTimes, as well as most US media, did not hesitate to publish photos of the islamic extremists executing a muslim police officer with his hands up in surrender on his back.
Unfortunately, that photo will do more to inspire future extremists than an "offensive" cartoon. Both the photos of the attacks and decision to not show the current Charlie Hebdo cover convey the power of militant radicals.
Avoiding the tasteful Hebdo cover will not accomplish anything other than alienating journalists and satyrists who believe that the Hebdo cover is reasonable.
I am afraid that some at the Times are lost in a rhetorical house of mirrors, writing articles that emphasize the danger of free speech to justify the position they have taken.
Unfortunately, that photo will do more to inspire future extremists than an "offensive" cartoon. Both the photos of the attacks and decision to not show the current Charlie Hebdo cover convey the power of militant radicals.
Avoiding the tasteful Hebdo cover will not accomplish anything other than alienating journalists and satyrists who believe that the Hebdo cover is reasonable.
I am afraid that some at the Times are lost in a rhetorical house of mirrors, writing articles that emphasize the danger of free speech to justify the position they have taken.
29
Back in 1991, there were riots in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, NY arising from tensions between the Black and Hassidic communities:
"The Crown Heights riot was a three-day race riot that occurred from August 19 to August 21, 1991 in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York.
It pitted black and Orthodox Jewish residents against one another. The riots began on August 19, 1991, after a child of Guyanese immigrants was accidentally struck and killed by an automobile in the motorcade of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of a Jewish religious sect."
A common interpretation is that the riot unleashed simmering tensions of the Crown Heights' black community against the Orthodox Jewish community. In its wake, several Jews were seriously injured; one Orthodox Jewish man was killed; and a non-Jewish man, apparently mistaken by rioters for a Jew, was killed by a group of black men. Two black men were convicted in federal court and sentenced to long prison terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_riot
In February of 1993, Art Spiegelman drew a cover for The New Yorker magazine, depicting an hassidic man in a deep, passionate kiss with a young black woman.
The cover set off a firestorm of protest -- have a look...
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/lizadonnelly/files/2012/05/BC_p18_LO1.jpg
Would this be acceptable satire on the cover of Charlie Hebdo today...??
"The Crown Heights riot was a three-day race riot that occurred from August 19 to August 21, 1991 in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York.
It pitted black and Orthodox Jewish residents against one another. The riots began on August 19, 1991, after a child of Guyanese immigrants was accidentally struck and killed by an automobile in the motorcade of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of a Jewish religious sect."
A common interpretation is that the riot unleashed simmering tensions of the Crown Heights' black community against the Orthodox Jewish community. In its wake, several Jews were seriously injured; one Orthodox Jewish man was killed; and a non-Jewish man, apparently mistaken by rioters for a Jew, was killed by a group of black men. Two black men were convicted in federal court and sentenced to long prison terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_riot
In February of 1993, Art Spiegelman drew a cover for The New Yorker magazine, depicting an hassidic man in a deep, passionate kiss with a young black woman.
The cover set off a firestorm of protest -- have a look...
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/lizadonnelly/files/2012/05/BC_p18_LO1.jpg
Would this be acceptable satire on the cover of Charlie Hebdo today...??
11
Yes, it would. In fact, they've run covers exactly like that.
1
I must say that I'm disappointed that an article in The Times, the paper of record, about a cover of Charlie Hebdo does not include the cover itself. I found the cover online, and it is VERY appropriate and quite moving in showing Mohammed crying and pardoning those who committed the atrocity. In no way does it "mock" religion in general or Islam in particular; in fact, forgiveness is a major aspect of religion and the cartoonist cried as he explained that it contained that religious request. For those who were assaulted, and whose colleagues were massacred to act with such dignity--and yes, true religiosity--is something to be honored and not feared. The Times should have shared in that spirit by publishing the cover and, in doing so, also supporting "free speech" which is so essential to a free and enlightened society.
42
Islam doesn't own my opinion of Mohammad. I will think about him anyway I like... I can trash talk him or worship him, or not even bother believing in him.
23
One dimension of this debate must surely be the relative tameness of American satirical culture, today largely confined to late-night talk-shows and other discreet venues. How could it be otherwise, in a society where "hate speech" is not allowed on university campuses, where provocation is almost universally frowned upon, and where "religious freedom" means that absolute reverence be accorded to religion (but not to secularism), with various manifestations, such as prayers in Congress and statements about the deity written on money, that would simply be illegal in France.
In fact, constitutional protections for satire are actually quite weak in the United States. New York, for example, has even gone so far as to criminalize inappropriately deadpan email mockery, without comment from any free speech organization. See the documentation of America's leading criminal satire case at:
http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
In the absence of a living culture of provocation such as exists in France, our vision of liberty risks becoming increasingly limp; true debate of the raucous variety is on the decline, with "two points of view" always neatly packaged on the News Hours; and one must wonder whether our fear of offending one another will eventually lead to a further decline in what was once a robust intellectual environment.
In fact, constitutional protections for satire are actually quite weak in the United States. New York, for example, has even gone so far as to criminalize inappropriately deadpan email mockery, without comment from any free speech organization. See the documentation of America's leading criminal satire case at:
http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
In the absence of a living culture of provocation such as exists in France, our vision of liberty risks becoming increasingly limp; true debate of the raucous variety is on the decline, with "two points of view" always neatly packaged on the News Hours; and one must wonder whether our fear of offending one another will eventually lead to a further decline in what was once a robust intellectual environment.
20
Excellent analysis, Sancho!
There is nothing intrinsically offensive about the current Charlie Hebdo cover that NYT will not print. It would pass any profanity/obscenity analysis. The only honest explanations at this point are fear, which means that the murderers have succeeded. Or that the lowest common denominator is now the standard. If the latter, why accompany the attempted explanation with a photo of the killers executing a Muslim cop? Which image is the story now?
33
The First Amendment stands as the standard, world wide. Now, some have died for publishing words and drawings that offend.
Here's another view. Those who do not believe are threatened by many that do, and this is a form of assault. The agnostic or the atheist questions or rejects faith, and this belief structure must be allowed - for belief or faith to mean anything. If law requires belief, any belief, what is the point of saying that the given belief represents a faith fundamental to its belief structure.
To reward the faithful, the act of worship, the determination of the faithful, must be voluntary to be meaningful.
Those forced to believe anything will never believe. They will simply comply.
As for the Islamic notion that a picture of anyone is blasphemy, this is itself simply wrong. If the faithful of Islam do not like a picture, I would suggest that the faithful simply not look at it.
These things are a matter of taste, not life and death.
Is not this obvious to the observant? Is Islam so insecure that the believers must force all others? Is this not a form of fascism?
Here's another view. Those who do not believe are threatened by many that do, and this is a form of assault. The agnostic or the atheist questions or rejects faith, and this belief structure must be allowed - for belief or faith to mean anything. If law requires belief, any belief, what is the point of saying that the given belief represents a faith fundamental to its belief structure.
To reward the faithful, the act of worship, the determination of the faithful, must be voluntary to be meaningful.
Those forced to believe anything will never believe. They will simply comply.
As for the Islamic notion that a picture of anyone is blasphemy, this is itself simply wrong. If the faithful of Islam do not like a picture, I would suggest that the faithful simply not look at it.
These things are a matter of taste, not life and death.
Is not this obvious to the observant? Is Islam so insecure that the believers must force all others? Is this not a form of fascism?
10
No, quite frankly, the First Amendment is not the standard worldwide. Not even in the UK.
In case you missed it - included among all the others that expressed solidarity with the victims of this tragedy was - wait for it - the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Think about it. Two of the preeminent political organs of the Muslim world, setting aside outrage and anger over the mocking treatment of their faith, extend a hand of friendship to the French people.
The NY Times, thanks to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has the right to publish insults to you, your religion, or whatever else you hold sacred. To its credit it has resisted pressure to do so as concerns these cartoons (by the way have you taken the effort to actually look at them? This is not Calvin & Hobbes). There is an important difference between possessing a right, and responsibly exercising the same.
Charlie Hebdo staff, editors and writers - we share your grief, we admire your resolve, your principles and your determination. But how do you honor your slain colleagues by perpetuating insults against tens of millions of people who have no connection to the crime?
The NY Times, thanks to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has the right to publish insults to you, your religion, or whatever else you hold sacred. To its credit it has resisted pressure to do so as concerns these cartoons (by the way have you taken the effort to actually look at them? This is not Calvin & Hobbes). There is an important difference between possessing a right, and responsibly exercising the same.
Charlie Hebdo staff, editors and writers - we share your grief, we admire your resolve, your principles and your determination. But how do you honor your slain colleagues by perpetuating insults against tens of millions of people who have no connection to the crime?
9
In what way are the editors of Charlie Hebdo "perpetuating insults"? There's nothing insulting about the new image on the cover. If anything, it credits muslims -- even the prophet! -- with sharing the same grief as the rest of us over the outrageous attack in Paris. Which is the point, isn't it?
Question: Is this really an insult against their religion, as showing images of Muhammad occurs in Islam, are in older copies of the Quran and there is no ban in either the Quran or Hadith, or is this Islamic supremacists imposing their ideology on people who hold democratic values?
Insults? Have you seen the drawing? Its not offensive in any way.
The line between tasteful satire and ridicule of religion is called blasphemy. The Times should print the news, including the Charlie cover, and let religious clerics be the judges of blasphemy.
13
Free speech, means exactly that. The Black Panthers have a right to speak, as does the KKK. Bible thumping Holy rollers have a right to speak, as do atheists . Speech is ones opinion. Sometimes an opinion hurts, sometimes it is agreeable. Once we start telling each other what is okay, and not okay to say or think, all is lost.
20
Refusing to publish Charlie's Hebdo Drawing is just letting obscurantists succeed in shaking the liberal world fundamental ideals such as freedom of speech and tolerance. The cartoon from the latest cover is defiant not offensive.
Many muslim values are shocking to liberal democratic world, starting with the way women have to dress but it is tolerated in the name of freedom. Why can we just not expect muslims to do just the same and tolerate liberal democratic values such as satyre?
Many muslim values are shocking to liberal democratic world, starting with the way women have to dress but it is tolerated in the name of freedom. Why can we just not expect muslims to do just the same and tolerate liberal democratic values such as satyre?
12
I think if Charlie Hebdo drew cartoon on 'no go' topics of every religion it would have been great, Just targeting Islam makes it look like a revenge. I have seen the image of the cover and it is done tastefully but they should have gone to insult every religion in this issue like having all the major gods having a orgy.
2
The new cover struck me as a very tasteful and sensitive comment on what happened last week. And I just want to add that not all Muslim denominations, if they can be called that, regard their prophet's depiction as taboo.
7
zullym, you are correct about Muslims depicting images of Muhammad. First, there is no probation of images in the Quran. The Hadith only mentions pictures of animals and people. There are pictures of Muhammad in older copies of the Quran. Today Persian Muslims to have pictures of Muhammad and Ali in their houses.
Showing an image of Mohammed is the same as depicting Jesus in a compromising or foul position. It is needlessly offensive and seeks to create attention by offending others to no end. What France truly needed was an image of coming together, of healing and unity. It is an ironic image, one where the Prophet or the paper is forgiving, while creating a taboo cartoon of that which is supposed to remain image-less, inciting frustration and disconnect from the very ones who need to be brought into the fold.
5
Imagine what the Muslims' reaction would have been to productions such as Jesus Christ Superstar, or Priest, or The Last Temptation of Christ, or a dozen others, if they were depictions of Mohammed.
"Showing an image of Mohammed is the same as depicting Jesus in a compromising or foul position. It is needlessly offensive and seeks to create attention by offending others to no end." I doubt you would be stating this if there were an attack in Seattle. What makes it so easy for West Coasters far removed from reality to make these statements?
So I just skipped over to another news website to view the Charlie Hebdo cover...I was ready for something so truly offensive that the ny times was not comfortable printing it, but instead was shocked to see a simple, goofy cartoon.
There are countless religious beliefs that civil society does not accept- being seriously offended by a cartoon should be one of them. Please put the cartoon on your website- it is too important to censor.
There are countless religious beliefs that civil society does not accept- being seriously offended by a cartoon should be one of them. Please put the cartoon on your website- it is too important to censor.
29
Charlie Hebdo should sell millions of copies of this edition and donate the proceeds to the families of all of those slain in the senseless acts of violence perpetrated by the misguided souls who confuse freedom of the press with hatred of their religion.
9
I am deeply disappointed in the NY Times's decision to not publish the latest Charlie Hebdo cover cartoon. The idea that a drawing on a piece of paper is insulting a religion points to a medieval mind set. As does the Orthodox newspaper in Israel that deleted women leaders from the photos of the solidarity march in Paris.
The NY Times lives in the modern world as do most of its readers.
You didn't hesitate to run the videotape of the policeman being shot to death on the pavement. Surely that is more offensive on anybody's -- other than a terrorist's -- scale than a cartoon.
What ever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names -- or cartoons! -- will never hurt me."
It's time for fundamentalists of all stripes to grow up and enter the modern world.
I still can't believe the NY Times has sided with the medieval mind set.
The NY Times lives in the modern world as do most of its readers.
You didn't hesitate to run the videotape of the policeman being shot to death on the pavement. Surely that is more offensive on anybody's -- other than a terrorist's -- scale than a cartoon.
What ever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names -- or cartoons! -- will never hurt me."
It's time for fundamentalists of all stripes to grow up and enter the modern world.
I still can't believe the NY Times has sided with the medieval mind set.
36
Europe has been wishy-washy about free speech. "Hate speech," censoring Google, etc. Now I see the advantage of our approach -- everything is out there, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so no one can complain about inconsistency. The first amendment was prescient.
6
"Our approach" hasn't included showing the cartoon though, has it?
Of course, the NYT, that pillar of liberalism, does not want you to see the cover of Charlie Hebdo. That's what the First Amendment means to them.
The magazine is doing nothing more different than it ever has, before this tragedy. Without free speech what are we? If you are offended, don't buy or look at the magazine.
Furthermore, I beg to ask what could be more offensive than murdering another human being?
Furthermore, I beg to ask what could be more offensive than murdering another human being?
37
I am just finishing reading "Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence," by Karen Armstrong. Turning from that book to the discussion of militant Islam in the media and in these comments in particular feels like stepping out of a flying saucer onto a foreign planet.
I find reading adamant statements about the nature and history of Islam by individuals who have seized on one or two possibly accurate, more likely not, factoids rather disconcerting.
It is obvious that a lot of people want to understand what the heck is going on, but hardly anybody seems to know what they are talking about.
My recommendation is to find scholarly books like the one I mentioned, or documentaries on cultural history on YouTube, and use them to piece together for yourself a nuanced understanding of where the relationship between the West and Islam has been, is, and could be if we could talk about these things in a more empathetic and less inflammatory manner.
I am particularly struck by how many words are devoted to telling other people how to feel about this or that as opposed to asking them how they feel and listening to their answer. I personally take no pleasure in insulting people. I just don't see the point in it.
Also, I am an American. I have spent many years confronting my own white privilege and racism and reading about and listening to speakers talking about African-American history, race, and racism. I take no pleasure in racist images or remarks.
I find reading adamant statements about the nature and history of Islam by individuals who have seized on one or two possibly accurate, more likely not, factoids rather disconcerting.
It is obvious that a lot of people want to understand what the heck is going on, but hardly anybody seems to know what they are talking about.
My recommendation is to find scholarly books like the one I mentioned, or documentaries on cultural history on YouTube, and use them to piece together for yourself a nuanced understanding of where the relationship between the West and Islam has been, is, and could be if we could talk about these things in a more empathetic and less inflammatory manner.
I am particularly struck by how many words are devoted to telling other people how to feel about this or that as opposed to asking them how they feel and listening to their answer. I personally take no pleasure in insulting people. I just don't see the point in it.
Also, I am an American. I have spent many years confronting my own white privilege and racism and reading about and listening to speakers talking about African-American history, race, and racism. I take no pleasure in racist images or remarks.
11
Another liberal, politically correct defender of murder, so long as it is done by someone who is not one of the white oppressors.
1
Armstrong's works are excellent and she makes you aware of how bad a job historians do of explaining history, they are all so trapped in their cultural biases.
I have very mixed feelings about ethic/religious humor and comedy. By its very nature what you see as funny is someone else's tragedy, however it is a part of human nature, has been around before civilization and will probably be around after.
However once a wound is inflicted its not a good idea to throw salt in the wound.
I have very mixed feelings about ethic/religious humor and comedy. By its very nature what you see as funny is someone else's tragedy, however it is a part of human nature, has been around before civilization and will probably be around after.
However once a wound is inflicted its not a good idea to throw salt in the wound.
I take no pleasure in your implied insult of the people who comment here of their alleged ignorance from not having read a book you seem to think is so great.
I just don't see the point of your comment.
I just don't see the point of your comment.
The people who commit the acts of terror, and the ones who plan and preach terror, will do so no matter what a little newspaper prints -- or doesn't print. If it wasn't Charlie Hebdo then it would eventually be something else. Their singular goal is the elimination of everyone and everything that doesn't correspond to their idea as to how to live. Hitler had the same idea.
18
exactly, Hebdo was just a good excuse.
As horrendous as the recent terrorist attacks in Paris were, there really does seem to be a double standard here: it is OK to draw cartoons of the Prophet with impunity, in full knowledge that doing so deeply offends Muslims; but it is almost certainly illegal to draw an unflattering cartoon of a Jew. Can anyone imagine the vicious, anti-Semitic cartoons published in Der Sturmer back in the 1930's being published by any newspaper in Europe today?
15
Let's set aside the fact that Charlie Hebdo has indeed published cartoons offensive to both Jews and Christians. Considering the Der Sturmer cartoons published daily across the Middle East without a word of protest from the west, I can only say that you've succeeded in both constructing a straw man argument and then demolishing it in a single post.
In case you need this painted in sharper relief, the Onion does so wonderfully: http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,2...
In case you need this painted in sharper relief, the Onion does so wonderfully: http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,2...
@hardylee
It is certainly not illegal.
Charlie Hebdo has drawn unflattering cartoon depictions of Jews many times.
It is certainly not illegal.
Charlie Hebdo has drawn unflattering cartoon depictions of Jews many times.
1
No, they're published in the Arab and Muslim world now.
Where in the cartoon is the figure identified as Mohammed? In the placard he is holding, the figure identifies himself as Charlie.
Surely any blasphemy, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Surely any blasphemy, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder.
8
He doesn't need "identification," just as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny does not. What you see is Charlie Hebdo's stock figure for Mohammed, he never changes.
I can understand NYT not showing the previous Mohammed cartoons as they were offending to Islam (Mohammed shown as kissing people and all that). However, this one on the cover, if anything, is respectful to him and shows his sensitive side. People who reject this need to open their eyes or just simply ignore it.
11
Freedom of speech, Charlie Hebdo can depict Muhammad.
Free market, those who don't like Charlie Hebdo and those who are offended won't buy it.
Period.
Free market, those who don't like Charlie Hebdo and those who are offended won't buy it.
Period.
8
It is 10:00 pm on Tuesday evening...and it is clear that the Times is getting absolutely excoriated by the readers who have posted here.
In a way, it almost doesn't matter any longer. The Times has shown itself -- revealed itself-- in a way that almost seals it's fate as a once great but now failing enterprise.
In a slew of articles, it has described the cartoon, it has posted links to the cartoon, it has done everything but the single most important thing...and that is to print the cartoon.
The implications of this failure are grim for the free world of serious journalism.
That is what is so sad about all of this.
In a way, it almost doesn't matter any longer. The Times has shown itself -- revealed itself-- in a way that almost seals it's fate as a once great but now failing enterprise.
In a slew of articles, it has described the cartoon, it has posted links to the cartoon, it has done everything but the single most important thing...and that is to print the cartoon.
The implications of this failure are grim for the free world of serious journalism.
That is what is so sad about all of this.
41
You do, of course, have a copy of the new cover page displayed publicly in the window of your home to show solidarity with Charlie. I applaud you for your courage.
1
The NY Times is not a satirical newspaper, so why should it publish a cartoon that may be particularly offensive to a large group of people?
I do not have a "religion". I have speculations about my current existence.
I would never harm nor kill as a way to validate my speculations. Humans who need a fixed religion kill or harm others who believe differently. All current religions eagerly desire to placate or please a supreme being to stay in his or her favor. I find that absolutely insane.
I would never harm nor kill as a way to validate my speculations. Humans who need a fixed religion kill or harm others who believe differently. All current religions eagerly desire to placate or please a supreme being to stay in his or her favor. I find that absolutely insane.
3
As a Muslim, making a row over this issue just accentuates the lack of education that has evolved over the last 1100 years in that part of the world. Being unlearned is part of the culture it seems, and denying the benefits of cultural integration is worn as a badge of honor, which is befuddling. However, in some European countries if you make an opinion questioning the validity of the Holocaust with respect to exactly how man Jewish people were killed simply for the sake of discussion, you can go to jail. Yes that is hypocrisy you smell.
10
The people who will are insulted over Mohammedan references of any kind feel that they must commit violent acts of retribution are the same ones who will be happy to impose strict Mohammedan laws upon everyone else should they manage to control the government. All any of us must do is visit any country where the moslems or Mohammedans control the government. There are varying degrees of their imposition of their beliefs wherever they have control and wherever they have even a large minority concentrated in an area, they impose as much as possible upon everyone else. We need to stand up to them now.
14
There is a principle that states that if one doesn't like the results one is getting then he should change his behavior. Inanity has been defined as continuing the behavior that provokes undesired results.
CharlieHebdo published cartoons that insulted some Moslems to the point that they sent warnings, death threats, then firebombed the paper. Finally the French government demanded that the paper cease this practice (which they didn't enforce). The editor said that he preferred death to stopping producing these provocative cartoons. So.....
We can protest endlessly for freedom of speech and personally I'm for it. And I loved the cartoons that I saw. But practically speaking, when one is warned over and over that his behavior is provoking death threats, I think it was beyond foolish to continue the practice. Not only did the journalists lose their lives. Others went down with them--the guard, the cop and the unfortunate Jews in the Kosher deli. It bothers me that people are calling the editors of CharlieHebdo heroic when their acts resulted in their own deaths and those of innocents who happened to be on the scene.
Now there is another picture of Mohammed on another CharliesHebdo cover. It's a lovely sentiment but they don't seem to get it.....these people do not want to see a picture of Mohanned on the cover of your paper!
If you want to get the same results you've had in the past, keep on with your same behavior. Insanity!
CharlieHebdo published cartoons that insulted some Moslems to the point that they sent warnings, death threats, then firebombed the paper. Finally the French government demanded that the paper cease this practice (which they didn't enforce). The editor said that he preferred death to stopping producing these provocative cartoons. So.....
We can protest endlessly for freedom of speech and personally I'm for it. And I loved the cartoons that I saw. But practically speaking, when one is warned over and over that his behavior is provoking death threats, I think it was beyond foolish to continue the practice. Not only did the journalists lose their lives. Others went down with them--the guard, the cop and the unfortunate Jews in the Kosher deli. It bothers me that people are calling the editors of CharlieHebdo heroic when their acts resulted in their own deaths and those of innocents who happened to be on the scene.
Now there is another picture of Mohammed on another CharliesHebdo cover. It's a lovely sentiment but they don't seem to get it.....these people do not want to see a picture of Mohanned on the cover of your paper!
If you want to get the same results you've had in the past, keep on with your same behavior. Insanity!
10
Looked at the other way around, it's necessary to keep up the cartoons to EXORCISE the insanity from the radical Muslims and their murderous "blasphemy laws" by sheer repetition. Sooner or later they'll have to adapt, because the global cartooning will never stop, and neither will their archenemy, Modernity.
Let's say someone who is against big business threatens your life if you shop at any store that employs more than ten people. Of course, that basically means you have to do all your shopping at little local shops. The mall and all on-line shopping is now prohibited by this threat to you. Do you acquiesce and stop going to Wal-Mart, Macy's, Regal Shoes, or ordering anything online?
The Global Village of ours is under threat not only from World wide known extremists and terrorists ! Lately , some media outlets have allowed or being used by an increasing number of bigots , racists and intolerant extremists to say and express their hatred which challenges some extremists and terrorists on the other side of spectrum .
2
This persistent Islamic related violent acts all around the world, is causing most non Muslims to be weary of 'the veil'! Why does any one have to force their religion on someone else- because of being totally insecure about their religion. The worlds travelers deal with endless security lines etc due to the action of jihadi muslims. I saw the cartoons that caused that sickening violent act in France, huh - whats the big deal !! calm down guys !!!! A lot of people are reexamining the role that religion plays in our lives - it is a private matter - NO ONE CARES !!
4
Didn't the Times publish a photo a few years ago of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung? Pardon me, but your hypocrisy is showing
34
Everyone should feel concerned for, I quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Benjamin Franklin (17 January 1706 – 17 April 1790)
would it be false today?
would it be false today?
17
The French have the essential Liberty. The one thing they were ask to exercise wisdom on -- not to offend another culture -- does not take away their essential liberty, for the simple reason that free speech is not absolute. It cannot be absolute. It never was absolute. So let's not romanticize and mythologize the reality of free speech. Moreover, demanding free speech from terrorists who want to kill us, for our way of life no less, is like demanding that they stop killing us!! Can we ever ask fire not to burn?
All three of the Abrahamic religions, indeed most religions, and their adherents, take themselves awfully seriously. Instead of affected piety and insecurity, they might consider less attachment and more perspective, certainly more of a sense of play and humor.
6
I wish the press would stop citing anjem choudary. He is a relentless proponent of terror.
10
I don't like the "all is forgiven." Why should all be forgiven? I take it doesn't mean striking back as necessary. Also sounds too Christian for me, being nonreligious.
2
The cartoon is offensive only in that it is a depiction of Mohammed. The message conveyed by the cartoon could not be more conciliatory toward moderate Muslims, and could not be a greater plea for peace, than it is.
I admire the staff of Charlie Hebdo for using it, and I shake my head at the NYTime's refusal to publish an image that is key to this story.
I admire the staff of Charlie Hebdo for using it, and I shake my head at the NYTime's refusal to publish an image that is key to this story.
29
I certainly understand the rationale and the feelings of defiance behind this provocative, righteous indignation, but it seems an empty gesture in the end. I worry that that the demonstration of solidarity did something for France and the West, but had just the opposite response in the Muslim community. I wonder if it further separated the West from the Middle-East, continued an "us v. them" struggle that ensnares the radicals behind such attacks, but unfortunately the rest of Islam, too?
6
This is a freedom of speech issue and that right is inviolable. It is what fundamentally separates a tyranny or theocracy from a liberal state.
No further discussion necessary. Love it or leave it. Do not tamper.
No further discussion necessary. Love it or leave it. Do not tamper.
6
When I read something that really makes me angry, there is a little red button at the top of the page and when I click it, the page disappears.
5
Yes, I understand that some cartoons offended some Muslims. But murder is offensive to Christians and Jews and should also be to Muslims. If Muslims want westerners to be sensitive to their values, they should be sensitive to ours. Stop killing people, and I think the "offensive" cartoons will stop.
17
If publishing a cartoon is exasperating and exacerbating tensions! What should the murder of innocent civilians do?
Keep everybody quiet! We shouldn't allow these psychopaths dictate how we should think.Be civilized or be a beast. There is only one choice, you make it !
Keep everybody quiet! We shouldn't allow these psychopaths dictate how we should think.Be civilized or be a beast. There is only one choice, you make it !
11
Offended Muslims need to get over themselves, just like Catholics and Baptists and Mormons and any religious group that takes offense to something in the press. If I don't like a comedian or a magazine article or an author or something offends me, I stop reading it or watching or supporting it.
19
It's a beautiful cover. It's neither satirical nor a gratuitous image of Mohammad. A brave, gracious invitation to jointly rise above hostility. It could not be improved upon! Bravo! Bravo!
34
The Vatican was deeply displeased with some of Charlie Hebdo's covers which lampooned The Church, but they didn't order assassins to settle their grievances. Of course, centuries ago, they might have, and that's the thing: it's not the Middle Ages anymore. The Enlightenment saved Europe, thank goodness. And Europe and the people who choose to live there must never betray or repudiate its ideals.
28
No, centuries ago the Vatican would not have ordered anyone killed, since the commandment says, "Thou shall not kill," and Jesus said to turn the other cheek, etc. Dream on.
Boko Haram send 10 years old girls to explode themselves in marketplaces. Likewise Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and others use disturbed youth to kill innocent people and themselves in the process, solely for maximum propaganda effect. We spend a lot of time arguing about the motivations of the perpetrators, but they actually don't matter at all. What matters is the 'head of the snake', with its money, logistics, brain-washing techniques, etc. That is where the fight should concentrate - a fight to the death, without any restraint. It is a shame for us that, despite the means that we have, Boko Haram, Islamic State, etc. still exist. The West (with Russia's help) has defeated Hitler's armies and is helpless in front of these zombies?
15
Since Sen. Frank Church, and the Democrats in the 1970s wrote new laws prohibiting the CIA from using assassination as a tool, an entire generation of mass murderers has matured, with no worries about assassination, unless it's by Israel, or Russia.
I would have everyone in the world keep their mouths shut concerning their religious beliefs. No one cares what you believe. Just keep quiet, and that includes any sort of public showing of your religion. No one has a right to do anything to anyone because they feel their religious beliefs have somehow been disrespected. Believe what you like, only keep you beliefs to yourself.
17
Leaving aside the questions of artistic merit of their cartoons, Charlie Hebdo is performing an invaluable service to the cause of humanity. It is challenging the supremacist mindset of Islamists that their religion is better than other religions, and that it is uniquely exempt from criticism--a viewpoint that the vast majority of Muslims unfortunately share. The only hope we have of changing this viewpoint of aggressive sanctimony is to puncture this belief system at every opportunity we get. A high price would have to be paid, as surely Charlie Hebdo did, considering how deeply entrenched this belief of nobody-messes-with -us-and-lives-to-tell-the-story is among a wide swathe of Muslims. The journalistic fraternity, along with readers, should unite and undertake this task as a mission, incessantly and without fear. That is the only way Muslims would be ultimately forced to accept that their religion is as special as any other religion, and therefore not immune from lampoon and satire.
26
Great post.
it is the perfect cover. no matter your personal point of view.
if you are of the human race, you are charlie.
if you are of the human race, you are charlie.
17
No, not at all. I am of the human race, but I am not Charlie. I would not engage in provocation, cultural insensitivity and racism - ever.
1
Waiting for Charlie Hebdo cartoons to become obligatory wall decor in the apartments of the trust fund kids whose traumatizing housing hunts the New York Times loves to detail each week. Then perhaps we will begin to actually see some of them.
11
The difference between these religious Muslims and Western civilization is unresolvable. The Muslim world, or parts of it, think(s) concretely in the meaning of their symbols. Ideas as mental contents, not acts, are not discerned to be different. Thought and action are equated, and they find the mental content of some other humans not equivalent to theirs in some way as lethally threatening. This is psychosis. They are unable to discern the difference between their fears as real things, as opposed to ideas valued differently by other humans, whose implications are harmless in a society that protects symbolized thought. To protect for political reasons thought which is fundamentally psychotic is obviously wrong.
9
This isn't about religion or for that matter totally about freedom of the press, this is about the very essence of democracy, the rule of law. The French government did not suppress free speech nor the press when Charlie Hebdo's workers were massacred. It was thugs and terrorists that oppose the democracy that France stands for and its founding principle the rule of law. Democracy's contract among the people is the rule of law. In France, as in all other democracies you can say or print what you want and people have the right to object, boycott, sue, protest, send written and economic descent but slaughter of people is a total and complete break of the democratic contract and a erosion of democracy. If murder and terrorism is tolerated or feared in a democracy then they have won. Charlie Hebdo is right and understands that democracy is at stake now and they deserve unwavering support.
21
Yes, violence is intolerable and unjustifiable. On a different note: if it is culturally normative for devout French Muslims, not to represent their Prophet in pictorial form, never mind in stereotyped,insulting and derogatory fashions, why would anyone want to hurt their feelings or offend them ? How is that in any remote fashion helping anything or anyone ? The majority Muslim response to these caricatures is quiet sorrow and anxiety, painful discomfiture, a deepening fearful sense of alienation is that not the case ? And they repeatedly have to come out and condemn the violence of the angry criminal fringe because of the scrutiny they get. Sure it is a question of liberty or freedom of expression which is guaranteed, but it is also one of compassion and respect towards those good people who deserve it. Wisdom is needed.
3
Jews and protestants don't believe in the portrayal of iconic religious figures either. Orthodox Jews believe that spelling out "God" is taking his name in vain, and so write "G-d." I don't see those with other beliefs refraining from portraying those religious figures, or writing "God." And I don't see Jews and Catholics complaining, never mind murdering artists.
Muslims have every right to respect the dicta of their own religion, but no right whatsoever to insist that non-Muslims do so. And, really, they are getting way too upset about this. I mean, lots of people drink and eat pork as well. I don't see them getting upset over that. And the magazine has been at least as hard on Catholicism as it has on Islam; one cartoon shows the father, son, and holy ghost having anal intercourse. No riots, no threats, no murders resulted.
Muslims have every right to respect the dicta of their own religion, but no right whatsoever to insist that non-Muslims do so. And, really, they are getting way too upset about this. I mean, lots of people drink and eat pork as well. I don't see them getting upset over that. And the magazine has been at least as hard on Catholicism as it has on Islam; one cartoon shows the father, son, and holy ghost having anal intercourse. No riots, no threats, no murders resulted.
18
In some states hate speech is banned. France and perhaps all of Europe should learn cultural sensitivity. Free speech while protected isn't right especially if it debases another people and culture. Wake up France and and learn civil discourse. Would we in the U.S. march to protect the right of hate groups such as white supremacists for their 1st amendment privilege or would we simply shake our heads and acknowledge the tragedy of a hate group being targeted by the group they sought to oppress?
3
The Supreme Court ruled that Nazis had the right to march in Skoki, Illinois. You don't get much hate groupier than that. And the ACLU argued in the Nazis' defense.
Freedom of speech is meaningless if one accords it only to those with whom one agrees.
That's not to say I advocate hate speech; I oppose only its censorship by the government. But the Hebdo cartoons I've seen weren't hate speech, or anything like. They mocked organized religion, yes -- Jewish, Catholic, Muslim. They mocked terrorists and homophobia. But they didn't attack ethnic, racial, or religious groups, as hate speech does. Indeed, I understand that an employee was dismissed for writing columns that were considered anti-Semitic.
Freedom of speech is meaningless if one accords it only to those with whom one agrees.
That's not to say I advocate hate speech; I oppose only its censorship by the government. But the Hebdo cartoons I've seen weren't hate speech, or anything like. They mocked organized religion, yes -- Jewish, Catholic, Muslim. They mocked terrorists and homophobia. But they didn't attack ethnic, racial, or religious groups, as hate speech does. Indeed, I understand that an employee was dismissed for writing columns that were considered anti-Semitic.
6
In the USA even Nazis have the right to March. Everybody does. Remember Skokie 1980? Nobody killed them - merely overwhelming them with vcounter marches. Repeat - no killing - no violence!
3
Ever heard of Skokie, Illinois and the neo-Nazi march in the 1970s?
1
There's an egregious misunderstanding here of what a "right" is. A right to free speech is a right to publish (or say) something free from government censorship or interference. At no point has the French government blocked the publication of the magazine. So, I'm a little confused here about what "rights" the magazine is standing up for by publishing yet another provocative drawing. What they are doing now seems very arbitrary and pointless. Sometimes some self censorship is wise.
9
How about the write to publish what they want without being gunned down by religious fanatics?
It isn't only governments that can restrain free speech. What right do radical Muslims have to impose their religious beliefs on us? To suppress through fear our hard-won freedom of expression?
It isn't only governments that can restrain free speech. What right do radical Muslims have to impose their religious beliefs on us? To suppress through fear our hard-won freedom of expression?
13
Many ardent supporters of free speech (myself included) on a daily basis choose to tailor our words, our publications, or other forms of communication with our fellow humans not out of fear, but out of kindness, respect and just plain common sense. Personally, I choose not to insult other religions. That's my choice. I don't do it out of fear.
1
Every free person on the planet should wear T shirts emblazoned with these cartoons. They should be on flags flying from front stoops and car windows. They should be on billboards, they should be on the desktops of countless computers, they should be displayed in shop windows, on homepages and in every single newspaper in the West.
We don't do heresy in the West anymore, haven't for hundreds of years. We have spent countless lives in countless generations fighting for the right to think and say what we want, and we're not going back to 600 A.D.
If the Muslims that reside in the West cannot tolerate our culture of free speech, then they need to get out, voluntarily or otherwise, and go to a country where they will be more comfortable. There can be no further coddling of people who immigrate to the West while at the same time condemning all that the West stands for.
To all Muslims who wish to reside in the West: conform to Western culture or leave, or eventually you will be forced out.
We don't do heresy in the West anymore, haven't for hundreds of years. We have spent countless lives in countless generations fighting for the right to think and say what we want, and we're not going back to 600 A.D.
If the Muslims that reside in the West cannot tolerate our culture of free speech, then they need to get out, voluntarily or otherwise, and go to a country where they will be more comfortable. There can be no further coddling of people who immigrate to the West while at the same time condemning all that the West stands for.
To all Muslims who wish to reside in the West: conform to Western culture or leave, or eventually you will be forced out.
20
I would like to see, across all social media, an agreed-upon day and time when tens of millions across the globe would simultaneously post the Charlie cartoons.
14
But do I have this right? It's a blessed thing to post a video of the beheading of a journalist, but under no circumstances post a cartoon of the prophet forgiving everyone. Do I have that right? That's right. Isn't it?
2
Posting video and/or photos of the beheadings or the murder of the policeman on the sidewalk in Paris = sickening, despicable and EXACTLY what the terrorists expected. FREE PUBLICITY.
Not showing the post-massacre Charlie Hebdo cover = CAPITULATION.
0 for 2 = NYT
Not showing the post-massacre Charlie Hebdo cover = CAPITULATION.
0 for 2 = NYT
1
Is this a war? A war of ideas? Is taste an idea?
Lets show me an example maybe of bad taste -- and I am German -- as some sort of though experiment:
Konzentration camps aka the undustrial killing of Jews in Germany was a crime, the crime of genocide, maybe there were other cases as well, maybe not in Algeria, but this was colonialism. On the other hand in Armenia and in South Africa it was probably not yet a crime because such a law did not yet exist.
Is antiseminism a crime? Or is it justr bad taste? It is at least pretty legal to hate Jews and not to say so. Ot take Arabs, people can be racists and hate whoever they want.
Does it matter that racism is not allways or never a crime? If it is not a crime we have the famous freedom of expression. Does this freedom really matter in this case?
Maybe if you cannot act legaly in another way you cannot be tastefull as well. And taste is more important. The Wapo was so courageous to publish the green Luz-drawing. As if it would need courage to make a drawing on tha Charly topic aka the "victim". But I like the fact that in general US papers are tastefull. Maybe because religion does still mean something in the US.
Lets show me an example maybe of bad taste -- and I am German -- as some sort of though experiment:
Konzentration camps aka the undustrial killing of Jews in Germany was a crime, the crime of genocide, maybe there were other cases as well, maybe not in Algeria, but this was colonialism. On the other hand in Armenia and in South Africa it was probably not yet a crime because such a law did not yet exist.
Is antiseminism a crime? Or is it justr bad taste? It is at least pretty legal to hate Jews and not to say so. Ot take Arabs, people can be racists and hate whoever they want.
Does it matter that racism is not allways or never a crime? If it is not a crime we have the famous freedom of expression. Does this freedom really matter in this case?
Maybe if you cannot act legaly in another way you cannot be tastefull as well. And taste is more important. The Wapo was so courageous to publish the green Luz-drawing. As if it would need courage to make a drawing on tha Charly topic aka the "victim". But I like the fact that in general US papers are tastefull. Maybe because religion does still mean something in the US.
1
I have been a regular reader of the New York Times for more than 50 years and I have never been as concerned about its hypocrisy and cowardice. For the second time, the Times is simply absent when it comes to defending freedom of the press. While it is utterly unashamed to publish art offensive to Christians and Jews (recall, Mary covered in elephant dung and a crucifix suspended in urine), it cowers before terrorists by failing to publish highly newsworthy images that gave rise to the attempted suppression of a magazine. Consistent with its failure to publish the cartoons published in the Danish press that lampooned Mohammed and gave rise to arson and murder, the Times so-called editorial stance is indefensible.
46
Gunnar Forsgren wrote, in part : "…. those who create a dangerous environment for their fellow citizens by provoking religious groups […] provoke riots and terror as opposed to respect and co-existence."
I understand how someone might think that, but unfortunately Islamic Fundamentalists have, as we've seen, zero interest in 'respect and co-existence', only their precious Caliphate, so attacks and mayhem are a given with them -- that's just what they do. Also, how, exactly, did the office workers and commuters in New York, Madrid and London 'provoke' their attackers?
No, all that the deliberately irreverent and unblinking exposers of hypocrisy and mind-control at C.H. did, and thankfully continue to do, was to make it that much easier for those two (?) despicable cowards and their Yemeni puppet-masters to select a target. Which, to my mind makes those undaunted and twinkly-eyed truth-tellers at once heroes and martyrs. And I'm happy to see that most people around the world agree.
JSC
I understand how someone might think that, but unfortunately Islamic Fundamentalists have, as we've seen, zero interest in 'respect and co-existence', only their precious Caliphate, so attacks and mayhem are a given with them -- that's just what they do. Also, how, exactly, did the office workers and commuters in New York, Madrid and London 'provoke' their attackers?
No, all that the deliberately irreverent and unblinking exposers of hypocrisy and mind-control at C.H. did, and thankfully continue to do, was to make it that much easier for those two (?) despicable cowards and their Yemeni puppet-masters to select a target. Which, to my mind makes those undaunted and twinkly-eyed truth-tellers at once heroes and martyrs. And I'm happy to see that most people around the world agree.
JSC
7
I would love to read comments from Muslim. Even if i believe that the cartoon should be published by the NY Times, may be the concerned people have a peaceful different opinion.
2
This is news. It should be printed by every newspaper in the free world in their coverage of the story on Charlie Hebdo and the terrorist violence in France.
7
Where was the outrage over the sacking of veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark? Where was the uproar and defence of 'freedom of speech'. Selective outrage dependent on the audience is morally inexcusable.
10
Sacking is not murder, and anti-Semitism and other forms of hate speech are not the same as drawing a picture of Mohammed or mocking the pope or drawing silly pictures of rabbis. If a cartoonist had been fired for drawing a picture of Mohammed, it would not be news.
7
Hey fired him. That is allowed. Killing him would not be. See the difference?
1
I don't know details, but I have no doubt that Mr. Sinet had the opportunity of challenging his employer in court, given the strong labor laws in France and the modicum French lawyer fees.
And Mr. Sinet was not murdered for exercising his freedom of speech.
And Mr. Sinet was not murdered for exercising his freedom of speech.
2
If the French are serious about tackling their terrorism problem, they need go no further than the motto of their revolution which inspired the world: "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". Freedom for all, Equality for all, including economic and religious rights with hopefully some Brotherhood (Fraternite) ensuing.
Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie. Je Suis Anti-Raciste.
Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie. Je Suis Anti-Raciste.
5
Obviously, you never read Charlie Hebdo. charlie Hebdo was well known to be against any form of extremist religion. They made fun of ALL religions equally.
No one can argue that free speech is a principal tenet to a healthy democracy. What needs to be noted is that hate speech ought to be be discernible from hate speech. Especially when its expressions target the rights of minorities by the majority.
In its essence, free speech, such as human rights and other freedoms, is controversial in large parts because it is an equalizer often used by the governed against the government, the ruled against their rulers to express their disenchantment with the status quo and other societal ills, without fear of prosecution. The ruling majority cannot abuse the rights of minorities and proclaim free speech as a foundation.
This is no different than Hitler disparaging his Jewish minority with caricatures of hook-nosed greedy stereotypes or white America under slavery racially dehumanizing its blacks with caricature stereotypes. If you believe that what Charlie-Hebdo in reproducing caricatures of the Muslim prophet with a bomb turban is free speech, then you might as well defend the indefensible caricatures under Hitler and black-enslaved America!
Bullying and abuse don't fall under the protection of free speech. They need to be denounced in the same way we denounce the violent reactions they generate.
In its essence, free speech, such as human rights and other freedoms, is controversial in large parts because it is an equalizer often used by the governed against the government, the ruled against their rulers to express their disenchantment with the status quo and other societal ills, without fear of prosecution. The ruling majority cannot abuse the rights of minorities and proclaim free speech as a foundation.
This is no different than Hitler disparaging his Jewish minority with caricatures of hook-nosed greedy stereotypes or white America under slavery racially dehumanizing its blacks with caricature stereotypes. If you believe that what Charlie-Hebdo in reproducing caricatures of the Muslim prophet with a bomb turban is free speech, then you might as well defend the indefensible caricatures under Hitler and black-enslaved America!
Bullying and abuse don't fall under the protection of free speech. They need to be denounced in the same way we denounce the violent reactions they generate.
8
Nonsense. The United States does not ban hate speech; it is protected by the First amendment. And the Hebdo cartoons I've seen don't constitute hate speech, or anything like. They attack targets like Muslim terrorists and the former pope (for the Church's failure to address sexual abuse). They attack homophobes. They attack would-be censors. But they don't attack or smear groups of people as hate speech does.
7
If I cannot draw a caricature of the prophet or jews, I guess it goes without saying that I cannot print or say anything that is disparaging. Is that what your rant? Muzzling the non-Muslims?
I'm sorry that you don't understand that even racist speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Bullying and abuse are assault, this cartoon is neither of those.
Bullying and abuse are assault, this cartoon is neither of those.
1
I wish the Times would stop painting Charlie Hebdo as the instigator here - as if they are responsible for being terrorized. The inflammation is the responsibility of those who get angry.
29
I often hear about the how the French revolution brought the Republic and secularism as sacrosanct safeguards against the abuses of the Monarchy and Church's meddling in French politics. Unfortunately the very same republican values have failed a good portion of the French population, namely French Muslims who remain largely alienated and marginalized.
Desperately looking for something to identify with, religion comes to the rescue to alleviate some of the economic and racial .pains. Events in the Middle East and the West apparent role in meddling and war waging did not help things either.
Things could have stopped there and we will see a constantly struggling minority trying to make it despite the structural obstacles imposed by the majority with isolated expressions of tension and violence at times like the ones witnessed in the US. But when you take away the only zone of comfort by poking fun at that minority's religious icons, then all bets are off for the-already desperate and beaten down. Charlie Hebdo epitomized this regularly by invoking freedom of speech as their modus operandi driver.
Desperately looking for something to identify with, religion comes to the rescue to alleviate some of the economic and racial .pains. Events in the Middle East and the West apparent role in meddling and war waging did not help things either.
Things could have stopped there and we will see a constantly struggling minority trying to make it despite the structural obstacles imposed by the majority with isolated expressions of tension and violence at times like the ones witnessed in the US. But when you take away the only zone of comfort by poking fun at that minority's religious icons, then all bets are off for the-already desperate and beaten down. Charlie Hebdo epitomized this regularly by invoking freedom of speech as their modus operandi driver.
6
I am not Charlie.
I find their humor juvenile, unfunny, and yes, offensive.
But I will defend however I can their freedom of speech.
To do otherwise would be unAmerican.
I find their humor juvenile, unfunny, and yes, offensive.
But I will defend however I can their freedom of speech.
To do otherwise would be unAmerican.
9
At first, the issue seems to be about freedom of speech, but is more nuanced than it seems.
Let me be clear from the onset by stating that violence is never the answer and the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists was a heinous act.
Most folks in the West including, "expert-observers" these days, focus on manifestations of terrorism without tackling its root causes. I strongly believe that extreme ideologies stem out of a deeply seated fear of losing one's identity, be it religious, racial or economic.
Having lived in France, I witnessed first-hand that the Muslim population, despite that the fact that it represents a strong minority in numbers ( 5 to 10 percent of the the population), it has not been able to translate that into a proportionately economic power. A case in point, in some of the ghetto-like suburbs which are predominately Muslim, unemployment is at 40 per versus the less than 10 percent national average.
No one doubts that France, unlike North America for instance, has not done a decent job in integrating its North African immigrants into mainstream society starting from the 50 and the 60's. That was tenable back then to fresh- comers to fill the labour market with low education levels and hoping to go back home one day.The same can't be said today about the second and third generations who have been faced with systemic racial discrimination and the stigma of being foreigners in their native land.
Let me be clear from the onset by stating that violence is never the answer and the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists was a heinous act.
Most folks in the West including, "expert-observers" these days, focus on manifestations of terrorism without tackling its root causes. I strongly believe that extreme ideologies stem out of a deeply seated fear of losing one's identity, be it religious, racial or economic.
Having lived in France, I witnessed first-hand that the Muslim population, despite that the fact that it represents a strong minority in numbers ( 5 to 10 percent of the the population), it has not been able to translate that into a proportionately economic power. A case in point, in some of the ghetto-like suburbs which are predominately Muslim, unemployment is at 40 per versus the less than 10 percent national average.
No one doubts that France, unlike North America for instance, has not done a decent job in integrating its North African immigrants into mainstream society starting from the 50 and the 60's. That was tenable back then to fresh- comers to fill the labour market with low education levels and hoping to go back home one day.The same can't be said today about the second and third generations who have been faced with systemic racial discrimination and the stigma of being foreigners in their native land.
5
I support free speech but I don't support the bullying of minorities or being totally insensitive to what others consider sacred. As we denounce terrorism in all forms (physical, ideological, etc), can we have a calm, nonviolent discussion between those that believe in some type of God and those that are atheist/agnostic? What is the common ground in which to make jokes and appreciate each other as neighbors? That seems to be the gulf of understanding in this situation.
Of course no one should have been killed in Paris over this. But the French are not "clean" historically (and actually have a terrible reputation for racism!) which is why I don't understand their insistence on publishing all this Muhammad stuff. It's unnecessarily provocative.
Of course no one should have been killed in Paris over this. But the French are not "clean" historically (and actually have a terrible reputation for racism!) which is why I don't understand their insistence on publishing all this Muhammad stuff. It's unnecessarily provocative.
8
What others consider sacred is their problem - and if others consider it nonsense that is their right - period.
1
I love these "I support free speech but..." posts.... Hey guy, if you have to follow it up with a "but" then you don't really support free speech!
4
It seems like the people that are offended by the cartoon figures of their G-d, are not themselves offended when they saw off someone's real head and record it. Strange.
1
I am grateful to the Charlie Hebdo staff for taking personal risks to defend what is perhaps the most important right in a democracy -- free speech. The outpouring of emotion makes me hopeful we will never bargain it away.
However, we should not be too smug. Less than 50 years ago, Lennon's "The Beatles have become more popular than Jesus" comment did not raise an eyebrow in the UK but caused a furor here, complete with protests, efforts to shut down concert venues and angry comments from the Vatican. Lennon was assassinated in 1980 by a christian fundamentalist. Is that really so long ago?
However, we should not be too smug. Less than 50 years ago, Lennon's "The Beatles have become more popular than Jesus" comment did not raise an eyebrow in the UK but caused a furor here, complete with protests, efforts to shut down concert venues and angry comments from the Vatican. Lennon was assassinated in 1980 by a christian fundamentalist. Is that really so long ago?
5
John Lennon was killed by a disturbed person who somehow thought he inhabited Lennon...a psychotic person who can hardly be called a Christian fundamentalist. And the "furor" about Lennon's statement back then was a sort of tempest in a teapot, blowing over quite quickly
1
Truly tragic that John Lennon was shot and killed by Mark David Chapman who did have some involvement with Christianity. Many people do not know that John Lennon became a Christian. "He suddenly announced to close friends in the spring of 1977 that he'd become a born-again Christian." John "expressed regret that he had said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus." Former New Yorker, this is how free speech works. You make a statement and I am free to clarify it or reject it. We don't kill each other. Peace!
Tensions, offense? Every time ISIS releases a beheading video I getting pretty tense and am very offended. Lets drop the pretense, this is a fight for civilization as we know it.
37
Exactly. This is out and out war.
1
“will give an opportunity for extremists from both sides to exchange violent acts that only the innocent will pay for.” — Except that "both sides" means terrorist murderers on one side and CARTOONISTS on the other. False equivalency isn't a joke. Get real.
21
Neither there are nor there will be winners in this senseless feud between two sides that are convinced to be right.
2
In other news, a BBC reporters apology apparently isn't enough and they want his dismissal.
Can we have a list of which groups we are allowed to offend due to our love of freedom of speech, and which groups we are not allowed to offend?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resig...
Can we have a list of which groups we are allowed to offend due to our love of freedom of speech, and which groups we are not allowed to offend?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resig...
8
Asking for his dismissal is freedom of speech also. Did you advocate for Donald Sterling.
What is eminently clear from these developments is that, protestations by moderate Muslims notwithstanding, the Uma does not respect freedom of opinion and, in the form of established Islamist states such as Pakistan, sanctions capital punishment in the name of civil government for expressions of opinion found objectionable by the authorities of one particular sub-sect of one particular religious tradition. This is not a matter of "radical Islam", it's a matter of a religious tradition that has lost all perspective on its place in a modern civilized society.
15
Freedom of speech is a right that many over time have lost their lives seeking and defending. I am proud to live in a country that has that right; I am able to express my opinion on an issue without fear of reprisal or imprisonment. However, I believe that right comes with a responsibility to be ethical and respectful when exercising it. A tolerant society is built on a foundation of understanding and respect even in the face of fundamental differences; tolerance is never fostered through tirades, invectives or even humor when directed at what a community of people hold sacred. Just because we can, doesn’t always mean we should.
While 'I am not Charlie', I do stand against any form of terrorism and certainly that inflicted at Charlie Hebdo.
While 'I am not Charlie', I do stand against any form of terrorism and certainly that inflicted at Charlie Hebdo.
7
Muslim groups and scholars in France and elsewhere SHOULD voice more than concerns - they should loudly condemn slaughter of those who do not adhere to their own viewpoint.
I guess the problem is that most of us are not as callous as radical fringe elements of any religious group (be it Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) bent on having the whole world follow their beliefs.
I thought Charlie's cover was amazingly tame, considering the horror the staff went through. I half expected Mohammad holding a rifle pointed at himself (curved, as the one in front of the UN in NYC)
Bravo for them, they are NOT surrendering to murderers.
I guess the problem is that most of us are not as callous as radical fringe elements of any religious group (be it Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) bent on having the whole world follow their beliefs.
I thought Charlie's cover was amazingly tame, considering the horror the staff went through. I half expected Mohammad holding a rifle pointed at himself (curved, as the one in front of the UN in NYC)
Bravo for them, they are NOT surrendering to murderers.
12
It's not a religion, it's fascism.
18
Exactly. The problem isn't whether or not such a paper constitutes offensive provocation. The problem is that no matter what anyone does or doesn't do -- these fanatics will find a reason to attack or behead. There goal isn't to live peacefully -- if only others would be nice to them. Their goal is the elimination of everyone and everything that is different from how they are. Fanatics are dangerous, and people who appease them are dangerous.
3
The right to free speech entails responsibility not careless defiance. Going into a crowded movie theatre and screaming fire is an example of free speech but the act does not justify the outcome. In the same manner, resorting to a blatant action that knowingly will incite extremest reactions as well is foolish and ignorant and proves nothing.
10
John, did you not look at the issue? there was nothing inflammatory about it. And at any rate, it should not matter, there is no justification for violence against someone who disagrees with you.
You seem to misunderstand why it's wrong (and illegal) to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so creates a reasonable fear for one's imminent safety that if not acted upon could lead to death or injury. It's not because someone might be offended or become angered.
Drawing a picture of Muhammad, or criticizing him or the religion he spawned creates no corresponding rational panic. Any panic caused is irrational. We do not have to tether ourselves to the sensibilities of the irrational.
We need to go back to the very basic lesson we learned as kids that sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.
Drawing a picture of Muhammad, or criticizing him or the religion he spawned creates no corresponding rational panic. Any panic caused is irrational. We do not have to tether ourselves to the sensibilities of the irrational.
We need to go back to the very basic lesson we learned as kids that sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.
2
Another foolish comment. The charlie cartoon is the highest form of protected free speech as it is political speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not social commentary; it is meant solely to cause panic and needless death.
Equating the two shows zero understanding of the issue.
Equating the two shows zero understanding of the issue.
News organizations have no obligation, as a matter of policy or principle, to print these cartoons. Disinclination to print them is not self censorship if they believe they are inappropriate or inconsistent with their standards. Many have jumped on the bandwagon for emotional reasons. As a number of people have pointed out, absent the tragedy in Paris, many of them would be considered unnecessarily inflammatory and in poor taste. That shouldn't be confused with supporting CH's right to do so.
7
Let's see if I got this right. They can murder but we can't show cartoons. Those who murder must be shown more respect or they will murder more. How long is this going to go on?
33
Do Muslims protest when pork is sold or restaurants serve fried bacon? Do they try to kill the pork seller? They don't. They simply avoid eating it or at worse, avoid the restaurant all together. Similarly, Muslims can simply avoid reading the "blasphemous" cartoon magazine if they wish. Live as you wish and let others live as they wish. Peace.
29
This is the "you give an inch, they'll take a yard" principle. Every time the west concedes a portion of the liberty we take for granted to islamic extremists, they will look for more concessions. So it is entirely rational to look to the future and wonder if at some point women muslims will insist that women be veiled and butchers who produce food from pigs might be murdered.
2
Such wanton violence in response to satire invites a new perspective on radicalism: ridicule. I salute Charlie Hebdo for ridiculing these barbarians and their stone-age finger-wagging pieties. Meanwhile, "serious" media outlets treat the public to frightful images of these maniacal perps brandishing weapons and black flags and swearing allegiance to the mullah of the day... or carrying out their crimes (how many times must the Times barrage me with the image of the wounded officer, about to be gunned down by a black mask-wearing lowlife? disseminating these images is disgraceful; meanwhile it refuses to print any satirical cartoons that someone might—Dog forbid—find offensive). Such coverage glorifies this behavior precisely by making it menacing and, in its own twisted way, idealistic—inspiring to other troubled youths who would do better to spend their wasted lives in front of an X-box.
No, no, no... what's called for is ridicule, and more ridicule. More satire, not less. And not the least qualification or restriction of our right to laugh and mock. Religious fanaticism should by rights be a global laughing-stock. Do we have the courage to thumb our noses and laugh in mocking defiance of these self-important obscurantist boobs? No, we don't. The few who did were gunned down.
Here's hoping new—and utterly merciless—satirists will rise to take their places.
No, no, no... what's called for is ridicule, and more ridicule. More satire, not less. And not the least qualification or restriction of our right to laugh and mock. Religious fanaticism should by rights be a global laughing-stock. Do we have the courage to thumb our noses and laugh in mocking defiance of these self-important obscurantist boobs? No, we don't. The few who did were gunned down.
Here's hoping new—and utterly merciless—satirists will rise to take their places.
26
Thank you, M. You've expressed my POV perfectly.
More ridicule not less!
More ridicule not less!
1
Charlie Hebdo was inciting hate under the cover of "freedom of speech". Plain and simple. How was the hate and blasphemy they promoted propelling the human race forward spiritually? It was not.
Nor was the response by the now deceased people who took a chunk of that staff out. The attacks and aftermath on the Hebdo staff was a spiritual cancellation: All peoples who are now deceased were not moving forward spiritually were basically called back home. They are not "martrys".
Nor was the response by the now deceased people who took a chunk of that staff out. The attacks and aftermath on the Hebdo staff was a spiritual cancellation: All peoples who are now deceased were not moving forward spiritually were basically called back home. They are not "martrys".
4
Your equivocation of the drawing & printing of a cartoon with machine gun murder is disgusting, and your concept of "spiritual cancellation" amoral in a civilization that believes in rule of law.
I believe flights from LA to Turkey are available that would facilitate your emigration to Syria - certainly a land more in keeping with your world view.
I believe flights from LA to Turkey are available that would facilitate your emigration to Syria - certainly a land more in keeping with your world view.
2
Actually, they fit the dictionary definition of martyrs and martyrdom and martyrology in general. Especially since they suspected they would be martyred after escaping the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo a few years ago, and never wavered.
3
Whatever they were doing, in good taste or bad, their murder was in no way justified. Freedom of speech protects the right to be offensive. Civilized people are supposed to have agency over their faculties and realise that cartoons can't hurt them.
1
What does "Tout est pardonneé" mean? Is M. saying: "let's start over," put the past behind us and try to do better?
3
It means "All is forgiven." Since Muhammad is holding a "I am Charlie" poster, one way to read it is that he has forgiven the magazine and now supports its right to publish caricatures of him and they can be friends. There are, of course, other possible interpretations.
Does freedom of speech trumps respect? Surely being respectful of others comes first and chances are many issues can be prevented. Birds do not have the same feather, the only way to live in harmony is to have respects even though it is against ones belief.
6
Yes, it trumps it.
5
No, absolutely not. Freedom of speech is not trumped by respect, because by respect you mean the ability to force others to think and believe as you do. You have no right to my respect. And I have no right to tell you what to say. A lack of respect is no trouble to you. Learn how to ignore things you don't like. That is how pluralism works.
2
Yes, freedom of speech trumps respect. We do not tolerate those who abuse power and our human rights even though they may be in positions of respect. Our respect for freedom means we will sometimes oppose kings, priests and politicians when they try to impose their laws and religion on us when they do not have our consent! For goodness sake, have we learned nothing from the American Revolution and the world wide struggle for freedom over the last two hundred and fifty years?
2
I applaud Charlie Hébdo's remaining staff for continuing to express themselves freely. Some may not think their humor is in good taste, but remember that such "blasphemy" has also occurred in our country. Jesus has been depicted in ways that offend his followers; I think of a display of a crucifix in urine that raised the hackles of many a New Yorker several years ago. Freedom of speech prevails, as it should. Depicting the prophet Muhammed is forbidden within the muslim religion and has absolutely no bearing, or should it have any consequences for non-muslims. Charlie Hébdo's release of a new edition is just what is need to show the world that the terrorists cannot put an end to freedom of expression.
7
I wholeheartedly agree. We cannot let the terrorists prevail. Je suis Charlie.
1
As an American expat who marched in the streets of Paris on Sunday with my kids, one of whom was scared and didn't want to go, along with a million and a half other people, in order to defend a way of life, I was first perplexed by the screamingly deaf response to America's oldest ally's call to rally for democracy (Andrew Holder was here but had better things to do), then dismayed to see a cover photo of the Golden Globes on the front page of Monday morning's edition of this newspaper instead of one of the march, and now appalled that the editorial staff of what I consider to be America's best daily has decided not to print the cover of tomorrow's Charlie Hebdo. This is no time for political correctness! You have missed the point. Let your readers come to their own opinion about it. The surviving cartoonists and editorialists at Charlie Hebdo have spent the last few days mourning, crying and doing their best to put out another paper this week. Americans love to ridicule the French for running for cover when times get tough. Shame on the NYT for straddling the fence. You should be unequivocal in your defense of the freedoms that are at the heart of French and American democracy. I was not a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo, nor was I always sensitive to their ribald, over-the-top, spare-no-one, offend-everyone approach. But, they do not believe humor can be effective while wearing kid gloves. And, I, for one, am ready to die to defend their right to believe that.
48
It is kind of funny reading the comments of those hollering free speech, but blasting the NYTimes for exercising their right to not print the cartoons.
And then, there are the ones who believe only the Muslims could be capable of violence ---- yet I believe most every religion I know has taken part in violence at some time or another --- and my guess, if you start forcing them to give away their riches ---- you might rediscover just how "kindhearted" they are ---- Oh, aren't we all something!
And then, there are the ones who believe only the Muslims could be capable of violence ---- yet I believe most every religion I know has taken part in violence at some time or another --- and my guess, if you start forcing them to give away their riches ---- you might rediscover just how "kindhearted" they are ---- Oh, aren't we all something!
5
So, concern mounts that dangerous new passions may be ignited in the ongoing (perpetual) debate pitting free speech against religious doctrine.
Fine. Too bad.
It's high time that more evolved sensibilities buttress the progression of our species rather than acquiescing to the thin-skinned sentiments of religious fanatics and their fundamentalist enablers of all cultural and religious stripes.
At some point a line needs to be drawn. Let it be drawn here. No further!
As a citizen of this world I am not willing to acquiesce my basic, fundamental right to expression in any way or for any reason. Enough coddling of bankrupt, religious doctrine and our collective tendency to indulge those who'd so readily and wantonly murder the artist, the writer, the journalist, the innocent in the name of their cruel, petty little gods.
Fine. Too bad.
It's high time that more evolved sensibilities buttress the progression of our species rather than acquiescing to the thin-skinned sentiments of religious fanatics and their fundamentalist enablers of all cultural and religious stripes.
At some point a line needs to be drawn. Let it be drawn here. No further!
As a citizen of this world I am not willing to acquiesce my basic, fundamental right to expression in any way or for any reason. Enough coddling of bankrupt, religious doctrine and our collective tendency to indulge those who'd so readily and wantonly murder the artist, the writer, the journalist, the innocent in the name of their cruel, petty little gods.
21
"We face a moral crisis as a country, and as a people. Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right, as well as reality."
John F. Kennedy
June 11, 1963
John F. Kennedy
June 11, 1963
13
Allow me to voice my concern that more terrorism could result in endless carpet bombing. Just saying.
3
How dare they suggest that a cartoon no matter how offensive justifies murder. That in itself is justification to print again and again and again. No one can for one minute accept that a cartoon justifies a massacre. These people who support this concept inadvertently need to reassess the message they are sending. What happened to Charlie Hebdo's employees is outrageous and disgusting, unjustified violence. Get a grip people, really!
17
It the combined tragedies and defiance involved not the media, but individuals or political parties, the general consensus would be that behavior such as that from Hebdo is bigoted and insensitive.
While the attacks are deplorable, the media in a "free" society needs to exhibit sensitivity and understanding to religions. As the French government pointed out to Hebdo, is there really the need to offend and antagonize people's religions?
While the attacks are deplorable, the media in a "free" society needs to exhibit sensitivity and understanding to religions. As the French government pointed out to Hebdo, is there really the need to offend and antagonize people's religions?
5
How does one exhibit sensitivity and understanding if one does not one risks bodily harm? That isn't sensitivity, that's fear. Nobody should have to fear violence from mob action or organized and targeted attacks as a result of what he or she says. To suggest otherwise is to allow any threat of violence from anyone to cow others out of expressing their opinions.
1
A secularist would say, "Yes, there is." Nothing is sacred to them.
Ben,
It is quite likely that social standards that discourage offensive behavior came about because they minimized conflict. Also, consider that most children learn fairly early that if they act offensively/piggishly, they essentially do not merit the same protections as considerate people. This has nothing to do with bowing to threats from violence. It has everything to do with the decency and respect that you, I, and everyone else expects and is entitled to.
It is quite likely that social standards that discourage offensive behavior came about because they minimized conflict. Also, consider that most children learn fairly early that if they act offensively/piggishly, they essentially do not merit the same protections as considerate people. This has nothing to do with bowing to threats from violence. It has everything to do with the decency and respect that you, I, and everyone else expects and is entitled to.
1
Excuse me, but just which cause is it that exacerbates tensions?
1
Thank you for standing up for freedom of speech, press and religion.
2
This issue seems to me to be very much like the Illinois Nazi party's 1977 attempt to march in Chicago and Skokie. After a court battle it eventually was granted permission to march in Chicago in 1978.
While it is similarly Charlie Hebdo's right to publish the offensive cartoons, it seems to me that people buying the magazine (and other publications reprinting the cartoons and new issue cover) is akin to buying merchandise from the Nazi party's march. Ideally no one would buy such merchandise - to signal that although such juvenile behavior is legal it is also offensive.
While it is similarly Charlie Hebdo's right to publish the offensive cartoons, it seems to me that people buying the magazine (and other publications reprinting the cartoons and new issue cover) is akin to buying merchandise from the Nazi party's march. Ideally no one would buy such merchandise - to signal that although such juvenile behavior is legal it is also offensive.
5
Anonymous from CA wrote: "Here’s what many moderate Muslims note: ..." and goes on to list France's racist attitude towards Muslims. I won't defend France, but, if France is like that, then why do Muslims move to France? That's like openly-hooded KKK members moving to Harlem. Once Harlem becomes 10% KKK, things are going to get a bit tense in Harlem - especially after the first cross-burning north of 125th Street or lynching at Harlem World Magazine. The smart thing is for the KKK not to go to Harlem - or for Muslims to go to Europe.
11
They do not "go to Europe." They are born there. Check Algeria and Ivory Coast and Chad and Mali and Central African Empire for how that happened.
1
Where can I buy a copy?
5
It is pathetic and sad that so many westerners would rather give in to the Islamic radicals rather than fight for freedom of speech, which, at least in the USA, is supposed to be a sacred value. If you are not willing to be killed for something, there is something almost inhuman about you.
8
Freedom of expression such a powerful and important human right.
Without expression how can humanity progress?
We collectively as humans across various societies have after much turmoil achieved some inalienable rights.
In this age do we really have to spill blood for doodles?
Every action of an human being offends another. Are we to eliminate anyone who rubs us the wrong way?
Such madness, such a shame in this age!
Without expression how can humanity progress?
We collectively as humans across various societies have after much turmoil achieved some inalienable rights.
In this age do we really have to spill blood for doodles?
Every action of an human being offends another. Are we to eliminate anyone who rubs us the wrong way?
Such madness, such a shame in this age!
3
Perhaps "Charlie's" cartoonists should make cartoons of the terrorists. Try cartoons laughing at their exploits as if their behavior is just bad child behavior. Add a cartoon each time they throw another tantrum.
4
There is so much talk about the necessity to be sensitive to people's religious beliefs and opinions. This is a fallacious because with 7 billion people in this world anyones opinion is bound to hurt a large portion of people. I brought this up in another post - Hindus revere the cow and believe it's a holy animal. The cow is worshipped as a deity by 1 billion Hindus. Imagine how appalled they must feel when Muslims, Christians and Jews slaughter cows for their meat. Should the world be sensitive to Hindus across the world and stop eating beef or does the world think that Hindu sentiments are not hurt because Hindus don't fire bomb slaughter houses.
There are comments about the discrimination faced by French Muslims, anti semite laws in Europe, hypocrisy of the west while dealing with Snowden and Assange etc. Agreed. Let's debat about it and fight those injustices. Hiding behind those transgressions to explain or justify this atrocity is cowardly.
Observent Muslims should practice their religion according to the tenets of Islam without expecting the world to do the same.
There are comments about the discrimination faced by French Muslims, anti semite laws in Europe, hypocrisy of the west while dealing with Snowden and Assange etc. Agreed. Let's debat about it and fight those injustices. Hiding behind those transgressions to explain or justify this atrocity is cowardly.
Observent Muslims should practice their religion according to the tenets of Islam without expecting the world to do the same.
18
Your comparison is misleading; something like, to use a cliche, false equivalences - comparing apples and pears.
There is no potential or ground for perceived slights for non-Hindus to consume what is already established menu for them.
Muslims and Christians likewise do not go out and savage those who commit adultery or other wrongs; or those who do not follow the tenets of their religions.
It is legitimate for Muslims to see the cartoons as affronts to their belief. You could almost say that these people who continue to offend as not respecting another person's right to freedom of religion.
There is no potential or ground for perceived slights for non-Hindus to consume what is already established menu for them.
Muslims and Christians likewise do not go out and savage those who commit adultery or other wrongs; or those who do not follow the tenets of their religions.
It is legitimate for Muslims to see the cartoons as affronts to their belief. You could almost say that these people who continue to offend as not respecting another person's right to freedom of religion.
There is a big difference between respecting one's right to freedom of religion, and respecting one's religion... I can spit on your religion and be willing to die for your right to have it. Why can't folks see that?
After the Paris attack I hoped that news organizations around the world would unite under the banner of freedom of speech, and simultaneously print one of Charlie Hedbo's cartoons involving Muhammad.
With CH's decision to put a cartoon of Muhammad on their next issue's cover, it would have been a brilliant moment for the rest of the world of journalism to follow suit and put the same cartoon on their front pages.
I salute the Danish news agencies that united on this, and I am sorry about the NY/LA Times, CNN, etc, who do not have the same courage.
With CH's decision to put a cartoon of Muhammad on their next issue's cover, it would have been a brilliant moment for the rest of the world of journalism to follow suit and put the same cartoon on their front pages.
I salute the Danish news agencies that united on this, and I am sorry about the NY/LA Times, CNN, etc, who do not have the same courage.
16
Supposedly a female cartoonist at the Seattle Times is in hiding for a caricature of Mohammed. That's not nothing.
Ok, but it's a pretty funny cover, and the irony cuts many ways.
4
The islamic law vaguely states somewhere "no muhammad image". Fine. Obedient muslims should not draw the prophet. What about an atheist newspaper man in France? Should he abide by the islamic law? In his country, where freedom of speech is paramount? And then what? Should he respect the sabbath and stop drawing on saturday? And then what? Should he not work on Christmas day to appease catholics? How do you live without " offending" a religious law? Let the offended go on with their busy lives and ignore the cartoons they don't like. Let's be adult about this ! Charlie is right to hold its ground on this issue. And a gentle forgiving prophet is not the worst this world could produce...
23
If Muslims cannot, or will not stand up for key rights in Western countries they live in, then move to Muslim countries where the "paradise" of Islamic law and oppression is the type of life you seek.
23
Let's negotiate. We will give up the freedoms we hold dear and you will stop killing innocent people. Hey! Deal!
2
We've been giving up "freedoms" for years in America, while rogue cops keep killing unarmed persons by the dozens annually. You're way too late.
This is absolutely not a good thing to do. This is not the time for cowardice.
I have no wonder if the media isn't encouraging violence by Muslims by acting as though the slights committed by their religion are grounds for worldwide outrage and fear. If Christians or Jews reacted so insanely to slights there would be little sympathy for their many and much mocking of the overreaction.
There are as many Christians as Muslims on this planet but Muslims have over 60 homelands while Christians have only the Vatican.
Muslims make up over 20% of the world's population while Jews are less than 2%. In other words, they are not a small vulnerable minority that the media makes it seem like.
There are as many Christians as Muslims on this planet but Muslims have over 60 homelands while Christians have only the Vatican.
Muslims make up over 20% of the world's population while Jews are less than 2%. In other words, they are not a small vulnerable minority that the media makes it seem like.
10
typo: "I have to wonder if the media isn't encouraging violence by Muslims by acting as though the slights committed towards their religion...."
There's a big difference between freedom of the press and misguided insensitive lambasting. Why do something just because you can do it? Doesn't it make sense to try to be kind and understand why people are so mad instead of putting a bellows to the flames?
Satire was, is, and will forever be the weakest form of art. Instead of making something new and beautiful, it merely pokes fun at what already is. It's the basest, easiest and most destructive critique available.
Satire was, is, and will forever be the weakest form of art. Instead of making something new and beautiful, it merely pokes fun at what already is. It's the basest, easiest and most destructive critique available.
4
As long as people insist on creating icons there will always be iconoclasts. It's part of the equation.
2
No amount of anger over a cartoon justifies murder, and no amount of insensitive lambasting should be withheld for fear of death. When the argument is between the pen and the gun, the pen must always win, irrespective of what it writes. This is the entire idea of a free society. The right to offend is one of the most important principles of pluralism, and we should find any attempt to use violence to prevent it noxious and unacceptable.
5
I for one am grateful for Voltaire, among others.
5
I'll say it once and I'll say it again: If you do not like, feel uncomfortable or offended by French secularism, then move. I am a child of immigrants, and my parents taught me to adapt to the United States. We kept our customs at home, spoke our language and ate our food, but once we stepped outside, we were Americans, plain and simple. Yes, my parents were Western European so assimilation was easier, but that's still no excuse. France does not need to adapt to Islam, rather the followers of Islam need to adapt to France. Period. End of Story.
23
Do you know why there are so many Muslim immigrants in France, Germany and elswhere in Western Europe?
Having imported these people as industrial slaves in the first instance does not absolve these same masters to now relinquish their duties to these people!
Having imported these people as industrial slaves in the first instance does not absolve these same masters to now relinquish their duties to these people!
2
If you make a death threat, you can't be religious either Christian or Muslim.
3
"Amen, I say to you, it was better for that man had he never been born," and "you will be sifted like wheat, and the chaff thrown into the unquenchable fire." -- Jesus
Dar-al-Ifta says the latest Hebdo cover “will give an opportunity for extremists from both sides to exchange violent acts that only the innocent will pay for.” If that is true, then extremists on both sides are missing the message. The weeping "prophet" could just as easily be Jesus Christ or the founder of any other religion that has tried to lift humanity out of the stone age mentality of killing for the sake of killing. Somehow, some time, mankind has to stop wanton killing. Too many people around the world are suffering, let alone dying, because of the barbaric actions of religious or political extremists.
2
The "weeping prophet" looks very much like me when I looked into the mirror after reading these articles. The utter stupidity of mankind just makes me cry!
3
You can forget that "egalité" part of the motto. We are free to disrespect our Muslim population but can be arrested if we disrespect our Jewish population.
6
Well, you tried deporting your Jewish population...
1
"Au Revoir, Les Enfants" and "The Sorrow and the Pity" tell the whole story. The Jews surely earned whatever dispensations their fellow Europeans now extend to them.
Just being reminded by Frank Bruni in his Jan 10 article, Your God and My Dignity, the excused used in the United States when one religion wants to dominate over all others -- "religious liberty." In America, Christian conservatist claim their religious liberty of "marriage" for themselves by refusing others to wed. I guess the Islamic terrorists are claiming their "religious liberty" of don't draw my prophet, by killing.
1
People in the West need to rethink the way they have been using "respect" for a couple of decades now. To me it means that one has an obligation to recognize the humanity, and concomitant right to live, think, and publish, of those we disagree with. That's about it. We have a right to criticize, laugh at, and sneer at any and all ideas we find foolish or contemptible.
But in the last two decades Western elites have gradually swung behind the punishment of "hate speech". You can lose a job, be banned from campus, and even jailed if you do it. So how can we seriously criticize Islamic radicals who do the same thing? True, to us they go too far in the methods they use. To them it is probably a sign of greater courage and commitment.
But in the last two decades Western elites have gradually swung behind the punishment of "hate speech". You can lose a job, be banned from campus, and even jailed if you do it. So how can we seriously criticize Islamic radicals who do the same thing? True, to us they go too far in the methods they use. To them it is probably a sign of greater courage and commitment.
5
Perhaps you cannot discern between 'criticize, laugh at, or sneer' and 'hate'. Sure seems like it.
A religiously uneducated non-Muslim draws a face and declares that the drawing depicts Muhammad. Instead of seeing a bunch of lines on paper Muslim scholars believe him?
6
Just as folks who stereotype all muslims for the acts of a minority, Dar Ifta makes the same error, ie stereotyping that all muslims are offended when only some are.
The other point is all religions are at some level disrespectful (offensive?) to others, the concept that Jesus isn't the son of god is is/could be offensive to christians, the concept that pagan religions are inferior is offensive to its followers, the concept that monotheism is better than polytheism or atheism is offensive to polytheists/atheists.
Imagine if some religion said anyone who doesn't subscribe by our rules is offending us and must face violence, this is the path to madness. Lets say a militant violent atheist minority said anytime anyone uses the word God its offensive and therefore they shouldn't (no books should promote any belief in God for ex). How would that fly?
It is perfectly reasonable to expect the religions followers to follow its rules/guidelines and patently ridiculous to expect non adherents to.
The other point is all religions are at some level disrespectful (offensive?) to others, the concept that Jesus isn't the son of god is is/could be offensive to christians, the concept that pagan religions are inferior is offensive to its followers, the concept that monotheism is better than polytheism or atheism is offensive to polytheists/atheists.
Imagine if some religion said anyone who doesn't subscribe by our rules is offending us and must face violence, this is the path to madness. Lets say a militant violent atheist minority said anytime anyone uses the word God its offensive and therefore they shouldn't (no books should promote any belief in God for ex). How would that fly?
It is perfectly reasonable to expect the religions followers to follow its rules/guidelines and patently ridiculous to expect non adherents to.
5
It is the era of an historically epic learning process. Charlie Hebdo, France, the West are the teachers. And, the Muslims are learning. "The statement on Tuesday also commented on the new Charlie Hebdo cover, urging French Muslims to “remain calm and avoid emotive or incongruous reactions incompatible with dignity,” while “respecting freedom of opinion.”" NYT. The French Muslims want to enjoy their rights and benefits and the safety and the security of the Republic. They really don't want to be in Algeria or, Morocco, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or, Pakistan. The French Muslims would learn to respect the freedom of speech and the sanctity of human life and, eventually, so would do the ones living outside France. It would take some time, though.
3
Without actually seeing it, the many references in the Times to the new Charlie Hebdo cover might understandably make a reader assume that it must be the most foul, grotesque drawing imaginable, dripping with hatred and gratuitous malice. On the contrary, the drawing I see is a simply poignant one, with a caricature so mild it practically qualifies as cute. The only possible objection to the cover design as it exists is that it supposedly depicts "Muhammad" in a drawing, which apparently no one-no artist, no non muslim-must ever do at all. Apart from that percieved "insult", it's actually low-key and thoughtful.
Does anyone else notice this profound disconnect?
Does anyone else notice this profound disconnect?
14
Of course! But that's irrelevant. Those bullies only want to scream and kill. They could have drawn a lamb there and those hate-mongers would still claim it is Mohammed.
1
The cover is not offensive at all, so I don't get why "liberal and independent" newspapers like The NY Times among others, refused to publish. Where is the freedom of speech they so much tout. That also could mean only Christianism and Judaism are game fair but we must fear Muslims?.
17
Nice to know that Charlie Hebdo fired a staff member on 2009 for an article that was perceived as anti Semitic.
4
My local library carries the black Muslim hate group newspaper The Final Call. It is very anti-Semetic (among other things). They do not carry in similar publications from white, Christian or Jewish hate groups. They do not carry Charlie Hebdo. So double standards, we all have to deal with them. I have to notice double standards are fine with the left as long as they go against Jews.
2
The staffer was fired because of a comment about a living person not a dead one. Charlie Hebdo was sued and had to pay damages to the employee after a court ruled that the firing violated French law. What is your point, that they may not be 100% consistent in their politics? Who is? If you are suggesting that the magazine somehow favored Jews or Israel, then you know nothing about the magazine or its political stance.
1
For your information "both sides subsequently filed lawsuits, and in December 2010, Siné won a 40,000-euro court judgment against his former publisher for wrongful termination."
So this was resolved in the usual manner, with lawyers, not with guns. The cartoonist was Maurice Sinet, known as Siné,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9
So this was resolved in the usual manner, with lawyers, not with guns. The cartoonist was Maurice Sinet, known as Siné,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9
I was born Christian but I "shopped around" for a religion for many years, and during that time I learned how to differentiate between religions-to judge them by different criteria such as love, transcendence, numbers of adherents, most important teachers, etc. Charlie Hebdo provides information about many religions, often critical of what it sees as their worst aspects. Though its methods are usually offensive, the magazine does provide the social benefit of making people look critically at many different religions which helps those of us who are "shopping around" for a religion.
The primary teacher of a religion is one of the best criteria for analyzing a religion, because that being serves as a role model for adherents. For example, Jesus taught love and healing, therefore, his adherents often try to increase their compassion and churches often found missionary hospitals to heal the sick. Muslim scripture details that "Muhammad committed almost every crime listed by the International Criminal Court as constituting a crime against humanity" (It's All About Muhammad: A Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet. By F. W. Burleigh, October 11, 2014). Therefore, it is predictable that his adherents frequently commit horrible acts of violence and deny people basic human rights like freedom of speech.
The primary teacher of a religion is one of the best criteria for analyzing a religion, because that being serves as a role model for adherents. For example, Jesus taught love and healing, therefore, his adherents often try to increase their compassion and churches often found missionary hospitals to heal the sick. Muslim scripture details that "Muhammad committed almost every crime listed by the International Criminal Court as constituting a crime against humanity" (It's All About Muhammad: A Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet. By F. W. Burleigh, October 11, 2014). Therefore, it is predictable that his adherents frequently commit horrible acts of violence and deny people basic human rights like freedom of speech.
11
Nancy, I commend you for your insightful comments. They are bang on!
Unprovocative speech or expression is easy to protect because no one cares to suppress it through intimidation, violence or opprobrium. It is the difficult, offbeat, strange, funny and sometimes inciting speech and expression that requires protection. I believe the Times and other "news" organizations are wrong not to publish the cover. If they have an issue about taste they could include an essay or editorial along with the image.
14
Our children in public schools are required every morning to recite the pledge of alliance, which contains the phrase "one nation under God." Yeah, we're better than "them."
2
And our children have the right to sit during the pledge and refuse to recite it.
I love the smell of false equivalencies in the morning!
2
Why doesn't our State Department, Pentagon, and CIA arrange a discussion conference with ISIS to iron out the differences instead of continuing the decades long exchange of name calling, suicide bombing, and drone assassinations? The only ones benefiting from this senseless waste of human lives and resources are a few war profiteers and a large number of power hungry political opportunists. Isn't it time to call a halt to the madness and to begin making peace for all peoples through discussion of differences rather than allowing our weaknesses and gullibility to be exploited by all those opportunists with irons in the fire?
1
Sure, go negotiate with ISIS. I'll be looking forward to watching your video.
3
This false incitement to violence over "insults to the prophet" is an excuse for acting and lashing out by powerless and impotent Islamic males unable to come to terms with the 21st century. It's a powerful excuse to bash some heads and kill to temporarily feel a little better about themselves. Those "religious" leaders who urge these misguided and manipulated hordes bare the ultimate responsibility and should be banished from host countries when living abroad. Not sure what to do with them when they reside in their homelands and are on salary paid for by their government. Ending our dependence on foreign oil would be a good place to start. Can't wait to see the first SUV with a "I am Charlie" bumper sticker.
24
Overreacting to slight insults is the behavior of people who have too much time on their hands. When Ireland was poor and underutilized men had time on their hands, slight sectarian insults resulted in violence. Better economic conditions have fixed that. Perhaps the imams should worry about educating their flock to help them have bigger fish to fry...of course that may drive them away from the mosque...never mind...bad for business.
7
Your Irish example involved more than just simple sectarianism, but even then, occurred in a Western culture, an environment whose very existence is offensive to these extremists.
1
While provocation is not a good thing, people do have to get a grip on their emotions even if they feel insulted if they want to live in a free society. Drawing a cartoon is should not get one a death sentence.
At this point, Charlie Hebdo really has to claim it's right to continue or else fold completely.
At this point, Charlie Hebdo really has to claim it's right to continue or else fold completely.
12
There seems to be no room in this cultural battle for those who are concerned for the innocents that have already paid and those who will pay for intolerence and lack of respect on both sides. Personally, I think the surviving staff of Charlie Hebdo should have thought about the 10,000 French Troops and Police that are now on the streets of France because of their cartoons and their effect on Muslims, even moderate ones and put some water on this raging fire instead of pouring more gasoline on it. If I were them, I would not want more innocents including the army and police to die because I felt it necessary to make another statement about Free Speech.
1
Freedom is not negotiable. Live free or die! I stand with my neighboring state on that one.
And besides, I am glad that France has learned that appeasement of bullies doesn't work. The last time that was tried in 1938 it ended with the occupation of France two short years later and 25 million dead after another 5 years.
Let's try to avoid both of these outcomes and rather kill the bullies now, whenever and wherever they toot their horn. Perhaps it might be a good idea to send a few drones over and take care of those hate preachers who take offense of our freedom of expression. Pay them back in equal currency now and I am pretty sure the message will be received and stick. I and most of the commenters here apparently as well find the insolence and arrogance of these bullies at least 10 times as insulting and offensive as any cartoon can possible be to them.
And besides, I am glad that France has learned that appeasement of bullies doesn't work. The last time that was tried in 1938 it ended with the occupation of France two short years later and 25 million dead after another 5 years.
Let's try to avoid both of these outcomes and rather kill the bullies now, whenever and wherever they toot their horn. Perhaps it might be a good idea to send a few drones over and take care of those hate preachers who take offense of our freedom of expression. Pay them back in equal currency now and I am pretty sure the message will be received and stick. I and most of the commenters here apparently as well find the insolence and arrogance of these bullies at least 10 times as insulting and offensive as any cartoon can possible be to them.
2
By putting out the new issue CH is making the best statement about freedom of speech that could ever be. Freedom of speech was earned by blood and courage. And by the way the job of police and military is to protect that right.
2
As a Muslim living in USA, I feel offended by all of these clerics and so called Muslim scholars who are offended by Charlie Hebdo. It is simple, they can just ignore this publication.
What I feel offended is reading about Egypt that women can't even walk on the streets alone without getting constantly harassed by men. Now that is something that is worth offended by but I bet these so called clerics and scholars would not even bother knowing or condemning it.
I feel offended when I read news about Pakistan (My home country) where someone more powerful and well connected can occupy your property, where having to bribe for even small things is common and where being poor means you can get raped, killed without ever having a recourse to justice. Now these are things that are worth offended by but you would never see a protest for that.
What I feel offended is reading about Egypt that women can't even walk on the streets alone without getting constantly harassed by men. Now that is something that is worth offended by but I bet these so called clerics and scholars would not even bother knowing or condemning it.
I feel offended when I read news about Pakistan (My home country) where someone more powerful and well connected can occupy your property, where having to bribe for even small things is common and where being poor means you can get raped, killed without ever having a recourse to justice. Now these are things that are worth offended by but you would never see a protest for that.
33
We should move the discussion from rights to intelligence and judgement. Why choose to mock anyone's religious icon? Why? Mocking jesus or Moses or Muhammed or bhudda all deeply offend me. What greater good does this serve?
7
"What greater good does this serve?" In this particular case--not to speak of earlier ones--the answer is obvious: to demonstrate that murder will not force a society to surrender the right to freedom of speech. There can be no freedom of religion without the freedom to criticize religion. Think about it.
Louis, I am offended that you did not capitalize the name of the Buddha, and, that you misspelled his name, as well as 'Muhammed's'. Oh, and if Hebdo wants to have Buddha on their cover holding a sign saying, 'I am Charlie,' instead of the current cover with Mohammad holding such sign, I'd be fine with that. Is that really so inciting?
2
I abhor Charlie Hebdo. I find it offensive, juvenile and unfunny.
But I support the publications right of free speech, the right to offend.
Because Free Speech is infinitely more important than my being offended.
But I support the publications right of free speech, the right to offend.
Because Free Speech is infinitely more important than my being offended.
3
People objecting to the CH cover remind me of wife beaters - it's the wife's fault she got beat up because she "provoked" the husband to violence. You know the drill:
"She wouldn't shut up, so I hit her. She made me so mad I couldn't help myself. She made me do it. I warned her to shut up, I TOLD her to stop, but she wouldn't. It's her fault I hit her."
This kind of self-serving, nonsensical thinking spouted by people who believe their tyranny is justified deserves zero respect. Zero. The staff at CH, with their new cover, went easy on these lunatics and their lethal temper tantrums. I don't feel quite as forgiving.
"She wouldn't shut up, so I hit her. She made me so mad I couldn't help myself. She made me do it. I warned her to shut up, I TOLD her to stop, but she wouldn't. It's her fault I hit her."
This kind of self-serving, nonsensical thinking spouted by people who believe their tyranny is justified deserves zero respect. Zero. The staff at CH, with their new cover, went easy on these lunatics and their lethal temper tantrums. I don't feel quite as forgiving.
43
I don't understand all the references to this cover as poking fun at Mohammad. To the contrary, it shows respect for him as a decent fellow who is as appalled and devastated by the Charlie Hebdo attacks as we all are. IN doing so, it casts the radical fundamentalists as going contrary to his wishes and to Islam, so I understand why radicals wouldn't like it. But what is there in it that insults "mainstream" Muslims?
33
The slogan "I am Charlie" is going to be replaced by "I am Not Charlie" as more and more people, truly committed to "fraternité", reject provocation and advocate respect.
8
"Respect." A ideal in our world but in your terms something akin to the tissue paper philosophy holding together the mafia, gangs, and other criminal organizations.
Freedom of speech was not created to insult the religions of an underdog minority. I fail to understand what Charlie and people who buy this magazine, think they what they have defended and accomplished. Certainly not free speech, with the government and military backing them up.
If this shooting had never occurred, Charlie would be guilty of bullying the powerless population of Muslims in France, using free speech and the law, as a cover.
But the murder and violence by those zealots somehow made them heroes of the "free world" if there is such a world.
Now it is an act of war. I don't think the Muslims living in France want to go to war with a bunch of right wing French people, or anyone else.
If this shooting had never occurred, Charlie would be guilty of bullying the powerless population of Muslims in France, using free speech and the law, as a cover.
But the murder and violence by those zealots somehow made them heroes of the "free world" if there is such a world.
Now it is an act of war. I don't think the Muslims living in France want to go to war with a bunch of right wing French people, or anyone else.
11
Oh please, France has a very strong heritage of secularism and a very vigorous freedom of speech and satire. .Charlie Hebdo poked brutal fun at Jews, Christians, politicians, political parties and more. Only Muslim extremists thought slaughter was an appropriate response.
5
Doing something, simply because you can, is always juvenile and usually irresponsible and sometimes dangerous. Self-control, out of respect for others is the nobler position.
3
Charlie is a small magazine that specializes in provocative satire, they insult everyone. The cartoonists there found a small audience that liked this kind of stuff, and made a living catering to them. Not my cup of tea, but some ppl enjoyed it. Selling a few magazine covers, even if they sometimes went overboard, isnt bullying the entire "powerless population of Muslims in France." If these Muslims didnt like the magazine, they should have canceled their subscriptions.
1
It is easy to empatize with Muslims who may be offended by lampooning Muhamad, even regarding it as blasphemy. What is difficult to comprehend is how is it that savagely murdering human lives in retaliation can even be compared nor justified.
18
The "Islamic Authorities" in Egypt show themselves as irresponsible, since they know that their warning will be interpreted by many as condoning the inevitable reactions in the Muslim world. Subtly siding with the mob is not what you generally expect from spiritual leaders. They could instead have reminded Sunni Muslims that the Great Jihad is about self-restraint, as opposed to the Small Jihad which is about wars of self-defense.
9
This happens all the time in Muslim-domnated cultures. Clerics of all level routinely demonise Western behaviour as provocative or characterise their societies as wicked.
It should come as no surprise at all -- this narrative continues to convey the ongoing view that Islam is something above every other religion, and whose ideology must be respected above everything else.
That supposed supremacy will be resisted by the rest of the world !
It should come as no surprise at all -- this narrative continues to convey the ongoing view that Islam is something above every other religion, and whose ideology must be respected above everything else.
That supposed supremacy will be resisted by the rest of the world !
What the Muslims forget is that in countries that free speech exists we are allowed to depict who we want the way we want. This is a freedom that the western world holds dearly and we will not let the Islamic people keep us from that right. Your beliefs are for you to adhere to. They are not to be forced on anyone else. A lot of Muslims complain about anti-Muslim sentiment but you want to live in our world we don't want to live in yours. Nobody is flooding to the Middle East because it is such a great place to live.
38
You hit the nail on the head here. This is the hard truth.
3
It is that freedom and many other aspects of Western culture that these extremists find offensive.
3
Depictions of Mohamed are numerous through out time. There is nothing in the Koran that prohibits an image of Mohammad. This is a Taliban twisting of the Koran is used to justify destruction of religious statues and art.
19
Wish I could buy a copy here.
14
I am Muslim and i have never been offended by neither the jokes nor the occasional racism while living in the west for the past 21 years. Why? because i did focus on the meaning of the teaching rather than the Hersey. I have learned to walk away from confrontation except in the case of physical self-defense. That's what fasting Ramadan and praying for example are designed to teach you; self restraint and sacrifice. At one point, having learned enough i stopped practicing because religious teaching was really meant as a temporary education and inspiration for humans to craft their own ways forward. Islam is about respect, cleanliness of the body and the soul as well as inclusion but it has been distorted by a vast majority of Muslims to our determent. There is a bright future ahead and we certainly shouldn't be asking the west for help as we have so much resources and history to fall back on if we can sum up the will and stop whining. The west has its own cancer( corrupt capitalism) creeping in into it's body and may find itself in a bigger mess and turmoil at some point! Maybe by then, we would be able and should land a hand to our western friends and welcome them to our safe prosperous shores.
11
Thank you for the insight, Hisham. Well stated and thought out.
1
Muslims not outraged by the murders in Paris because of Charlie Hebdo's editorial choices in art would do well to remember that no one in our country of Christians and myriad other religions took shots at Andres Serrano for his photograph, "Piss Christ" nor did Mormons with assault weapons attack the box office of "Book of Mormon".
29
Only speech that is objectionable to someone needs protection. Banning one form of speech because some group is offended is the first step to banning speech that criticizes those in power. It was once a capital offense to insult the King. Why bring that back?
22
Muslims of the 21st century, 1400 years after Mohammed's hijra, need to stop acting like schoolyard bullies and to start acting like grown-up human beings. A bully threatens other people in order to transfer his own fears onto them. Muslim bullies threaten other peoples to dispel their own doubts about the authenticity of their late-born religion. If someone does not like what is written on a page, it is a simple matter to close the book for oneself. To attempt to close it for others means that one is afraid that those others might find some inconvenient truth in its pages. As long as Muslim act like violent children, they make it obvious that their own religion is too weak to stand on its own without the threat of retaliatory violence. Which is as much as saying that they themselves do not believe that it can stand on its own two feet: So why should anyone else?
24
For those who think free speech is not worth the wrath of tyrants, two words:
AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!!!
AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!!!
15
Bravo monsieur Luzier!
20
Here’s what many moderate Muslims note:
- In most surveys and studies on the prevalence of racism around the world, France is among the leaders in the western hemisphere.
- Muslim communities in France are in a state of separateness and relative disenfranchisement, and French policy and attitude play a large role.
- The history of the last 200 years in Northern Africa and the Middle East is one of colonialism and manipulation (propping us dictators, etc) by Western Europe and/or the US.
- France selectively (and unfairly) defends free speech (Charlie Hebdo fired Mauice Sinet, a journalist, in 2009 for purported anti-semitism).
For Muslims in France, there are many factors at play in this discussion of free speech. It’s simplistic to think otherwise.
If we’re truly interested in progress, while we vociferously defend this type of journalism (think of a picture of Mohammed naked, bent at the waist, as depicted in Charlie Hebdo), we should also passionately support the other side of the equation – this is an opportunity for France to publicly reach out and try to address the contextual factors listed above.
- In most surveys and studies on the prevalence of racism around the world, France is among the leaders in the western hemisphere.
- Muslim communities in France are in a state of separateness and relative disenfranchisement, and French policy and attitude play a large role.
- The history of the last 200 years in Northern Africa and the Middle East is one of colonialism and manipulation (propping us dictators, etc) by Western Europe and/or the US.
- France selectively (and unfairly) defends free speech (Charlie Hebdo fired Mauice Sinet, a journalist, in 2009 for purported anti-semitism).
For Muslims in France, there are many factors at play in this discussion of free speech. It’s simplistic to think otherwise.
If we’re truly interested in progress, while we vociferously defend this type of journalism (think of a picture of Mohammed naked, bent at the waist, as depicted in Charlie Hebdo), we should also passionately support the other side of the equation – this is an opportunity for France to publicly reach out and try to address the contextual factors listed above.
7
If Muslims don't like France they are free to leave.
It's not like they're prisoners there, like the poor folks who live in Cuba or North Korea.
It's not like they're prisoners there, like the poor folks who live in Cuba or North Korea.
The Jihadists have a chip on their shoulder - and are looking for a "moral excuse" based on insults to justify further attacks on previous colonial powers, including France. The satirists insist on being that excuse, and as far as I see it that is fine with the rest of the world - and they will be the target of the violence. To a great extent that relieves the other Western institutions of imminent threat - i.e. Western banks and their subsidiary military institutions controlled by the governments that are controlled by the banks.
Apparently the Western Press also likes supporting those institutions of the West that the Moslems in the Middle East believe are repressing them, and also apparently likes being the scapegoat and sacrifice for Western culture.
Desire for fame seems to drive the media - and although the US Military despises them because in the end it has to fight the wars they keep going, it is they who are famous - and it is they who are now taking the direct hits for their insults to other cultures.
Said enough - SVAHA!
Apparently the Western Press also likes supporting those institutions of the West that the Moslems in the Middle East believe are repressing them, and also apparently likes being the scapegoat and sacrifice for Western culture.
Desire for fame seems to drive the media - and although the US Military despises them because in the end it has to fight the wars they keep going, it is they who are famous - and it is they who are now taking the direct hits for their insults to other cultures.
Said enough - SVAHA!
Hey Amir. Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity saterical publication. The only difference is the other religions and cultures don't kill people because of magazine insults. Some years ago there was a Nazi March in a predominantly Jewish suburb of Illinois. They were correctly allowed to march.
Hate speech is still a right in any free country. Obviously you seem to favor censorship for what you consider to be hateful. But what about what I consider to be hate speech. If we all followed your example, it might be against the law for any type of free speech, just like it is in many countries worldwide. I, as a Jew deplore Nazi's, but I would deplore it even more if they were censored.
Hate speech is still a right in any free country. Obviously you seem to favor censorship for what you consider to be hateful. But what about what I consider to be hate speech. If we all followed your example, it might be against the law for any type of free speech, just like it is in many countries worldwide. I, as a Jew deplore Nazi's, but I would deplore it even more if they were censored.
14
Not printing the Charlie Hebdo cover shows cowardice, and once again confirms that terrorism works. When we give in to the will of barbarians it shows weakness and weakness is provocative to Jihadists who seek to destroy civilized society.
27
The lefties and Islamist supporters are tying themselves into knots trying to justify their opposition to free speech.
Free speech is defined not by what one can say but by what one cannot. In the West we have chosen to limit free speech only for extreme cases such as false information that can lead to putting innocent people in mortal danger (such as the well-known Holmesian example crying fire in a crowded theater).
We do not limit free speech that hurts people's feelings or insults people or offends their sensibilities. This tolerance is one of the founding pillars of our modernism. The obtuse reasoning of these extremist-sympathizers underscore their shallow or non-existent appreciation of the underpinnings of our society.
Free speech is defined not by what one can say but by what one cannot. In the West we have chosen to limit free speech only for extreme cases such as false information that can lead to putting innocent people in mortal danger (such as the well-known Holmesian example crying fire in a crowded theater).
We do not limit free speech that hurts people's feelings or insults people or offends their sensibilities. This tolerance is one of the founding pillars of our modernism. The obtuse reasoning of these extremist-sympathizers underscore their shallow or non-existent appreciation of the underpinnings of our society.
7
Really, what has this got to do with so-called "lefties?" This is not a right vs. left debate. I'm sure either side has a proportional mix of opinions.
1
Respect is the key. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with cartoons mocking the muslim prophet. Professional journalism is responsible, honest, purposeful, respectful. Muslims do not have our western sense of humor. You can make fun of their lifestyle, government, or even their persona. But do not mess with their prophet. Charlie Hebdo made a mistake that cost many lives already, and now they are doing it again. Its not only irresponsible, but insensate and childlish. They can have fun with something else. Do not risk more lives. The French should mind their own business, like getting a good president.
7
"Muslims do not have our western sense of humor." What a crude generalization--what about Aasif Mandvi? Charlie Hebdo's "mistake" didn't cost a single life--to say so displaces responsibility from the murderers to the satirists. And as it were, most of the lives lost were their own. France, and Charlie Hebdo, are minding their business, which immediately requires the demonstration that terrorism does not achieve its goal of suppressing expressions critical of Islam. Of course, good judgment should temper these criticisms--but in principle, religion is not beyond criticism, except in an authoritarian society. Since this elementary liberal precept has just been brutally put to the test, it's imperative for liberals to demonstrate quite clearly that murder is neither a legitimate nor effective means to achieve one's political goals.
1
If Charlie Hebdo had been published by someone other than an elite member of the host culture, it would be considered "hate speech." Freedom of expression, yes, but as crude as the reaction that it got from the terrorists.
7
Satire is often crude but fun. Crude is not the same as mass murder. Sorry but I cant get on board with this.
2
Political correctness gone mad --comparing a pen and cartoon with the actual slaughter of 17 living and breathing human beings.
3
Somebody died because they looked at the cartoons?
Do you really want to draw an equivalence between bad taste and the murder of twelve people?
Do you really want to draw an equivalence between bad taste and the murder of twelve people?
2
In my opinion these cartoonists have some special drive towards provoking those who practice Islam as if that would be the most natural right to have. And there seems to be a lack of understanding of how Islamic belief works. The so called provocations produced by the french magazine is by Islamic religious seen as an attack on the prophet Muhammad. In the Islamic world there is a strong sense of honoring the prophet and defending him, a religious duty that overrides the self in priority. Those who produce these provocations does not seem to respect religious freedom. Since attacks on the prophet is a matter of life or death for the follower those that escalate to terror attacks represent a great danger to the environment where these cartoonists conduct their campaigns. In my opinion those who create a dangerous environment for their fellow citizens by provoking religious groups should be a subject to law enforcement since they essentially provoke riots and terror as opposed to respect and co-existence.
An unlimited freedom of self expression cannot be the end motive here. It seems to be something about attacking Islam.
An unlimited freedom of self expression cannot be the end motive here. It seems to be something about attacking Islam.
11
You are correct. Freedom of speech is ok but persistent incitement or hate by this yellow magazine of various religions and persons etc is just overdoing it. 99.999% of those that they target and intentionally incite will ignore them for their stupidity or lack of knowledge but there is always that tiny % that cannot deal with persistent dishonoring in what they believe or what they are etc etc. There should be humor but certain things should ideally be left alone. Religions, ideologies, sexuality, race etc should be left alone and not mocked behind so called irony or satirism which for many may be just a way to hind behind their hate.
3
They can attack Islam if they want to. I think it's a primitive and absurd belief just as all other religions are. If I were an artist or a cartoonist I might want to express my belief on paper. You're saying I should not have that right? You're certainly entitled to that opinion and for expressing it, but you cannot demand my silence.
1
If someone wants to use his freedom of speech to attack Islam they have that right.
This isn't about wisdom, or taste, or prudence, it is about defending freedom of expression.
Even those expressions which you and I may abhor.
This isn't about wisdom, or taste, or prudence, it is about defending freedom of expression.
Even those expressions which you and I may abhor.
As Mrs Grundy stands at her kitchen window with a pair of binoculars trying to catch me padding from my bedroom to the bath in the nude should I worry that she intends to call the cops and complain that I refuse to pull the blinds and am therefore an exibitionist?
Tell them if they don't like what they see to not look.
Tell them if they don't like what they see to not look.
19
Who came up with this nonsense that depicting Mohamed is forbidden? Some guy? Who says that that guy knows what he's talking about? Who elected that guy to speak for others?
17
Who are you to decide for 2 billion?
3
kakorako,
I doubt that two billion agree with you. But in any case, your two billion are less than the other four billion
I doubt that two billion agree with you. But in any case, your two billion are less than the other four billion
If you are offended then move back to your beloved sharia state. Why do Muslims immigrate to our secular societies? We have tried to be inclusive to all peoples with our open immigration policies with the hope that people would moderate their beliefs and become more open. Its not working.
38
Actually, I would guess that even many millions of Muslims who have not immigrated to France would also be decrying this new publication at CH.
Their revulsion is not limited to those that are culturally mismatched from living in France: this is a much more widespread revulsion, across huge segments of Islam. I suppose some Muslims in France might be motivated to 'leave the impious land' and its disrespectful ways, but the reactions are happening across the Muslim world. People with no contact to CH are jumping up and down at the idea of this happening. It's an ideological struggle !
Their revulsion is not limited to those that are culturally mismatched from living in France: this is a much more widespread revulsion, across huge segments of Islam. I suppose some Muslims in France might be motivated to 'leave the impious land' and its disrespectful ways, but the reactions are happening across the Muslim world. People with no contact to CH are jumping up and down at the idea of this happening. It's an ideological struggle !
This is how Charlie Hebdo makes money. By stimulating controversy and provoking distress. This is their business model, folks. And when things go too far, they cry "free speech." How is different than the schoolyard bully who humiliates the overweight student by calling her "Fatty"? They showed very poor judgement. But remember, this is how they make their money.
7
"When things go too far they cry 'free speech'"
When things go too far? Like when 12 of them are murdered?
When things go too far? Like when 12 of them are murdered?
2
You want to express freedom and power of the press?
Every newspaper, journal and magazine, from the NYT to the National Enquirer, From the New Republic to People, should publish that cover of Charlie Hedbo tomorrow (or this week).
Every newspaper, journal and magazine, from the NYT to the National Enquirer, From the New Republic to People, should publish that cover of Charlie Hedbo tomorrow (or this week).
24
It is a conundrum that free speech is sometimes inconvenient and ill-timed but it still must be protected. What we are witnessing is the collision of the modern world and a medieval religious fundamentalists quick to call heretic, exact judgement and commit summary executions. We cannot fix these broken individuals and failed regimes,
The modern world is sometimes harsh and unfair, but it is also a beacon of hope, progress and freedom, that draws millions of people to it's shores and borders. The world has plenty of examples of what it is like to live in countries dominated by religious clerics, fanatics and intolerance, and repressive secular dictators and communists.
We must defend this modern world or we will all be dragged back into the dark ages of tribalism, fear and repression.
The modern world is sometimes harsh and unfair, but it is also a beacon of hope, progress and freedom, that draws millions of people to it's shores and borders. The world has plenty of examples of what it is like to live in countries dominated by religious clerics, fanatics and intolerance, and repressive secular dictators and communists.
We must defend this modern world or we will all be dragged back into the dark ages of tribalism, fear and repression.
17
Muslim organizations are worried about "anti-Muslim" acts. Perhaps they should be more worried about fully-Muslim acts such as the killings at Charlie Hebdo.
If they are not punishing the extremists in their ranks, they are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
If they are not punishing the extremists in their ranks, they are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
39
Freedom of Speech, YES! But, in this very charged and problematic situation, to harp on the prophet seems - stupid to me. There are many things that need to be caricatured and the prophet right now needs some breathing room.
There was the muslim policeman, AHMED MERABET, that got killed in cold blood, gruesomely on the sidewalk after having been wounded, and the other muslim, LASSANA BATHILY, from Mali and a worker at the Jewish supermarket who hid many customers in the basement and thus saved them: does he need to fear for his life again? And is the new caricature of the prophet a message of condolence for Ahmed M.
I would not be surprised at more reprisals, i.e. another terrorist 'commando' will try to wipe out the rest of the Charlie Hepdo staff and their friends at the Liberation offices.
What about some creative work about the life in the Banlieu! What about the disenfranchised, the marginalized in France that are so easy to recruit for allegedly religious-motivated revenge on the disrespectful French? Where's the imaginative energy to deal with the real problems of la grande nation? F---k the cheap shots at religious symbols, the predictable low-brow humor that is, as the magazine prides itself: irresponsible. It does not make me laugh! It's rather terribly sad. As many have observed, if there's revenge, many innocent people will be brutalized again.
There was the muslim policeman, AHMED MERABET, that got killed in cold blood, gruesomely on the sidewalk after having been wounded, and the other muslim, LASSANA BATHILY, from Mali and a worker at the Jewish supermarket who hid many customers in the basement and thus saved them: does he need to fear for his life again? And is the new caricature of the prophet a message of condolence for Ahmed M.
I would not be surprised at more reprisals, i.e. another terrorist 'commando' will try to wipe out the rest of the Charlie Hepdo staff and their friends at the Liberation offices.
What about some creative work about the life in the Banlieu! What about the disenfranchised, the marginalized in France that are so easy to recruit for allegedly religious-motivated revenge on the disrespectful French? Where's the imaginative energy to deal with the real problems of la grande nation? F---k the cheap shots at religious symbols, the predictable low-brow humor that is, as the magazine prides itself: irresponsible. It does not make me laugh! It's rather terribly sad. As many have observed, if there's revenge, many innocent people will be brutalized again.
9
i think it's brilliant. it is the essence of true compassion and intelligence. we are one.
9
The magazine knew it was a target; another Times article from today confirms this.
So why didn't they hire private, trained, armed security? One or two would've quite possibly thwarted this horror.
I just don't understand. Knowing how insane these jihadists are that they lampoon, the magazine failed to protect its own people. And no, I'm not "blaming" - this is a truth that needs to be addressed sooner than later.
So why didn't they hire private, trained, armed security? One or two would've quite possibly thwarted this horror.
I just don't understand. Knowing how insane these jihadists are that they lampoon, the magazine failed to protect its own people. And no, I'm not "blaming" - this is a truth that needs to be addressed sooner than later.
3
The bodyguard was the first person shot and a policemen was also shot.
5
I seem to remember seeing one report on the attack as indicating that the bodyguard of one of the editors was among those killed.
1
Someone wasn't paying enough attention. Trained counterterrorism personnel were needed. "Bodyguard" could mean anything from an ex-bouncer to ?
"The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a 'holy' book. But I will not be told I can’t eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings." - Christopher Hitchens, 2007
31
It's the end of the world as we know it ...
1
Moderate Muslims who don't think people should be butchered for hurting their feelings should understand that our right to "insult" a man who many died centuries ago outweighs their preference not to have their feelings hurt, and they can avoid hurt feeling by not reading Charlie Hebdo.
Muslim fundamentalists who think people should be butchered for hurting their feelings deserve to be constantly and vigorously offended, and what better way to offend them than with the very free expression which they find (or pretend to find) unbearable?
It would be fitting for the Charlie Hebdo survivors to include some of most obscene depictions ever of Mohammed in tomorrow's issue.
Muslim fundamentalists who think people should be butchered for hurting their feelings deserve to be constantly and vigorously offended, and what better way to offend them than with the very free expression which they find (or pretend to find) unbearable?
It would be fitting for the Charlie Hebdo survivors to include some of most obscene depictions ever of Mohammed in tomorrow's issue.
19
As far as I know, there have been no "obscene" representations of any kind in CH. Satirical yes, obscene no.
2
The cartoon is extremely clever and poignant. It suggests that if Mohammad was alive he would forgive the creators of the image - or is it the dead criminals who are receiving forgiveness from Charlie Hebdo, a christ-like gesture if there ever was one? Or more sinsisterly, the radicals forgiven by the prophet for their act? Maybe all three?
Of course all this subtelty and playfullness will drive people crazy, especially the Islamists it is riduculing. Je suis Charlie!.
Of course all this subtelty and playfullness will drive people crazy, especially the Islamists it is riduculing. Je suis Charlie!.
34
It's the hypocrisy of these terrorists that is so appalling.
One of the masked brothers in Paris told a woman in the Charlie Hebdo offices that he would spare her life because she was a woman if she promised to convert to Islam, read the Koran and where a veil. Meanwhile, the Muslim terrorist at the kosher deli, who was in cahoots with both brothers, was photographed smiling with his smiling terrorist girlfriend at a beach where she was wearing a bikini. Guess that was perfectly OK with him
And remember what was found inside Osama bin Laden's room? CDs and magazines filled with pornography. Fine for him, but not anybody else.
Finally, is anyone else ever struck by the similarities between Naziism and ISIS? Read "Hitler's Long Shadow over Israel" for the connection. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/05/hitlers_long_shadow_over...
One of the masked brothers in Paris told a woman in the Charlie Hebdo offices that he would spare her life because she was a woman if she promised to convert to Islam, read the Koran and where a veil. Meanwhile, the Muslim terrorist at the kosher deli, who was in cahoots with both brothers, was photographed smiling with his smiling terrorist girlfriend at a beach where she was wearing a bikini. Guess that was perfectly OK with him
And remember what was found inside Osama bin Laden's room? CDs and magazines filled with pornography. Fine for him, but not anybody else.
Finally, is anyone else ever struck by the similarities between Naziism and ISIS? Read "Hitler's Long Shadow over Israel" for the connection. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/05/hitlers_long_shadow_over...
14
In case you hadn't hear, the woman said the report that he said would spare her life because she was a woman if she promised to convert to Islam was not what she told them. Get your facts straight.
2
God bless the NYT for linking to the cover.
2
And Allah bless you for not printing it.
1
I am glad they did. To quote a teenagism "you are not the boss of me."
And that is what these extremeist Islamist will not accept.
They may live as fiar as I am concerned as they wish: live as you think is appropriate; but, you are not the boss of me!
And that is what these extremeist Islamist will not accept.
They may live as fiar as I am concerned as they wish: live as you think is appropriate; but, you are not the boss of me!
16
Now imagine someone else saying this to us.
You see, there is a dominance of culture here. The western media has became the mainstream media, and in a way, this makes what it says much more hurtful. If some newspaper in Saudi was insulting Christians, none of us would probably even see it.
However, in society, those in dominance can often be very ignorant of the hardship of the minorities. Just imagine what happens if a western newspaper like NYT starts blatantly insulting Christianity. Now that would be much more of an issue for us than a newspaper in Saudi. It is just because mainstream (western) media happens to be on the side of what most westerners would believe, that it made us think it is easy for others to eat our insults.
You see, there is a dominance of culture here. The western media has became the mainstream media, and in a way, this makes what it says much more hurtful. If some newspaper in Saudi was insulting Christians, none of us would probably even see it.
However, in society, those in dominance can often be very ignorant of the hardship of the minorities. Just imagine what happens if a western newspaper like NYT starts blatantly insulting Christianity. Now that would be much more of an issue for us than a newspaper in Saudi. It is just because mainstream (western) media happens to be on the side of what most westerners would believe, that it made us think it is easy for others to eat our insults.
1
The "Islamic Authorities" in Egypt have inadvertently, crystallized the issue between the "free" world and the Arabic Nations. We are free to say what we please, look at what we please, and read what we please. The adherents of Islam are not. It is just that simple. It is their religious doctrine that must change in order to live at peace with the free world and not the other way around. As a Catholic, (not practicing at the moment), I was incensed when the Metropolitan Art Museum ran the "piss Christ showing" by Andre Serrano and called it art and expression. I would never see a show like that. I voiced my opinion by writing my representatives and asked that funding for the arts be more rigorously challenged. I did not want to blow up the building, or kill the artist, or the people who worked for the Museum. I also supported the Catholic Leagues' outrage at this exhibit. In the end the showing went through. Now years later, a little older and wiser, I see that free expression is just that, free, and should not be censored by any religious body. I am in hopes that all free peoples of the world will not back down no matter what. We do not need the "thought police".
26
If Muslims have the right to be offended by silly cartoons, then non-Muslims have the right to be offended by Islamic intolerance and superstition. But guess what, that's where the line is drawn. Neither Muslims nor non-Muslims have a right to use violence against those who offend them. Once you cross that line you cease to be part of the civilized world.
40
Getting murdered, doesn't turn you into an artist, or a hero. Charlie Hebdo is an art-less trashy, sleazy publication.
If they depicted Jews the way they depict Muslims, it would (rightly) be deemed "Anti-Semetic".
You can go to prison for Anti-Semetism, and "Holocaust-denial" in many European countries (Germany and Austria, for sure and I believe also France).
Are the "je suis Charlie" protesters vociferously suggesting that those laws should be changed in the name of "Free Speech"?
Or, is it just Anti-Muslim speech which is supposed to be protected?
If they depicted Jews the way they depict Muslims, it would (rightly) be deemed "Anti-Semetic".
You can go to prison for Anti-Semetism, and "Holocaust-denial" in many European countries (Germany and Austria, for sure and I believe also France).
Are the "je suis Charlie" protesters vociferously suggesting that those laws should be changed in the name of "Free Speech"?
Or, is it just Anti-Muslim speech which is supposed to be protected?
14
Jews don't believe they have the right to kill you if you draw Moses.
7
They regularly skewer Jews, Christians and politicians. While there are laws concerning the holocaust, there are plenty of anti-Semitic (please note the correct spelling) that do not end in murder and terrorism. Satire was invented in France and has a long history of commenting on the social norms of the times. Unfortunately, you cannot teach humor to murderous thugs who seek to subjugate, rape and sell woman and who find maiming, crucifixion and beheading an appropriate response to anything they don't agree with. Satire is a little subtle for radical Islam.
5
Charlie Hebdo has skewered Christians, Jews, and many people in positions of power. They are an equal opportunity offender. Your argument is not based on fact.
6
Raises New Tensions? The terrorists killed over a dozen innocent people. Exactly how can another cover cartoon upset them even more?
28
Yeah I found that funny in a dark way too. How much higher can tension get?
2
The bottom line is, that regardless of beliefs, this is all much ado about fantasy.
9
Except for the murdered!!!!
2
Anyone complaining about the new cover fanning the flames should first make the effort of searching for it on the web, which takes all of about 10 seconds.
In light of the outrageous atrocity CH has suffered, that cover is outright timid and almost asking for forgiveness than accusing anyone. Only an Islamic radical can possibly be offended by it and should we really care about that?
Giving in to intimidation is the last thing we can afford to do.
In light of the outrageous atrocity CH has suffered, that cover is outright timid and almost asking for forgiveness than accusing anyone. Only an Islamic radical can possibly be offended by it and should we really care about that?
Giving in to intimidation is the last thing we can afford to do.
30
The Times should be standing up and supporting Charlie Hebdo by releasing the cartoons to its readership. Their has to be solidarity for the cause of freedom of speech and the separation of Church from free speech and the State.
28
These fanatical martyr wannabes can find any reason to be offended enough to carry out their cowardly acts of terror. If it weren't these cartoons, it would be the banning of head scarves in French schools. Or perceived official implicit discrimination. Or a mosque that wasn't given a zoning permit.
17
I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should have the option to express it as long as it doesn't depict violence. Freedom of speech is one of our given rights as an American and is a given right of the French as well. In my opinion, the purpose of this cartoon is to show that France is still standing strong after what was done to them . I believe that this a strong message to send to the world. I also believe that Renald Luzier was trying to say that the terrorists are forgiven with Muhammad depicting the message all is forgiven. I don't believe that Luzier or Charlie Hebdo is doing anything wrong by going forth publishing this cover.
21
As someone mentioned in a comment it's an act of heroism!!!!!!
2
A cartoon of Muhammad (who espoused forgiveness) crying with a "We are all Charlie" sign beneath Charlie Hebdo's declaration of forgiveness is an expression of freedom I support.
Disputed edicts against publication of images of Muhammad cannot be separated from their sociopolitical context, including the politicization of religion as a way for states to control their own populace.
Of course, publication of such images could be seen as racist, depending on the intent of the institution publishing it.
It could be imperialistic, a show of hubris by a particular cartoonist or Charlie Hebdo to foster a climate in France that subjugates a Muslim minority given France's own imperial history in Northern Africa and oppression of peoples who embraced Islam.
It also could be a cry for freedom by a particular cartoonist or Charlie Hebdo in response to feeling oppressed by others using religion to dictate their beliefs upon a society.
It could be a lot of things.
Context and intent is important.
Too often religions -- or, more precisely -- one's specific interpretation of religious tenets will not allow for context and intent. This is the crux of the issue.
With no room for human fallibility, with no allowance for deviation from whatever might be another person's religious norm, we, as a society, cede freedom.
Let us remember the US Supreme Court recently allowed Hobby Lobby to impose its religious interpretations on employees. Perhaps now, more than ever, "Je suis Charlie."
Disputed edicts against publication of images of Muhammad cannot be separated from their sociopolitical context, including the politicization of religion as a way for states to control their own populace.
Of course, publication of such images could be seen as racist, depending on the intent of the institution publishing it.
It could be imperialistic, a show of hubris by a particular cartoonist or Charlie Hebdo to foster a climate in France that subjugates a Muslim minority given France's own imperial history in Northern Africa and oppression of peoples who embraced Islam.
It also could be a cry for freedom by a particular cartoonist or Charlie Hebdo in response to feeling oppressed by others using religion to dictate their beliefs upon a society.
It could be a lot of things.
Context and intent is important.
Too often religions -- or, more precisely -- one's specific interpretation of religious tenets will not allow for context and intent. This is the crux of the issue.
With no room for human fallibility, with no allowance for deviation from whatever might be another person's religious norm, we, as a society, cede freedom.
Let us remember the US Supreme Court recently allowed Hobby Lobby to impose its religious interpretations on employees. Perhaps now, more than ever, "Je suis Charlie."
19
On 25 November 2007, British teacher Gillian Gibbons was arrested and accused of inciting religious hatred for letting her six year old pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad.
On 30 November approximately 10,000 protesters took to the streets in Khartoum, some of them waving swords and machetes, demanding Gibbons's execution.
Thanks to the British government intercession, Ms. Gibbons was released after 8 days in prison, and deported from Sudan.
"Religious hatred" is a very convenient concept, used in many countries. "Fear of offending religious feelings" is another convenient concept, used by many newspapers.
On 30 November approximately 10,000 protesters took to the streets in Khartoum, some of them waving swords and machetes, demanding Gibbons's execution.
Thanks to the British government intercession, Ms. Gibbons was released after 8 days in prison, and deported from Sudan.
"Religious hatred" is a very convenient concept, used in many countries. "Fear of offending religious feelings" is another convenient concept, used by many newspapers.
40
I am pretty sure God, whatever name we choose to give him, is perfectly capable of fending for himself, and doesn't need humans to protect him from whatever crazy things that we humans do. If the staff of Charlie Hebdo feels the need to portray God, I'm sure God can handle the repercussions, both for himself and the staff of Charlie Hebdo. Not a concern of us mere mortals.
16
herself????
2
If only the Islamist terrorists can understand one simple thing: the biggest threat to western democracies is the peace and order in the world. Its ironic but most of the west will starve if we don't have wars: everything is outsourced to China other then the production of war machineries. We need to be in a perpetual state of conflicts at some location on the globe to support our economy. So stop terrorism and useless wars if you really want to inflict pain on western democracies.
Heartwarming new cover.
Muhammad expressing "We are in this together";
the "all is forgiven" is beyond brilliant-a healing gesture by each to the other (Muslim, Jew, French, Christian et al).
This cover as a united new beginning in a new year,
depending on the reader.
Muhammad expressing "We are in this together";
the "all is forgiven" is beyond brilliant-a healing gesture by each to the other (Muslim, Jew, French, Christian et al).
This cover as a united new beginning in a new year,
depending on the reader.
19
Be real. The new cover is provocative and the All Is Forgiven banner is disingenuous. Its also an extra jab in its allusion to Christ. I say this without condemning the magazine in any way.
2
keith-e,
"...depending on the reader."
"...depending on the reader."
Calling this stuff "racist" is weird. Since when is being Muslim a race? Aren't there Muslims of all ethnicities? And doesn't good satire makes fun of everybody?
28
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
We alwsys respect the freedom of speaking.
We alwsys respect the freedom of speaking.
13
This is as radical a belief as a belief in complete censorship.
It forgoes basic human decency.
It forgoes basic human decency.
2
Thank you, New York Times for not sharing this cover. Cahrlie Hebdo has the world's sympathy after the massacre of its staff.. So why keep drawing pictures of Mohammed? Why so much defiance?
Do they enjoy insulting other people's religion?
As an inventive cartoonist, couldn't Luzier have come up with a way of making his point without actually drawing Mohammed....maybe show a voice coming from a cloud. Luzier should realize he is not a child anymore...He is an adult who should have some common sense.
I will exercise my freedom of speech by ignoring Luzier's cartoons.
Do they enjoy insulting other people's religion?
As an inventive cartoonist, couldn't Luzier have come up with a way of making his point without actually drawing Mohammed....maybe show a voice coming from a cloud. Luzier should realize he is not a child anymore...He is an adult who should have some common sense.
I will exercise my freedom of speech by ignoring Luzier's cartoons.
9
because not doing so simply tells the terrorists that hey were right.
9
"I will exercise my freedom of speech by ignoring Luzier's cartoons."
Actually, what you are exercising is your free will.
Actually, what you are exercising is your free will.
There is no justification for violence, period. But there should be also laws to protect against offending people. I wonder if Charlie Hebdo dares to publish antisemitic caricatures? So please do not lecture us about the 'the media should not be intimidated'. Israel and its supporters has been intimidating the US and Western media for a long time.
8
Charlie-Hebdo have also published cartoons ridiculing aspects of Christianity and Judaism. Whether this is anti-semitic (or anti-christian) or not depends on your point of view.
10
Why is it that the default, and almost always wrong, response argument is: they would never do it to the Jews. Well, Amir, as it turns out Charlie Hebdo has often published numerous cartoons that people could consider antisemitic. It has also published cartoons that demean Christian symbols as well.
Your "Israel and its supporters" intimidating the US and the Western media comment suggests a conspiratorial mindset entirely divorced from reality.
Your "Israel and its supporters" intimidating the US and the Western media comment suggests a conspiratorial mindset entirely divorced from reality.
14
Who decides what is offensive? Who gets to decide where that line is?
3
It is, in my opinion, stupid and irresponsible to provoke violent responses in defense of free speech. Long ago we all agreed that yelling fire in a crowded theatre was irresponsible and even a crime. Mr. Luzier's defense that cartoonists "love to draw little guys, like when we were children" is nonsensical, as is his cartoon. The world needs humor and freedom of expression, but at what cost? Particularly when the humor and expression is banal and puerile.
11
It doesn't matter that the speech was a cartoon. The point is the freedom to express it, even if you found it banal and puerile.
All religion is blasphemy to someone. If we aren't free to draw a cartoon, how can we be free to worship?
All religion is blasphemy to someone. If we aren't free to draw a cartoon, how can we be free to worship?
5
If the sole reactions of the ignorant and immature is violent reprisal then we become doomed by their success. The bloodbath that carries forward from the twentieth century proves it so again and again.
Deliberate more profound consideration of humanity and its discontents will remain the domain of peaceable people who are otherwise and always the bearers of civilization. To be stronger and more persistent than foolishness wins the day.
Radicalized Islam is an embarrassment to Muslims as much as western warmongering has been to intelligent people everywhere. We cannot go on accepting that killing - state-sponsored and/or the acts of depraved dimwits - solves anything.
For its part, the compromised, mediocre political classes of the developed world - like the terrorists they decry - are doing worse by the day, neither smart or aware enough that in their persisted myopic self-interested paeans to divisiveness lie the very threats to public security.
People like Marine Le Pen are just negligent enough to miss that their own hackneyed brand of infantilism speaks equally bad things to weaklings at both extreme ends of the societal divide. What stunted intellects like Le Pen can never accept is the inevitability of extreme violence as incited by jejune insecurities. Whether mosques are attacked, synagogues desecrated or press rooms violated, Le Pen's motives proceed to the same dreadful conclusions but never the liberating solution. History's tragedies say it's so.
Deliberate more profound consideration of humanity and its discontents will remain the domain of peaceable people who are otherwise and always the bearers of civilization. To be stronger and more persistent than foolishness wins the day.
Radicalized Islam is an embarrassment to Muslims as much as western warmongering has been to intelligent people everywhere. We cannot go on accepting that killing - state-sponsored and/or the acts of depraved dimwits - solves anything.
For its part, the compromised, mediocre political classes of the developed world - like the terrorists they decry - are doing worse by the day, neither smart or aware enough that in their persisted myopic self-interested paeans to divisiveness lie the very threats to public security.
People like Marine Le Pen are just negligent enough to miss that their own hackneyed brand of infantilism speaks equally bad things to weaklings at both extreme ends of the societal divide. What stunted intellects like Le Pen can never accept is the inevitability of extreme violence as incited by jejune insecurities. Whether mosques are attacked, synagogues desecrated or press rooms violated, Le Pen's motives proceed to the same dreadful conclusions but never the liberating solution. History's tragedies say it's so.
6
For the first cover of the magazine, I would have loved to see a cartoon of a turban as if tipped forward, with tears coming from the spaces where the figure's eyes would be, and perhaps two depressions in the sand where the figure's feet would be. No depiction of Mohammed, only the depiction of sadness.
4
This is madness. And the real tragedy is that the lives of so many millions of nonchalant innocent bystanders, people who just want to go on with their daily lives in peace, are being put at risk in the conflict among the radicals in different cultures: the free speech zealots vs the Islamic zealots, the free speech zealots vs the North Korean zealots.
It would be nice to put them all in an arena and let them kill each other, and leave innocent bystanders out of it.
It would be nice to put them all in an arena and let them kill each other, and leave innocent bystanders out of it.
9
Please show me where today's free speech zealots have attempted or expressed a desire to kill anybody. Those of us on the side of free speech simply remember how much blood was shed in the 18th century to obtain the freedoms we cherish today and are reluctant to give them up just because a few whack jobs have turned to violence.
4
I applaud the CH editors for this week's cover. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of an open society that simply cannot be abdicated in the face of threats or religious sensibilities. To do so is commit cultural suicide. Especially in the aftermath of this attack it is important to reaffirm such a tenet.
45
We need to be sensitive to all sides. But all sides need to be sensitive, too, and not be over-sensitive. That what is trivial must remain trivial. That what is important needs to be made important. If a Muslim will not depict Mohammed, we can all honor that. But to ask non-Muslims to follow a Muslim edict makes no sense. The not-depicting of Mohammed is important for Muslims. The act of others depicting the Prophet should be considered trivial. Everyone, please grow up.
20
Since the workers at Charlie Hebdo have already paid the ultimate price, no one has a right to criticize them for their response. In fact, it displays a level of bravery most of us would shudder to contemplate.
43
At some point, and maybe we're there now, this will become the global equivalent of shouting "fire" in crowded theater.
How many lives is yet another insulting picture of Muhammad worth? Sure, they have the right. Sure, the right is important --crucial, even. Happily granted.
But only a rigid fundamentalist ignores all context. France can't, and shouldn't, ban it -- as they do other speech, hypocritically, which is, like, sorta telling.
Hebdo and the moral-panicking, blind supporters they have picked up in droves (aptly ridiculed by that Dutch Hebdonian), might have used their fifteen minutes to explain where they're coming from and why.
There are many options between "cowardly appeasement" and further provocation. This isn't a schoolyard fight. How many lives should we risk, right here and now, over this? Please do give me a number.
As anyone who's been in any kind of stable relationship knows, it often doesn't really matter how "right" either party is. Certainly not how my wife and I approach these things: we deal with the inevitable conflict, irrationalities (shared or not), mistakes, and all that with patience, empathy, and tolerance. Neither of us really cares who's "right."
But that kind of approach requires, like I said, empathy -- the empathy between peers who are fighting for something more than self. Too few of those on either "side" of this silly, but increasingly dangerous, binary.
Is it just all about narcissism? Or do we really want to live together?
How many lives is yet another insulting picture of Muhammad worth? Sure, they have the right. Sure, the right is important --crucial, even. Happily granted.
But only a rigid fundamentalist ignores all context. France can't, and shouldn't, ban it -- as they do other speech, hypocritically, which is, like, sorta telling.
Hebdo and the moral-panicking, blind supporters they have picked up in droves (aptly ridiculed by that Dutch Hebdonian), might have used their fifteen minutes to explain where they're coming from and why.
There are many options between "cowardly appeasement" and further provocation. This isn't a schoolyard fight. How many lives should we risk, right here and now, over this? Please do give me a number.
As anyone who's been in any kind of stable relationship knows, it often doesn't really matter how "right" either party is. Certainly not how my wife and I approach these things: we deal with the inevitable conflict, irrationalities (shared or not), mistakes, and all that with patience, empathy, and tolerance. Neither of us really cares who's "right."
But that kind of approach requires, like I said, empathy -- the empathy between peers who are fighting for something more than self. Too few of those on either "side" of this silly, but increasingly dangerous, binary.
Is it just all about narcissism? Or do we really want to live together?
9
You think it's "narcissism" knowingly to put yourself, your employer & your loved ones in jeopardy in pursuit of an abstract ideal.
I think it's altruism.
I think it's altruism.
6
France is not a theocracy, it is a democracy. If you don't like what CH has so say then don't read the publication. Or, take peaceful, civilized means to counter such actions. You have the right to not like what CH says, and the right to be insulted, and the right to say you disagree, but you do not have the right to react with violence. Both the French government and French citizens have shown that they will not tolerate violent reactions to disagreeable statements or images.
7
Have you seen the picture? There is nothing insulting about it. On the contrary.
Stop quivering, get a backbone.
Stop quivering, get a backbone.
9
Violence, bloodshed, and increasingly it appears, actual war is likely now. For what??
If and when the death and destruction begins, when will it end? And until it ends, how many innocent people will DIE, how much devastation will the living endure? Ultimately, will the provocateurs and recklessly irresponsible free speech advocates feel good about themselves? Will they conclude that all the killing was worth it???
If and when the death and destruction begins, when will it end? And until it ends, how many innocent people will DIE, how much devastation will the living endure? Ultimately, will the provocateurs and recklessly irresponsible free speech advocates feel good about themselves? Will they conclude that all the killing was worth it???
6
The foreign ministry in Libya (empty at the time) was bombed because a minister said "Merry Christmas." Merry Christmas is not a recklessly irresponsible thing to say, and still, it incites violence.
13
So we should live under Sharia law instead of democracy to appease these barbarians? They are the ones doing the killing. How about some rage about that.
20
@entity.z
I am not advocating war or killing. But that doesn't mean it is never necessary. And your comment implies that you are someone who would have been content to appease any hostile force throughout history and accept the consequences, rather than shed one drop of blood in the name of freedom or justice or right.
I am thinking of how your comment would apply, and the stance you would have taken in 1775, 1789, 1933, 1939 or 1941, or in any other conflict which might be called a "just war".
Worse, you are a blamer of the victim, instead of a vilifier of the criminal. The French fought a war for freedom more than two centuries ago. It is not up to Islamic radicals who reject the values for which they fought to impose their own rigid standards on the people and mores of another nation.
Muslims -- and anyone else -- is free to believe and speak what they want and to practice their own religion anywhere on French soil. They are not free to murder in order to force their beliefs on others.
Those whom you quite ignorantly call "provocateurs and recklessly irresponsible free speech advocates" are the guardians of YOUR freedoms. You should be thanking them.
I am not advocating war or killing. But that doesn't mean it is never necessary. And your comment implies that you are someone who would have been content to appease any hostile force throughout history and accept the consequences, rather than shed one drop of blood in the name of freedom or justice or right.
I am thinking of how your comment would apply, and the stance you would have taken in 1775, 1789, 1933, 1939 or 1941, or in any other conflict which might be called a "just war".
Worse, you are a blamer of the victim, instead of a vilifier of the criminal. The French fought a war for freedom more than two centuries ago. It is not up to Islamic radicals who reject the values for which they fought to impose their own rigid standards on the people and mores of another nation.
Muslims -- and anyone else -- is free to believe and speak what they want and to practice their own religion anywhere on French soil. They are not free to murder in order to force their beliefs on others.
Those whom you quite ignorantly call "provocateurs and recklessly irresponsible free speech advocates" are the guardians of YOUR freedoms. You should be thanking them.
8
I don't think it makes any sense to admit to allowing freedom of expression, whatever the scope of that freedom might be, to be administered by child-like madmen, barbarians, ignorant people, and then punished by mean-spirited violence. Whatever the limits of such freedom might be, in the West, the result for transgression should not be death, or even some rude chastisement. Avoiding such unpleasant results from "outsiders" and easily offended criminals who don't like our culture is why we form governments and get organized into states, and specify and describe our various rights, etc. Freedom of expression is the result of, and important to, our own culture, and is a hard won liberty, and obviously one which Muslims do not yet have, or understand. Too bad for them. If Muslims feel offended by cartoons they need to stay in countries where they do not have freedom of expression and they should attempt to avoid exposing themselves to publications which publish things that offend them. Killing people who disagree with you about art and politics is not proper adult behavior, in our culture, which is Western.
23
The West simply cannot abdicate its liberty and its tenets --and Islam needs to know and understand than depicting a mythological figure is simply something that is, will be, and must be, an act of freedom in the West. Islam radicals must agree to let others disagree with them, and if not, then if they persist in terrorism and violence, the West cannot stand aside.
26
I applaud the courage of the Charlie Hebfo staff in refusing to let an evil act of terror intimidate them. I'm an art historian, and it should be mentioned that prohibitions against religious icons have a long history in all three of the Abrahamic religions. The second commandment prohibits "graven images," and Moses' legislation is at the origin of the current controversy. But the cause of the prohibition has changed significantly: Moses was protesting the idolatrous worship of the Golden Calf. Likewise Protestant iconoclasts during the Reformation feared the power of images to distract from true worship of God. In this, the Harvard art historian Joseph Koerner has argued, the iconoclasts were the true idolators--most everyone else understood that an image was a reminder of God, not an embodiment of Him.
Now there is no danger of this conflation of satirical images of Mohammed with the divine presence: in the recent image wars, the issue has not been a fear of idolatry but rather resentment over perceived disrespect--that, and a murderous literalism with no mind for the original reasons of the prohibition of religious imagery. These murderers would make non-Muslims follow a distorted form of Islamic law. This instinct is totalitarian--it cannot be respected, but must be resisted. How wonderful that Charlie Hebdo continues this resistance, now at the obvious risk of murder. May God protect them, and everyone else lighten up about caricature.
Now there is no danger of this conflation of satirical images of Mohammed with the divine presence: in the recent image wars, the issue has not been a fear of idolatry but rather resentment over perceived disrespect--that, and a murderous literalism with no mind for the original reasons of the prohibition of religious imagery. These murderers would make non-Muslims follow a distorted form of Islamic law. This instinct is totalitarian--it cannot be respected, but must be resisted. How wonderful that Charlie Hebdo continues this resistance, now at the obvious risk of murder. May God protect them, and everyone else lighten up about caricature.
41
In a democratic country, governed by the people for the people, there is only one limit to free expression: the rule of the law.
If the cover is against the law, go to court.
If the cover is against the law, go to court.
32
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me".
That is, unless you are a radical. Then, "Game on", apparently.
It's absurd. "Tolerance", whatever that even means today, should extend beyond tolerating co-existence of religions. It should ALSO extend into co-existence of ridicule and critique of said group (religious, political, national, etc.) as well as ANY and all ideas. In a democracy, you should be "free" to vocalize opinion that challenges religion, politics, art, sport, and any other "ism", and you ought to be able to do this WITHOUT physical threat or death.
The end.
That is, unless you are a radical. Then, "Game on", apparently.
It's absurd. "Tolerance", whatever that even means today, should extend beyond tolerating co-existence of religions. It should ALSO extend into co-existence of ridicule and critique of said group (religious, political, national, etc.) as well as ANY and all ideas. In a democracy, you should be "free" to vocalize opinion that challenges religion, politics, art, sport, and any other "ism", and you ought to be able to do this WITHOUT physical threat or death.
The end.
25
An attack on freedom of expression is an attack on democracy. Not showing the cover is letting the terrorists win.
45
The terrorists win? What in the world do they win. It's not some sort of contest. They've lost long ago...in fact, they're not even in the game.
Fanaticism is both the fire and it's own self perpetuating fuel. It needs no provocation or help to burn itself in perpetuity. No thought, belief, written word or piece of art is capable of creating fanaticism. It exists in and of and for itself. It is a rage born of wounds. self inflicted, and fear that cannot heal.
Publishing the Charlie Hedbo political cartoons will not "fan the flames" or "provoke" anything but our own resolve to honour the courageous heroes who lived their lives holding high the light of freedom.
Publishing the Charlie Hedbo political cartoons will not "fan the flames" or "provoke" anything but our own resolve to honour the courageous heroes who lived their lives holding high the light of freedom.
28
This is just the reaction terrorists hope for. A cowering mass of humanity so afraid of their shadow they are unable to react to
to need for a strong, and resilient stance against the evil that exists in today's culture.
to need for a strong, and resilient stance against the evil that exists in today's culture.
24
Freedom is the goal here. One is free to publish their thoughts while another is free to worship as they see fit. One doesn't interfere with or impede the other. Therefore where is the justification for saying the magazine should tone down their satire. Is the magazine demanding Muslims to be less fervent in their beliefs? There is a line not to cross from both perspectives. As long as the magazine doesn't publish anything that actively seeks to end the rights of Muslims to practice their religion, why should the cartoonists stop doing what they were perfectly free to do before the killings? Being critical of someone's beliefs in the form of a satirical cartoon does not empower the offended person to call for the end of the cartoonist's rights to speak, never mind end the cartoonist's life. Believing and criticizing are on equal footing in the realm of a free society. If anything should be done in response to this tragedy, it is the prosecution of anyone who would directly threaten or even suggest the threat of violence against a fellow human being for partaking in their right to be free. Never back down to threats in exchange for a false sense of peace. Pacification rarely leads to peace.
34
France does not have a legal protection for free speech like the First Amendment here in the US, but it should. There are laws dating back to the 19th Century that talk about not offending others. French law allows for fine and other punishments for those that offend. So the freedom of expression is not as clear as it is here in the US.
Still the same, Muslims have to understand that freedom of expression in a democracy is critical. And they should talk to their Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters whose symbols and doctrines have come under attack by those with a different point-of-view for a very long time.
Religions and their practices will always be mis-understood by non-practicers. Practitioners should understand that and let go.
Still the same, Muslims have to understand that freedom of expression in a democracy is critical. And they should talk to their Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters whose symbols and doctrines have come under attack by those with a different point-of-view for a very long time.
Religions and their practices will always be mis-understood by non-practicers. Practitioners should understand that and let go.
14
"Muslims have to understand that freedom of expression in a democracy is critical. And they should talk to their Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters whose symbols and doctrines have come under attack by those with a different point-of-view for a very long time. "
I'll bet there are plenty of Muslims who understand freedom of expression.
I'll bet there are plenty of Muslims who understand freedom of expression.
2
Plenty who understand...? Not enough, apparently
To those who say you cannot have free speech without consequences, that is correct. It takes courage and strength to say what often needs to be said. Kings can kill you, friends can turn away, terrorists can find you and cut your head off. Our Nation, The United States, as was the Republic of France, were founded on such ideas as free speech. Now, it is up to the civilized world to ensure that the consequences of this freedom isn't death.
45
The right of free expression (sacrosanct in the West) & respect for diversity within society (often sacrosanct in the West) are a delicate & difficut balance.
As a comparision, the prevailing view in the United States is generally to err on the side of caution regarding causing offense (lest there be a lawsuit (but hopefully nothing more onerous!)). France has been more provocative (some would say foolhardy) about promoting the right of free expression. It also has been famously secular (even anti-religion) in a way that would cause many Americans discomfort. This is not to say that the US is right & France is wrong but rather there is a clear cultural difference between the two countries in this regard.
Regardless, no person should face threats or even death from their expressions, no matter how offensive. The offense of killing another human being (whether in terrorists attacks, wanton drone attacks, capital executions or straightforward murder) far exceeds the offense of offending someone, no matter how hurtful.
Still, one would have to ascribe Charlie Hebdo a lot of chutzpah regarding their latest cover page, whether intended as reconciliation or as provocation. Islamophobia in Europe is clear & present danger to the values of Europe more so than the reigious practices of most European Muslims. It's time to ease tensions. Let's hope that the better nature of our angels prevail. Je ne suis pas Charlie, simplement une autre personne dans ce monde.
As a comparision, the prevailing view in the United States is generally to err on the side of caution regarding causing offense (lest there be a lawsuit (but hopefully nothing more onerous!)). France has been more provocative (some would say foolhardy) about promoting the right of free expression. It also has been famously secular (even anti-religion) in a way that would cause many Americans discomfort. This is not to say that the US is right & France is wrong but rather there is a clear cultural difference between the two countries in this regard.
Regardless, no person should face threats or even death from their expressions, no matter how offensive. The offense of killing another human being (whether in terrorists attacks, wanton drone attacks, capital executions or straightforward murder) far exceeds the offense of offending someone, no matter how hurtful.
Still, one would have to ascribe Charlie Hebdo a lot of chutzpah regarding their latest cover page, whether intended as reconciliation or as provocation. Islamophobia in Europe is clear & present danger to the values of Europe more so than the reigious practices of most European Muslims. It's time to ease tensions. Let's hope that the better nature of our angels prevail. Je ne suis pas Charlie, simplement une autre personne dans ce monde.
6
The only people who are responsible for the murders in Paris are the murderers themselves. Read that sentence again slowly. If more violence unfolds as a result of this new issue then the blame must be placed solely on those who commit the acts of violence. The alternative is to kowtow to religious fundamentalists. And that's not how free societies function.
While it has sadly become commonplace for unflattering depictions of Muḥammad to lead to artists being murdered, it is only because an extremist chooses to go out and murder someone who says something that they do not like. There are plenty of countries in the world where you can live if you want to be told what to say. France is not one of those countries.
Now is not the time to give in to the demands of the extremists or tone done controversial messages. Now is the time to demonstrate that freedom and religious fundamentalism have nothing in common.
While it has sadly become commonplace for unflattering depictions of Muḥammad to lead to artists being murdered, it is only because an extremist chooses to go out and murder someone who says something that they do not like. There are plenty of countries in the world where you can live if you want to be told what to say. France is not one of those countries.
Now is not the time to give in to the demands of the extremists or tone done controversial messages. Now is the time to demonstrate that freedom and religious fundamentalism have nothing in common.
62
@Mike
Bravo for what is perhaps the most succinct, intelligent and appropriate response to the pusillanimous handwringing of so many others commenting here today.
Bravo for what is perhaps the most succinct, intelligent and appropriate response to the pusillanimous handwringing of so many others commenting here today.
6
I have recently heard that throughout the history of Islam there have been extensive depictions of Muhammad, and it is only more recently that some Muslims have become offended by images of him. I have mixed feelings about the depiction on the cover of the Charlie Hebdo. Freedom of speech is good, but you are attempting to make a point to people who are so extreme that they don't know it. You are arguing with a crazy person. Yes, you cannot let them know that they've won. But then again, why offend Muslims who are not terrorists. It is not necessary. Has Charlie Hebdo ever had a cartoon of Jesus in a compromising position? How about cartoons showing negative Jewish stereotypes? Why stop with Muhammad? (Perhaps they don't. I haven't seen the history of Charlie Hebdo). Is there a point where one just becomes cruel in the name of free speech? Yes. As cruel as murdering people? No. But perhaps still cruel. Free speech allows cruelty as long as no one is physically hurt. Terrorists know nothing of the concept of kindness. But perhaps others should be setting a good example. I suppose that humor is not about kindness. It is about irony. But irony can be expressed in less cruel ways. Having said all of this, I will say that I am glad that the current Charlie Hebdo Muhammad is showing the spirit of forgiveness.
9
Thank you for your intelligent post.
2
FYI Charlie Hebdo has been an equal opportunity offender, so to speak and has satirized Judaism, Christianity, the Pope and many, many people in positions of power.
6
CH lampoons every form of extremism including Zionism, Republicanism and Christianity.
As far as that crazy person you mention - I'm sure there is a Christian zealot somewhere who would murder the author of a cartoon showing Jesus giving fellatio or the artist who places the cross in a jar of urine. But since Christians are told to turn the other cheek and to love one another, I don't expect to see AK-carrying Mormons or Pentecostals shooting the staff of National Lampoon or South Park any time soon.
As far as that crazy person you mention - I'm sure there is a Christian zealot somewhere who would murder the author of a cartoon showing Jesus giving fellatio or the artist who places the cross in a jar of urine. But since Christians are told to turn the other cheek and to love one another, I don't expect to see AK-carrying Mormons or Pentecostals shooting the staff of National Lampoon or South Park any time soon.
4
Freedom of speech does not mean you can say/print anything you want without consequence. There are consequences for recklessly and willfully printing/distributing offensive material as Charlie Hebdo fought out recently. Respect others if you wish to be respected.
9
The cover is not disrespectful in the least.
17
@ Keeping it Real - No one should respect murderers, no one!
28
Consequences like counter speech, a strongly worded rebuttal, an information campaign, a boycott, an invitation to dialogue. Not murder.
28
Living in a censorship by muslims is insane, next thing they'll ask is to impose their praying times and stone to death unfaithful women. All my support to Charlie.
68
As I understand it, the rule that Mohammad can not be depicted was laid down by him for his followers so that they did not idolize him instead of God. Somehow, over the years that has been perverted by his followers to apply to nonMuslims in their attempt deify him. So the real "blasphemy" in this is actually being perpetrated BY the Islamist fundamentalists. Not that this would be the first time some fundamentalists have gotten their scripture backwards while attempting to persecute nonbelievers.
63
Surviving staff: You are my heroes!
63
The first two words of the article's headline says it all, "Reprisals Feared".
What is needed is for the planet to be inundated with cartoons mocking all religions such that they become a common part of life and not worthy of reprisals.
What is needed is for the planet to be inundated with cartoons mocking all religions such that they become a common part of life and not worthy of reprisals.
37
The paper does mock all religions.
11
Hmm. All very simple isn't it? "Freedom of expression"? We don't have an unlimited right to freedom of expression - defamation laws come to mind. I agree that nothing condones the violence, but it is simplistic to suggest that no-one should be offended (or just brush off the offence) by the publication of views that offend the sensibilities of others. Whether that means that these views shouldn't be published out of good manners, or whether it's "publish and be damned" regardless is the point. Perhaps we should test the theory by having more articles written which about matters that other people feel deeply about, e.g. articles that are anti-gay, anti-black, anti-feminists (modern version) and we might consider that the offence caused by those articles match what many Muslims feel about the Charlie Hesbo articles.
8
People writing anti gay and anti women articles are for the most part intolerant religious people like Muslims and Christians. Modern society condemns them for their bigotry, not their religion which they use as a feeble rational for their actions.
2
These types of articles are published all the time. Surf the web for right wing or fundamentalist publications . They don't attract mainstream readers, maybe because mainstream readers ignore them, or think they are boring.
3
And if we did have such articles, many would be offended and write opinion pieces condemning the ideas, speak out against them, picket the offices of the publications, perhaps even boycott them and their advertisers. All excellent ways of expressing their offended feelings.
What they probably would not do is to break into the publication's office and shoot anyone they ran across! The question is not whether or not people should be offended, it is how should that feeling of offense be expressed. Those who find it necessary to counter words with violence simply reveal the paucity of their cause; were they intelligent enough they would use words to convince, not bullets to kill.
What they probably would not do is to break into the publication's office and shoot anyone they ran across! The question is not whether or not people should be offended, it is how should that feeling of offense be expressed. Those who find it necessary to counter words with violence simply reveal the paucity of their cause; were they intelligent enough they would use words to convince, not bullets to kill.
2
Muslims will find much more empathy when they genuinely join in the outrage against terrorist acts. Accusations of racism and threats of additional violence are inappropriate responses to murder....Really not going to help...
33
We in the non-Muslim world reject the censorship of thought, speech and action demanded by radical Islam. If the Muslims in France and other western countries don't like the practices of a free society, they are more than welcome to return to one of the Islamic nations which follow Sharia law. Funny, but I don't see any rush to book passage.
54
There will not be world peace until there is a complete world absence of religion.
42
As long as you include Secularism I am with you. Not to would be a dealbreaker.Those people are so pompous.
3
I have been a Christian since I was 18 years old and I find my faith a place of comfort, love, and inspiration. I don't see any other religion in the world in this time frame in which we live causing problems except Islam and then only one extremity of it: Wahabism. If people weren't killing each other over religion they would find something else. It is ignorance and blood-lust. Killing and destroying for the pure satisfaction of it. The thrill of the power it gives the individual doing it. My heart is grieved by what is happening in the Muslim world and to the hundreds of thousands of innocents. Children being butchered, women raped and forced into slavery,lives and communities destroyed. The last time we saw this kind of evil erupt on the face of our planet it wore a very different uniform and spoke a different language. Evil is Evil no matter where it stems from and it is not religious or spiritual in any sense of the word, in fact it is quite the diabolical opposite my friend.
2
I'm a Muslim and my advice to all Muslims who may be insulted by this is: get over it. Muhammad would have dealt with any insult to his person with humility, grace and forgiveness. So I understand if someone insulting him causes you grief, but try to emulate how he would have behaved.
92
The portrayal of the Prophet Muhammed saying Je Suis Charlie was stroke of genius. As a Christian, I would applaud a portrayal of Jesus saying, "I am Charlie". Are the concerns and fears of the Muslim leaders indicative of rigidity and lack of ability to think philosophically? We will never have a monotheistic world but may strive for tolerance and appreciation of each others viewpoints.
30
I think it is really heroic of the magazine, “Charlie Hebedo,” to draw a perilous cartoon of Muhammad so shortly after the attacks on the people at their magazine. I think the fact that they drew this cartoon shows that they truly believe in their work and will not give in to any terrorists threatening their work. To me, it would be a disappointment if the cartoons that were drawn after the attack were soft spoken and did not make many any political statements, because that would show that the terrorists won. I think this new cartoon should be glorified for showing that free speech cannot be broken by anyone.
39
It is every human's responsibility to protect our right to freedom of speech. It is not our duty to defend a religion, especially by killing innocent people. The city of Paris cannot be held hostage by a bunch of phsycotic murderers. I commend the good people at Charlie Hedbo.
38
When Winston Churchill was stationed in what is now known as the "Tribal Territories" area of Pakistan in 1898, he wrote a book called:
"The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War"
In the book he states that the problems are always caused by the Mullahs. It's well over 100 years later, and nothing has changed.
Both satirists and Mullahs make a point of annoying other people. The only difference is that the satirists don't threaten violence - which is a world of difference. I'm tired of hearing, "roll over an play dead, or we'll make you dead".
No more threats accepted, no more hands over our mouths - shame on the N.Y. Times for not printing the cover.
"The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War"
In the book he states that the problems are always caused by the Mullahs. It's well over 100 years later, and nothing has changed.
Both satirists and Mullahs make a point of annoying other people. The only difference is that the satirists don't threaten violence - which is a world of difference. I'm tired of hearing, "roll over an play dead, or we'll make you dead".
No more threats accepted, no more hands over our mouths - shame on the N.Y. Times for not printing the cover.
40
Winston Churchill was a hero, but one has to wonder why Obama removed his bust from the White House.
2
Go reason, go civilization, go secular, go tolerance, go freedoms, go quality of life, go critical thinking and expression, go what's left of the tiny population Jewish survivors (mostly now secular and intermarrying), go France!!
7
France has the largest number of Jews in Europe, 1% of the population. In the US, Jews are 1.7% of the population. Jews are a tiny group everywhere except in Israel.
1
These people from Charlie Hebdo simply do not give a damn regarding the safety of their family and their nation. Radicalizing a large proportion of the population is good for no one. If there is any exceptions that should be made to free speech, it is this kind of agitating and provoking ones.
3
Who, I ask you, is "radicalizing a large proportion of the population"? Does publishing offensive cartoons accomplish this? I think you are confusing very different parts of the story here.
7
They are the only ones fighting for freedom. You are fighting for repression and making excuses for extremists. I hope you have your burka picked out.
2
So, I'm confused here. If pencil drawings meant to shock and amuse do just that, how is this radicalizing...you? I presume? Which "large portion" of the population is "radicalized" now that wasn't "radicalized" before? There are two things you need to do immediately: cancel your subscription to Charlie Hebdo and limit your exposure to all ideas that confront or conflict with your own so that you never have any cause to consider any alternative viewpoints. You will be much happier once you quit thinking.
1
Since the New York Times will not reprint the Charlie Hebdo cover at the center of world controversy, a fair and unavoidable question is: what else will you not print? What else will you not report? All of your meretricious reasoning aside, you have taken the truly regrettable position of self-censorship. Will your loyal readers be left to wonder what future images and stories you fail to report, or will you now be the "Paper of Record" by supplying us with links to other sources? By your own choosing, you are abandoning this hard-earned mantle.
51
Don't you think you would be putting the many journalists who work for this newspaper all over the world in harms way? But, feel free to print the cartoons on your own website or post them in your front yard.
5
I do feel free. That's the point.
5
Rebecca,
The job, the goal of a "paper of record" is to cover the news.
It is not qualified by "only the news" that could not possibly raise issues or objection or even violent reaction in some quarters.
The editor of the paper that first published the prophet cartoons in 2005, said on BBC a few hours ago, that "we" had caved and failed....by allowing any group to dictate or influence editorial decisions by threats and by killing and brutality.
With being a journalist , reporter, photographer comes not only glory, not only danger, but the duty to report the news as it happens --without self censorship.
This editor also said that the reason they are no longer printing some news is that their staff is afraid.
Guess who won?
Freedom of speech...for which valiant men and women have died for centuries...did not.
The job, the goal of a "paper of record" is to cover the news.
It is not qualified by "only the news" that could not possibly raise issues or objection or even violent reaction in some quarters.
The editor of the paper that first published the prophet cartoons in 2005, said on BBC a few hours ago, that "we" had caved and failed....by allowing any group to dictate or influence editorial decisions by threats and by killing and brutality.
With being a journalist , reporter, photographer comes not only glory, not only danger, but the duty to report the news as it happens --without self censorship.
This editor also said that the reason they are no longer printing some news is that their staff is afraid.
Guess who won?
Freedom of speech...for which valiant men and women have died for centuries...did not.
9
If the publishers were the only people at risk, then their decision to run the cover is unimpeachable. However, their recklessness puts others in danger. Two police officers died at the magazine site, another at a hostage site along with several other innocent people. I'm not so sure that I believe poking the hornet's nest is a wise move.
8
I'm not so sure your analogy works. Every edition of a newspaper should feel like a shaken hornet's nest. Every single one. If it doesn't, it's entertainment, not news, and we get enough of that on "news" shows. I expect the NYT to report the whole story, not the part you, or any other censor, deems pablum enough for my shaky sensibilities. I want to be informed, not glad handed.
2
@DMS
Too true. The news should try hard to report as much of the story as it possibly can. On the other hand, CH is not meant to be news. In fact, it's cartoons are probably closer to glad-handing it's tiny circulation than most of the news you criticize.
Too true. The news should try hard to report as much of the story as it possibly can. On the other hand, CH is not meant to be news. In fact, it's cartoons are probably closer to glad-handing it's tiny circulation than most of the news you criticize.
Why should non muslims be subject to the requirements of Islamic law or belief?
40
Believing muslims may not portray their prophet. Non-muslims should be free to do what they want so long as they are not inciting hatred. There is no fundamental right not to be insulted or offended. What most commenters, especially the muslim ones miss is this - it's your religion, not mine.
22
But you don't make the rules.
Yes, we do in countries where rule of law and protections of freedom exist.
16
If the various media entities of the west had any courage these catoons would have been published in thousands of platforms in the days following the murders in France. I say rub it in their face from ten thousand directions. After watching three million people pour into the streets of Paris in support of freedom, how can any self respecting journalist do less?
16
Mohammed is portrayed as a compassionate and forgiving humanist. There is no making fun of the Prophet here. Insult is in the beholder's eye.
20
Contrary to what some have written, there is no "right" to not have your religion or beliefs mocked. Remember, Judaism and Catholicism have been mocked by the left for years, yet no one stated there was a right not to be offended. Why should Islam escape ridicule while other religions have not? And where is there a right not to be mocked? And who is to decide what is critical analysis and what is mockery?
Free society depends on open discussions, which often include mockery. Any restrictions are more dangerous than some hurt feelings.
Free society depends on open discussions, which often include mockery. Any restrictions are more dangerous than some hurt feelings.
23
If God - or Muhammad - were really offended by these marks on paper, couldn't they just sort it out themselves with a bolt of lightning, or a smite of some sort, or the earth opening up and swallowing the Charlie Hebdo office? No need to drag others into it.
18
Of course. Particularly when the terrorists shout that "God is great". If so, then why should mere humans have to do the dirty work?
What superb irony in the new cover cartoon. Not only do they skewer the absurd violence of the crazed Ismalists, they are poking fun fun at the whole Je Suis Charlie thing where everyone is saying they are the same as the Charlie Hebdo victims.
If I were a Muslim predisposed to being offended, I think I'd be more offended by the Muslims who are killing other Muslims everyday of the week - blowing up and gunning down school kids, kidnapping, raping, destroying all in the name of their god.
This Egyptian cleric needs to say something about that. To this cleric, I want to simply repeat what the mayor of Rotterdam had to say to his fellow Muslims who do not appreciate freedom. (look it up).
If I were a Muslim predisposed to being offended, I think I'd be more offended by the Muslims who are killing other Muslims everyday of the week - blowing up and gunning down school kids, kidnapping, raping, destroying all in the name of their god.
This Egyptian cleric needs to say something about that. To this cleric, I want to simply repeat what the mayor of Rotterdam had to say to his fellow Muslims who do not appreciate freedom. (look it up).
16
I haven't had time to read all 907 comments posted so far but I get the idea that we all stand together. Apologists for the radicals need to examine their own beliefs.
9
You mean apologists like most of the mainstream US news outlets, including Fox News, CNN and the NY Times, who don't have the courage or intelligence to publish the new cover; giving into the terrorism and thereby perpetuating it?
4
This is the must craziest thing I have ever witness on earth. Using religious doctrine as a form of satirical message show how uneducated and unprofessional some human beings are. Respecting other autonomy and their person means a lot not only to the human race but also to individuals as well. I condemned this barbaric act that is now becoming Charlie Habdo business model and culture.
Although I recognize that most believers of Islam find the carton cover repugnant and I respect their views, perhaps there is a purpose in this derogatory behavior. Perhaps it is a reminder that free speech is often distasteful, but it must always be respected, even a distasteful religious mockery. And also that speech can never be suppressed, even at the point of a military assault weapon. You don't have to view the image, buy the magazine or listen to the speech. You may boycott the publisher, urge others to refuse to patronize him and even speak out against the speech. But you may not resort to violence taking up an AK-47 in a futile attempt to silence it.
8
I'm sorry, but it's a little rich to watch so many people in this country bend over backward to support satirical art, when we're so easily manipulated about the NEA. A few pennies out of our pockets and we screech and scream about being taxed for "garbage art." Oh, but now that it's fashionable to support subversive satirical art, we're all for it.
I do recall a sickening episode a few years back when the joyless clueless mayor Giuliani tried to eliminate the budget of the Brooklyn Museum because a piece of art offended the delicate sensibilities of the Catholic League. Oh, heavens, we would never be as barbaric as those horrid Muslims, who try to force other people to adhere to the precepts of their religion and make everyone hold sacred what they hold sacred. Right?
It's about time we start practicing what we preach, and not just when it's popular to do so.
I do recall a sickening episode a few years back when the joyless clueless mayor Giuliani tried to eliminate the budget of the Brooklyn Museum because a piece of art offended the delicate sensibilities of the Catholic League. Oh, heavens, we would never be as barbaric as those horrid Muslims, who try to force other people to adhere to the precepts of their religion and make everyone hold sacred what they hold sacred. Right?
It's about time we start practicing what we preach, and not just when it's popular to do so.
12
You have set up a false equivalency between Rudy Giuliani and fundamentalist terrorists. Don't you realize there is a difference between threatening to eliminate funding and murder?
14
I must not get it. What I find sickening is the murder of 16 people over a cartoon.
6
The difference is in method only. The rationale and intent are exactly the same – you offended my beliefs/god/sacred text so now I must silence you. Whether it's a psychopath with a gun or a slick politician with the machinery of state behind him, the result is to banish the satire/art/writing of anyone who "blasphemes" what you believe, chilling free expression.
Common sense says you don't feed the flames of fanaticism regardless of your constitutional right to do so. Shockingly immature and dangerous.
Don't give them what they want.
Don't give them what they want.
4
They are feeding it by making this kind of satire.
But if you stop free speech you give the radicals exactly what they want...they win, we lose... And do you think they will stop their murdering if we don't print anymore pictures.. No they will find another excuse
3
When the issue of Charlie Hebdo is being discussed, it's important to remember that we're discussing extremist Islamic believers, not the religion as a whole. The entirety of those who believe Islamic views aren't responsible for what has happened. One small, extremist, sect is. And, the fact that a cartoon was used as reasoning to massacre twelve people, is beyond belief. As a US citizen, freedom of speech is something that I, very often, take for granted. Citizens of France have that same freedom. Whether they choose to respect others' beliefs, or not, when publishing something should not jeopardize their lives. As for the for the new cover, it's reasonable to publish another depiction of Muhammad. Maybe it seems juvenile, but, (looking at it from the other point of view) not publishing him again means that they are letting those who terrorized them "win". This whole thing is circling around the freedom to speak one's mind and freedom of the press. Just like anyone else, those who don't like what they see should choose to look away, rather than act upon it.
6
These religious fundamentalists aren't religious at all. They are murderous cowards hiding behind a religion to carry out their sickening atrocities. Religion (Islam) is just an excuse for them to justify their tyranny.
19
Lots of faiths and groups have been targeted for massacres over the decades, not just Jews by Muslims. The Jews of Israel just massacred innocent people in Palestine. In Niger, 2000 people were just blown up and very little press on it. I'm not for Jihadists, to be clear. But to point fingers as if these terrorists are the only ones committing atrocities isn't exactly accurate either, as abhorrent as their crime is.
5
Personally, I think provocation of people who are already violent isn't much more than stupid. Charlie Hebdo caused the death of innocent police officers who were there to protect their right to be stupid and provocative. I wouldn't have minded if they were the only ones to die, since they were taunting the guys with the guns, but they caused an awful lot more mayhem than that. This planet is a pretty small lifeboat. Maybe we should all try and get along? One person acting out can sink the whole ship.
7
Provoking the peaceful ones is even worse since it promotes radicalism. In either case I think Charlie Hebdo is doing something very irresponsible and foolish.
2
There are many "offensive" behaviors in western society from the muslim extremists' point of view. So perhaps we should stop letting women drive, teach, speak, have their heads uncovered, etc. lest we be slaughtered.
12
France is a Western democracy that protects and defends free speech and the journalists at Charlie Hebdo had a legal right to do what they were doing. You may not like what they say but they have a right to say it. In your view we should allow a bunch of murderous religious fanatics to define what we can and can’t say? Really?
And let’s be very clear - the killers were the intolerant religious fanatics with the AK-47s – they were the ones who pulled the trigger and gunned these people down in cold blood. It’s disgusting that you would seek to pin this on the dead journalists.
Did you see the video of the Muslim police officer lying injured on the sidewalk who they shot in the head? He didn’t draw any cartoons, he wasn’t protecting any of the journalists, he wasn’t even an immediate threat to them.
We’d all “get along” a lot more easily if religious fanatics stopped murdering people whose opinion they don’t agree with.
And let’s be very clear - the killers were the intolerant religious fanatics with the AK-47s – they were the ones who pulled the trigger and gunned these people down in cold blood. It’s disgusting that you would seek to pin this on the dead journalists.
Did you see the video of the Muslim police officer lying injured on the sidewalk who they shot in the head? He didn’t draw any cartoons, he wasn’t protecting any of the journalists, he wasn’t even an immediate threat to them.
We’d all “get along” a lot more easily if religious fanatics stopped murdering people whose opinion they don’t agree with.
5
If God appeared before us today and asked that we not depict his image in any way would we complain about our free speech rights? I'm sorry to but to continually offend a group of people that is obviously offended by this is just plain ignorant. Free speech has it's limits.
3
You do realize that Mohammad laid down the rule about not depicting his image was so that his followers did NOT confuse him with god? He did not make the rule to apply to atheistic cartoonists in France. Free speech has its limits (as delineated by the Supreme Court) but not to prevent a group of people from being offended, especially by a newspaper in another country.
7
Can someone help me to understand something? Since there has never been an accurate historical depiction of The Prophet Mohammed how can anyone claim that these controversial cartoon figures, simply drawn with a turban and a beard, are Mohammed? Why isn't this cartoon, or any of them for that matter, considered to merely be any guy, or a Muslim Everyman, with a turban and a beard? Have any of these periodicals captioned or explicitly named these figures as depicting The Prophet Mohammed?
3
yes, they have on occasion...captioning the cartoons with the word "Mahomet"...an archaic spelling of Muhammed's (the prophet) name. Some view this spelling as derogatory.
a simple Google search will help you to find them.
a simple Google search will help you to find them.
3
Very good. The only way to bring fundamentalists into the 21st century is by continuing to draw Mohammed in whatever context possible. Free speech is more important than personal religious beliefs. In the end, fundamentalists are not about religion at all, but only about a greed for personal power. Many people in many other countries don't like what state-sponsored institutions do to other religious communities, christian and jewish; Turkey, Egypt, etc, to name just a few where incidences are regularly occurring. Since muslim countries care so little for the rights of religious minorities, they must learn not to care what the rest of the world thinks of them or their religion.
9
I am seeing so many comments chastising the NYT for not putting the Hebdo cover on it's own front pages. But that I believe is not due to the " giving into the terrorists" but being pragmatic, not wanting to stoke embers and exasperating tensions. It is choosing to use the freedom of speech carefully not recklessly as it was meant to be.It is keeping the sensibilities of the majority of the muslim population who are moderates, who themselves hate the atrocities of these assasins, who themselves feel defiled by these fanatics. A cartoon is not just a cartoon for humor when the object of that humor is held sacrosanct by a billion people. I am in no way justifying the killings nor provocation either. I like the way NYT is reporting both sides of the story without losing ground to these dangerous, vicious sham Islamists.
2
SI, you have made the classic mistake of buying in to Islamist theology, i.e., thinking "a cartoon is not just a cartoon" when it lampoons what is sacrosanct to a billion people.
The sliding scale of free speech that Islamism has injected not just into traditional Caliphatic lands but into my NYC and your Westchester would have it that those inimical to the very notion of free expression will now have at yours, not in Tunisia or Paris but at your newsstand and on your flatscreen.
How you and your likeminded "vascillators," if you will, on free speech, can still not grasp this elemental truth -- after the Rushdie fatwa, the Theo Van Gogh murder, the conjoint bloodletting of satirists, cartoonists, Jews, cops, and bystanders, and so many other dots that have been connected with human blood -- is beyond me.
The sliding scale of free speech that Islamism has injected not just into traditional Caliphatic lands but into my NYC and your Westchester would have it that those inimical to the very notion of free expression will now have at yours, not in Tunisia or Paris but at your newsstand and on your flatscreen.
How you and your likeminded "vascillators," if you will, on free speech, can still not grasp this elemental truth -- after the Rushdie fatwa, the Theo Van Gogh murder, the conjoint bloodletting of satirists, cartoonists, Jews, cops, and bystanders, and so many other dots that have been connected with human blood -- is beyond me.
14
Last week, I pulled my cat out of the tree. This week, I had to do it again. The first time, I respected that my cat had the freedom to discover the upper limbs of that tree, but the second time I wondered, "why don't you find a different way to be a cat."
4
the cat must be thinking, 'time for a new owner'.
1
I am being reminded by one of the commentators about the not too distant past when ISIS decapitated people on you tube. What did Dar al-Ifta say if they said anything at all? Until they condemn as strongly such act, I think they lose the ground to complain here about Charlie Hebdo, who are merely cartooning, offensive as it may be to them. That is provided that Dar al-Ifta consider themselves amongst the civil people and not terrorists.
8
As a Muslim, I support the expression of all viewpoints however asinine and however offensive. That said, I do ask that if you have a viewpoint you wish to express - express it. But do note that if the expressive quality of the demonstration does not counterbalance its offensiveness, than its overall value to society is negative.
3
Exacerbate tensions? Who do they think they are kidding?
As to protecting mosques, that is not a bad idea, but maybe protecting synagogues is more urgent, as it is french Jews who are being attacked and who justifiably fear for their lives and safety.
As to protecting mosques, that is not a bad idea, but maybe protecting synagogues is more urgent, as it is french Jews who are being attacked and who justifiably fear for their lives and safety.
7
Islam is no better then any other religion when it comes to freedom of speech. Just like Christianity, Islam can be criticized, questioned and ridiculed. Mohammad is also NOT sacred to the majority of humans on this planet including me. So I see no reason why a non-Muslim living in a non-Muslim country can not draw him. If Muslims can't handle someone else drawing a Mohammad cartoon they should move to a Sharia compliant country like Pakistan. I applaud the publishing of the latest Mohammad cartoon which should be shown on the frontpage of every newspaper in America.
10
Charlie Hedbo should follow in the footsteps of the courageous NY Times. The Times stands forthrightly for "fair" speech not the same a free speech, but better. There will be nothing hateful and intolerant in "fair " speech. We should follow many of our greatest universities and adopt speech codes. Some of our greatest minds can decide what can and can't be said. It is something all progressive people of goodwill can rally behind.
4
Wow, that's a scary statement! Who gets to decide? Do we get to vote?
2
Who decides what's fair? You? If academic institutions in the U.S. with their "speech codes", I think they are way too restrictive.
The Supreme Court - whether populated by liberal or conservative justices - has done a nice job of keeping this cherished freedom nearly absolute.
It defines us as a people. It is who we are. It's non-negotiable. I lost too many relatives and ancestors in wars (going back to the Revolutionary War) who defended it. Sorry.
The Supreme Court - whether populated by liberal or conservative justices - has done a nice job of keeping this cherished freedom nearly absolute.
It defines us as a people. It is who we are. It's non-negotiable. I lost too many relatives and ancestors in wars (going back to the Revolutionary War) who defended it. Sorry.
3
But the law of the land is not "fair speech" but "free speech." Who should determine what is "fair speech"? The fact of the matter is that the Times should not be heralded as courageous, but instead faulted for their cowardice in not publishing these images.
4
Hey, I'm a secular non-religious person, but it seems to me that we should be making fun of all of the radicals, not just the Muslim radicals. The focus here should be on all people who have been brainwashed to think that their god is better than anyone else's god, and who follow the man-made edicts their organized religion so literally that they think it is OK to slaughter anyone who does not agree with what they have been brainwashed to believe.
4
Countries with freedom of expression are allowed to disrespectful others, but this doss not mean that they must. Coincidently the provocative writers and cartoonists are from countries richer and more powerful than the provoked Jihadists'. Given this, wouldn't it be fair to assume that this cultural conflict is more about exclusion and poverty than about religion? Religion is a convenient rallying point for which religious disrespect translates to the fact of disrespect and alienation experienced by some young men, who happen to be Muslims, in the modern world. Why not trying to satirize the outrage of those who cry about their lost freedoms after years of exploiting the countries of northern Africa, or allying with dictators in order to protect oil? I am disappointed that Charlie Helbo takes himself so seriously that he is in danger of becoming one of his own cartoons.
2
Suppose I, as a vegan, were to go to a Muslim country. Would I have any right whatsoever to say-- your religion permits meat consumption. That is offensive. Please cease to eat meat, because it is needlessly antagonistic?
So tired of the apologetics.
So tired of the apologetics.
11
Where is the insult to Islam? Is it that Mohamed in the cartoon disowns the terror attack against Charlie Hebdo? Or is it just that Mohamed is being represented? If the latter, Dar al-Ifta and some other Muslims have to understand that the interdiction to represent the Prophet applies (if at all) to those who believe in the Prophet and his God. But if some people do not believe in the Prophet and his God, or any prophet or God whatsoever, wanting them to comply by this rule straightforwardly is fanaticism and intolerance: it comes down to impose on them a "truth" that they don't accept. On the principle, Charlie Hebdo is right to publish the cartoon to remind them that no religion has the right to rule the minds of others.
13
This is deliberate to antagonize the Muslims in France and elsewhere. It is supported by French, American and other western politicians who want to create another war to export disease and destruction to far away places that have nothing to do with any of this with an end to creating an illusion of prosperity at home. Furthermore, it will erode freedoms here in the west under the guise of security. In re the magazine, they are enjoying a huge economic windfall. Let's see how all of this plays out.
2
I am very happy by the way the Times did not publish the magazine's covers either before or the current one. The editorial position is crystal clear, and it stands shoulder to shoulder with the opinion of every open society. The publication by the Times was not needed; and sometimes, the deafening support from tens of thousands of newspapers, public figures, and all the millions of people, are much, much louder than a hundred published covers.
As to the complaints against the new cover the article mentions, I am tempted to be angry. What is so difficult to understand? We value freedom of expression. It is but one of our several core values. We call them "rights."
The complainers might want to look into that concept. The careful and slow development of the ideal of human rights has been one of the greatest achievements of Western history, easily surpassing all of our technological attainments even.
More than our technological and scientific attainments, it is our greatest gift for the advance of peoples.
As to the complaints against the new cover the article mentions, I am tempted to be angry. What is so difficult to understand? We value freedom of expression. It is but one of our several core values. We call them "rights."
The complainers might want to look into that concept. The careful and slow development of the ideal of human rights has been one of the greatest achievements of Western history, easily surpassing all of our technological attainments even.
More than our technological and scientific attainments, it is our greatest gift for the advance of peoples.
1
translation: sure you have free speech, just don't you dare think you can actually use it.
The current cover of Charlie Hebdo does not label the image one of Mohammed. It merely depicts a male wearing a turban. Art and cartooning is so very often about subjective interpretation - in this case, there are no contemporary images of the prophet - therefore who can assert this is a picture of him? One can choose to see it as an image representing Muslim people expressing grief and sadness in relation to the senseless and obscene massacre - not apologising for three lunatic's actions for which mainstream people hold no responsibility.
4
We have to remember that Charlie Hebdo is not mainstream press. Most of what it published is extreme, rude, crude, uncensored matieral without filters or concern about being offensive. It had a small circulation so it reached a small percentage of the population. But it was able to publish because of freedoms which are in place in France. And that is the point. That it was able to exist and its contributors were able to say and draw what they wished. They knew that they were marked for destruction and at risk for their lives. That they would be killed for drawing cartoons is the ghastly outrage which is unacceptable to a free society.
8
So if I call a fat and ugly person fat and ugly, and the person is offended, I can say "free speech"?
Let's not confuse the issues.
No one should be murdered for drawing a cartoon, period.
But there is also another, separate issue of respecting and being sensitive toward others' religions, beliefs, etc.
Where do we draw the line between free speech and hate crime / discrimination? This is a difficult and complex issue that we all should incessantly discuss and struggle with together as a society, while condeming any violence that threatens us as a whole. We shall not go all band-wagony and muslim-bashing and say me drawing a cartoon of my neighbor's children being violently raped is simply a form of art and freedom of expression.
Let's not confuse the issues.
No one should be murdered for drawing a cartoon, period.
But there is also another, separate issue of respecting and being sensitive toward others' religions, beliefs, etc.
Where do we draw the line between free speech and hate crime / discrimination? This is a difficult and complex issue that we all should incessantly discuss and struggle with together as a society, while condeming any violence that threatens us as a whole. We shall not go all band-wagony and muslim-bashing and say me drawing a cartoon of my neighbor's children being violently raped is simply a form of art and freedom of expression.
3
But people constantly make fat jokes to Chris Christie and think it's cute. It makes me cringe. There has to be some kind of lobbying against this kind of bullying to get it stopped voluntarily. A conscious raising campaign that takes time and patience and determination and a vested interest on the part of the minority group affected. We as a nation or group need to help others of both groups affected, the cartoonists and the insulted , to see that quick fixes like shootings are not the answer, that persistent conscious raising is the better path. But how do you help both camps to develop empathy or too see the value of doing so?
If your neighbor's children in fact were themselves rapists, yet insisted they were righteous paragons, and then you cartoonized them as other than angelic, and they took grave offense, would you be wrong?
That is, your example is nothing like what lampooners and serious critics of Islamist theology and Islamist terror have been up to, either in a contextual or absolute sense.
By the way, show me an Islamic nation that does not allow either its state media or its writers and artists to engage in hateful depiction of Jews (and others). Your utter failure to grasp the context surrounding Islamism's war against Western freedom is stunning in its ahistoricty, intellectual weakness, and shallowness of vision.
That is, your example is nothing like what lampooners and serious critics of Islamist theology and Islamist terror have been up to, either in a contextual or absolute sense.
By the way, show me an Islamic nation that does not allow either its state media or its writers and artists to engage in hateful depiction of Jews (and others). Your utter failure to grasp the context surrounding Islamism's war against Western freedom is stunning in its ahistoricty, intellectual weakness, and shallowness of vision.
6
Dennis--well said again. It is a pleasure to read the postings of an intelligent person
For Charlie Hebdo to stand silent out of fear, even for a moment, would be to give the terrorists a measure of victory. Let it be published!
9
"Dar al-Ifta, warned that the new cartoon, depicting the Prophet Muhammad, would exacerbate tensions between the secular West and observant Muslims."
The question remains: is Islam a peaceful religion, against harming others, and those who commit violence in its name not real Muslims, but terrorists? Or is Islam a dangerous, intolerant, insecure religion, whose 1.4 billion followers are getting riled up over a cartoon, and we need to be afraid of them?
Is Islam compatible with Western democratic values, or deeply hateful of those values? Does Dar-al-Ifta speak for mainstream Muslims? If so, we're in trouble, and all this talk that Islam is not an evil religion is not believable.
The message seems to be that Islam is unable to play well with others. They cannot peacefully coexist with other religions. They want the whole world to live and believe as they do. (And if you don't, they are justified in killing you.)
Islam needs to face its problems - its hypocrisy, intolerance, violence, backwardness. Islam needs to stop trying to bully the rest of the world into doind what it says. grow up, and join modern civilization.
The question remains: is Islam a peaceful religion, against harming others, and those who commit violence in its name not real Muslims, but terrorists? Or is Islam a dangerous, intolerant, insecure religion, whose 1.4 billion followers are getting riled up over a cartoon, and we need to be afraid of them?
Is Islam compatible with Western democratic values, or deeply hateful of those values? Does Dar-al-Ifta speak for mainstream Muslims? If so, we're in trouble, and all this talk that Islam is not an evil religion is not believable.
The message seems to be that Islam is unable to play well with others. They cannot peacefully coexist with other religions. They want the whole world to live and believe as they do. (And if you don't, they are justified in killing you.)
Islam needs to face its problems - its hypocrisy, intolerance, violence, backwardness. Islam needs to stop trying to bully the rest of the world into doind what it says. grow up, and join modern civilization.
10
It is not Islam that is violent. The disenfranchised young men from Arab countries are violent
They are just using religion to give their cause some weight.
They are just using religion to give their cause some weight.
Egypt's highest Islamic authorities can put their warning where the sun doesn't shine. No Muslim is forced to endorse or even view Charlie Hebdo, or anything else which doesn't align with their views. Egypt's highest Islamic authorities need to stop siding with extremists, because in doing so, they are the ones who are perpetuating the extremist's behavior.
16
If it's a major confrontation with Islam we need to end this once for all, and if moderate Muslims understand the same is needed within their cultures and amongst followers of their religion, so be it. Lets get it over with or at least get it started. For, to live in our own nations with our own hard fought freedoms and customs and be told to alter them for very newly arrived persons...that is not living and won't do.The people of the west have strived to change within societies to be more fair, and equal and still work toward this goal. But to be told by backwards believers we must accommodate them...no thanks.
13
There was a dystopian French sci-fi movie called "Banlieue 13" a few years ago that depicted the bad suburbs of Paris encircled by protective fences. This might have to become a reality.
Islamic fundamentalism is a dangerous mental disorder. There *IS* a dose of psychotropic medications that can quiet these people down, they just need to be committed to asylums for public safety and drugged until they are not a danger to themselves or others. It might not sound nice but it most certainly beats cluster bombs and giant enclosed ghettos!
Islamic fundamentalism is a dangerous mental disorder. There *IS* a dose of psychotropic medications that can quiet these people down, they just need to be committed to asylums for public safety and drugged until they are not a danger to themselves or others. It might not sound nice but it most certainly beats cluster bombs and giant enclosed ghettos!
2
A basic premise of democracy is the rule of law and I think everyone agrees that the law determines what is or isn't allowed in terms of freedom of expression. Advanced democracies have advanced laws and primitive medieval like societies have less advanced laws. For some reason Islam has a relatively large percentage of its followers that seem to belong to the latter, meaning they interpret religion in much the same way that Christians hundreds of years ago. Many of them believe that women are inferior to men and should have rights than men, that homosexuality deserves capital punishment, and that adultery is punishable by stoning and thieves by amputation and recently caricatures of religious figures by shooting... Democracy is also considered by many of them to be a value which is much less important than religion (if you ask Muslims, a large percentage of them would proudly acknowledge this).
We must never let these people dictate to us how we lead our lives.
Je Suis Charlie
We must never let these people dictate to us how we lead our lives.
Je Suis Charlie
8
Criticism and parody of religion (just like any other part of life) must be -or must be made- possible. The right to freedom of speech and by extension freedom of thought is one of the vital building blocks of modern society and its numerous blessings. Modern countries like China that lack proper tradition, implementation, and protection of free speech suffer for it in terms of quality of life and also foolishly encourage more dissent than they prevent in doing so. While so called radical Islamists are to be sharply distinguished from moderate Muslims, my impression is that a huge fraction of moderate Muslims are de facto enemies of free speech as well, even if they have the sense, decency and humanity to abstain from violence. Openly admitting to be an Atheist if you are a moderate Muslim is usually social suicide and even in some "modern" countries it is literal suicide. If you consider yourelf a moderate Muslim and cannot accept that a family member or friend is gay or an atheist or even just eating pork, you are in fact diametrically opposed to free thought and expression and cannot pretend to not be part of the problem and part of the struggle that is unfolding on the world stage right now. The cartoons are more important than people may realize because their mere existence makes one fact clear to extremists and moderates alike, even if just implicitly: You are now living in a world where something that may be "unthinkable" to you is printed on the face of a newspaper.
6
Any cleric that issues a fatwa against any French citizen in this affair should be identified by French authorities, and an international warrant for their arrest and extradition to France should be issued. Sharia law does not extend to the French Republic. But France has a right and a responsibility to protect French citizens from this kind of bullying.
16
Really? And yet we of the "free" world constantly bully others and are not worried about how those others feel. It seems that the result of irresponsible use if power and wealth is violent reaction. It is not is Islam. Islam is coincidental.
Let's cut to the chase. All radical conservative religious leaders, that's right, they are all males, want to preserve their power and domination over females and everyone else. It is so important to them that they would go to war to preserve their fiefdom.
4
I feel we're confusing all of Islam with the fundalmentalist sect, who like fundalmentalists of all religions (Christian, Muslim, Jewish), twist their religious beliefs into rationale for hating. It's our duty to stand up to these fanatics. HIstory is strewn with the wreckage of religious fundamentalism left unchecked.
21
"We're" confusing all of Islam with the fundamentalist?
I'm not sure who the "we" you're referring to are, but I'm sure I'm not one of them. Only the most ignorant people would confuse fundamentalists with everyone else in the same religion.
I'm not sure who the "we" you're referring to are, but I'm sure I'm not one of them. Only the most ignorant people would confuse fundamentalists with everyone else in the same religion.
Yes, "fundamentalists of all religions (Christian, Muslim, Jewish), twist their religious beliefs into rationale for hating." But here is the difference. Fundamentalist are minority within most religions; within Islam almost ALL adherents are what we in the West would call fundamentalists.
In 2006 I was working as a freelance journalist in Afghanistan and Pakistan when the Muhammad cartoon riots engulfed Pakistan. I asked educated Pakistanis if they thought the cartoonist and editors responsible should be put to death. The consensus: Yes. And these were people with college degrees, liberals by Pakistani standards. I agree that non-fundamentalist Muslims are not the problem. Unfortunately, there are not very many of them.
In 2006 I was working as a freelance journalist in Afghanistan and Pakistan when the Muhammad cartoon riots engulfed Pakistan. I asked educated Pakistanis if they thought the cartoonist and editors responsible should be put to death. The consensus: Yes. And these were people with college degrees, liberals by Pakistani standards. I agree that non-fundamentalist Muslims are not the problem. Unfortunately, there are not very many of them.
7
The choice by Charlie Hebdo to design and run this cover brings into question the pronounced objectivity of their work. That is, that everyone is a subject of satire and no one is sacred. The presence of world leaders from nations that routinely oppress free speech at the solidarity rally presents a real opportunity for the paper to prove that it too is not above satire. Moreover, this image, rather, the satirization of this image is a potent symbol of the importance of freedom of speech and the power of satire. Instead they have chosen a cartoon in which the powerful majority pokes fun yet again at a stigmatized minority.
7
They're "stigmatized" for doing things like throwing bombs, taking hostages, and murdering civilians.
16
And the best part? They'll print 3 million of them instead of their normal 60,000!
10
One-and-a-half billion Muslims are hardly a minority. If they are stigmatized by the West, it is because so many appear to support their coreligionists in murdering infidels.
13
I applaud Charlie Hebdo and the French people for going ahead with publication and I hope millions the world over will post the cover in defiance of the crackpots and mass murderers who threaten the liberties our forefathers fought for. I don't understand why a religious group thinks it can change a democratic country's right to freedom of expression just because they don't like it.
44
If there's an injunction against using the Prophet's image, then how would anyone know what the Prophet looked like?
But before artists print an image of what they think the Prophet might have looked like, it's crucial to recall that the reason for not displaying the image is actually a very progressive one: Mohammed did not want to be treated like a god or detract from the message itself.
He was just the Messenger of Allah. All glory, respect and gratitude should go to Allah, the incomprehensible and compassionate.
Unfortunately, the prohibition has enticed some to transgress, just as it was in the stories of Pandora and also Eve and Adam, or flout it.
Respect for, and understanding of, Mohammed's intent should also be on our minds when judging the merits of free speech.
That said the caricature on the next issue seems to be all about compassion, pity and forgiveness -- the best qualities of religious practice and the human heart.
But before artists print an image of what they think the Prophet might have looked like, it's crucial to recall that the reason for not displaying the image is actually a very progressive one: Mohammed did not want to be treated like a god or detract from the message itself.
He was just the Messenger of Allah. All glory, respect and gratitude should go to Allah, the incomprehensible and compassionate.
Unfortunately, the prohibition has enticed some to transgress, just as it was in the stories of Pandora and also Eve and Adam, or flout it.
Respect for, and understanding of, Mohammed's intent should also be on our minds when judging the merits of free speech.
That said the caricature on the next issue seems to be all about compassion, pity and forgiveness -- the best qualities of religious practice and the human heart.
9
"the reason for not displaying the image is actually a very progressive one: Mohammed did not want to be treated like a god or detract from the message itself."
That's worked out real well, eh?
That's worked out real well, eh?
3
"My Name is Red", by Orhan Pamuk, is about the revolution it took to allow depiction of human beings in Ottoman art.
2
Non-Muslims should not be required to respect and understand Mohammed's intent.
3
Dr. Wayne Dyer said it best. "Choose not to be offended, and you will be happier for it." There will always be those who want, wish even, to be offended and search for reasons everywhere. Start with a cartoon, then on to what people say, what they wear, what they eat and drink; the list is endless, and after a while becomes meaningless.
20
The freedom of expression is the freedom of others to say things you don't like, things you disagree with, and things you find abhorrent.
We all recoil in horror at the actions of the Westborough Baptist Church. Their actions and words are as horrid and insulting as anything Charlie Hebdo has done. And yet we recognize that this is the price we pay for free speech.
No one has a right not to be insulted, or not to have their religious beliefs insulted.
Freedom of speech is the condition of democracy and free societies everywhere. And that is the cost of free speech.
We all recoil in horror at the actions of the Westborough Baptist Church. Their actions and words are as horrid and insulting as anything Charlie Hebdo has done. And yet we recognize that this is the price we pay for free speech.
No one has a right not to be insulted, or not to have their religious beliefs insulted.
Freedom of speech is the condition of democracy and free societies everywhere. And that is the cost of free speech.
25
People do have a right to conduct their religious services in private without heckling.
1
Of course they do. This has nothing to do with that.
I just find it amusing that a relatively small publication has more guts than the Western media, political, economic and cultural establishment.
While what they are doing is not my thing, I respect them for doing it. More should do it or clearly say why they aren't doing it, out of justifiable fear.
While what they are doing is not my thing, I respect them for doing it. More should do it or clearly say why they aren't doing it, out of justifiable fear.
35
School children are expected to stop bullying when an adult intervenes. College students are expected to refrain from destructive hazing. It seems that many adults want to indulge in the demeaning taunting that young people are taught to avoid. People or groups who consider themselves more powerful are usually the ones to do the demeaning taunting; it’s not appreciated by those who feel weaker.
6
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm appointing myself as the judge of what is demeaning and taunting. In the future, please send me anything you would like to speak/write/perform/publish so I can judge its suitability before allowing you (or disallowing you) the right to proceed. Thank you.
2
So who is the bully in this case? A small niche publication or the 1.5 bn strong community? Seems like the big 1.5bn strong bully (or atleast their leadership) is out to make sure the small groups of folks who think otherwise-- lose their voice and their life.
The bullies are the ones with assault rifles, not pencils.
9
Of course it will raise tensions. That's what free speech is all about. No one tries to censor or scare you when they are on the same page. Personally, I try not to offend people about religion and other controversial issues (happens all the time anyway, of course - some days I can't state my own likes or dislikes without offending someone, and I wish I was exaggerating) but I'm not a magazine that trades in parody. Still, I support them. The problem isn't Charlie, whatever they may print. It's the monsters, and that's what they are, who believe that the punishment for offending their religion is death.
22
Death is the high cost of living for everyone.
This new cover depicts Muhammad as a very decent, kind, and forgiving man. How anyone could see this very generous response to slaughter as offensive is totally baffling. Clearly there are some who thrive on being offended.
42
The cartoonist has a narrow view of what caused the the Charlie Hebdo attack. He doesn't mention French and other imperialist countries' foreign policies whose militaries have destabilized the Middle East, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Syria, etc. Why not draw a picture of Francois Hollande-- against a backdrop of a map of Mali (and the maps of other countries they've colonized)--working a deep frier, cooking up different armaments and fighter jets with a sign in the dining room that reads: "Now Serving: 'Freedom Fries.'" Caption: "France's recipe for peaceful relations in the Muslim World."
3
@chaseoldmoney. Go ahead draw it and get someone to publish it. Guess what? No one here is going to try to kill you for it.
14
By that logic, you would then forgive France for firebombing the capital and killing a group of school children or beheading journalists or massacring the reporters who cover the story.
Nobody who was murdered in the CH and related attacks had anything to do with French foreign policy in the Middle East.
2
I live near a Mormon Temple and the resting place of Joseph Smith, so this is the only reason I am going to write such, but I wonder what would happen to me if I started publishing cartoons of Joseph Smith in less than desirable positions?
1
Well, if you did it it NYC, they would put you on Broadway and give you a bunch on Tony awards.
32
Assuming you know memers of the church of LDS What do you believe would happen?
Hasn't the press already done this recently? Exposed Joseph Smith for his unbridled polygamy (30+ wives, some of them as young as 14 years old?) ... and the Mormon Church published the material itself!
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363814184/mormon-church-publishes-essay-on...
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363814184/mormon-church-publishes-essay-on...
1
I would tell Muslim groups, if they have the courage they would support the new cover of Charlie Hebdo. It was the Islamic groups who did this terrible carnage and perpetuated this heinous crime. Its time Muslim groups spoke up vehemently. By supporting the latest cover depicting Prophet Mohammad, Muslims will send a message to the terrorists and islamists who are lurking in their midst and in their communities that they are not fearful of them and are standing in solidarity with the rest of the world in support of peace.
17
What a sad day for humanity when the words "All is forgiven" are seen as "defiant".
49
I completely disagree with the comments suggesting Charlie Hedbo should respond to murder by giving in to the murderers. I think the cover's brilliant, but even I didn't, I would want to give great leeway to the Charlie Hedbo staff this week. Only they can know what it is like to lose co-workers to cold-blooded murder simply for printing jokes. If they decided to suspend publication, I would support that. But with them demonstrating the courage to not only publish but to continue publishing what enrages the extremists, they need our support all the more.
33
Just as I mostly ignore many of what I consider to be abominations and outrages against humanity in the world, inspired by religion (justified or not) and culture in many nations, so should they ignore Western expressions they deem offensive.
8
The new cover is, and many seem to be missing this, a gesture of peace and reconciliation. Considering that more than a dozen people were shot down in their offices and at a food store, I think the surviving editors of Charlie Hebdo are demonstrating restraint, not provocation.
51
It's impossible to understand much less have a rational conversation with or reach those whose brainwashed minds have become radicalized/hypnotized/fixated to kill and be killed. They are no less than programmed robots that have lost any semblance of humanity. How else could they create carnage as if it were a walk in the park. Thus, being defiant to "show them" is an exercise in extraordinary futility.
8
bkay
"It's impossible to understand much less have a rational conversation with or reach those whose brainwashed minds have become radicalized/hypnotized/fixated to kill and be killed."
Rationality has temporarily left the building, or more precisely it has left our planet. But you hit the nail on its head when you said "rational conversation." What we are experiencing right now is not a religious collision. It is a breakdown in communication due to cultural norms. I am willing to volunteer much time in bridging the gap here in the NY Times forums, but it will not work during a high emotional face off. A sense of calm must take hold for the rational discussion to be effective.
"It's impossible to understand much less have a rational conversation with or reach those whose brainwashed minds have become radicalized/hypnotized/fixated to kill and be killed."
Rationality has temporarily left the building, or more precisely it has left our planet. But you hit the nail on its head when you said "rational conversation." What we are experiencing right now is not a religious collision. It is a breakdown in communication due to cultural norms. I am willing to volunteer much time in bridging the gap here in the NY Times forums, but it will not work during a high emotional face off. A sense of calm must take hold for the rational discussion to be effective.
1
Charlie Hebdo had no other choice to but to publish more drawings of Muhammed this week. To do anything else would have shown that these kind of attacks are a successful way to limit free speech. What's more, the drawing is really rather mild - this is really the rarely seen "tender side" of Charlie Hebdo. RIP Charb, Cabu, Wolinski & Tignous.
60
There is a false debate going on here that does not take in account the degree of the right to free speech RELATIVE to the degree of the reaction:
A) Right to free respectful speech - of course
B) Right to disrespectful speech- ok
C) Right to supremely disrespectful speech without any adverse reaction, perhaps even illegal reaction- Legally right,and I will make some reasonable effort to defend it but I will not go so far as to risk my life or ask law enforcement to risk theirs to defend against inevitable even illegal expression of anger. If you get a few eggs thrown at your window don't expect society to come running to risk their lives to stop it if you are being extremely provocative. We'll come, but we won't run.
D) Right to supremely disrespectful speech without getting slaughtered like pigs. YES and as a society we should do everything we can to defend it.
Many are confusing C, and D.
The degree of extremity of the free speech at Charlie in no way can be compared to to the degree of extremity of the reaction. We should defend against this assult with every means necessary.
A) Right to free respectful speech - of course
B) Right to disrespectful speech- ok
C) Right to supremely disrespectful speech without any adverse reaction, perhaps even illegal reaction- Legally right,and I will make some reasonable effort to defend it but I will not go so far as to risk my life or ask law enforcement to risk theirs to defend against inevitable even illegal expression of anger. If you get a few eggs thrown at your window don't expect society to come running to risk their lives to stop it if you are being extremely provocative. We'll come, but we won't run.
D) Right to supremely disrespectful speech without getting slaughtered like pigs. YES and as a society we should do everything we can to defend it.
Many are confusing C, and D.
The degree of extremity of the free speech at Charlie in no way can be compared to to the degree of extremity of the reaction. We should defend against this assult with every means necessary.
10
I want freedom from religion.
4
Extremism is the issue not religion.
See Stalin, Mao, Hitler and many other examples of non religious individuals and movements in terms of the destructive power of extremism.
In fact just the recent God-less versions of extremism such as Communism and Nazism have already done more destruction than all the religious extremism combined.
See Stalin, Mao, Hitler and many other examples of non religious individuals and movements in terms of the destructive power of extremism.
In fact just the recent God-less versions of extremism such as Communism and Nazism have already done more destruction than all the religious extremism combined.
2
This is what sometimes happens when crazed radicals commit acts of unjustified violence: the world turns completely upside down. We've now entered the bizarre situation in which choosing NOT to degrade and humiliate the world's second largest religion constitutes the sacrifice of everything the West holds dear. Egypt should not blame Charlie Hebdo for refusing to back down to thugs; they should blame the thugs for putting Charlie in an impossible situation.
17
We seem to be living in an era of "free for all" without any sensibilities. The idea of free speech is not where one says whatever they like. When boarding an aircraft try saying: "this plane should blow up" or words to this affect. It is "free speech" being exercised by right of "freedom of speech" and the person uttering this will be expeditiously arrested and investigated from the moment they had taken their first breath. Why is it that the French want to create tensions more than they already have and continue to do so? I find it repugnant that the French media (along with a lot of other western media) and their politicians want to create this "war". The French are making it clear that they do not want Muslims in France. Do the French want all their Muslim citizens go elsewhere? I doubt they will. However, the French all across the globe will be highly despised by Muslims and subject to danger.
5
Your analysis is faulty. The example of the statement about the plane is akin to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. That is not protected speech but a perversion of a warning for people to flee a dangerous situation, and by doing so, may harm themselves. That is not an exercise of free speech. And by comparing the world to a crowded theater, and comparing the phrase "FIRE" to a harmless act of satire, you are giving those who are offended by anything and everything the power to circumscribe our lives with tyranny.
14
The problem isn't with the French, the problem is with the radical Islamic people that have a problem with freedom of expression. If you immigrate to a country (by choice) you should assimilate to the new culture; however, the islamic people are for the large part not doing this in Europe. Is it "multiculturalism" as some call it, or just a take over? Yes, the French and many europeans seem to be displeased with the opening of the flood gates to Islamic immigrants. With the occurrences of the past years how can you blame them? Look to see Islamic immigration becoming curtailed in several European countries. Certain leaders have already spoken of this, see the Czech politicians comments this week. Read the comments of Nigel Farige of the French allowing these muslim ghettos called "no go zones" to grow unimpeded, and there is essentially sharia law taking place there. It will be interesting to see the reactions and actions taken by European leaders in the coming months. I feel we all know what the elephant in the room is.
6
The analysis is correct. Free speech is free speech. Shouting fire in a theatre is also free speech when you look at it fundamentally...the idea of free speech and sensible persons do not do it. These cartoons are just cartoons but there are a lot of folks who look at it absolutely offensive. So, why "CONTINUE" to do it? They did it once and it caused death...do they want it again? It is surely insane. And the persons who killed are FRENCH.
I am a Muslim. And I have a message to all the Muslim people in the world who are "offended" by this cover.
Get over it. And get over yourselves. Your faith should run deeper than a magazine cover. If it doesn't, then maybe you should start wondering about your own priorities rather than yelling and screaming about a silly cartoon.
Feel free to join the 21st century whenever you'd like.
Get over it. And get over yourselves. Your faith should run deeper than a magazine cover. If it doesn't, then maybe you should start wondering about your own priorities rather than yelling and screaming about a silly cartoon.
Feel free to join the 21st century whenever you'd like.
155
Thank you for being sensible. I have a Muslim friend and know that Muslims are not bad people. The issue is with people who take their word out of context. Muslim extremist say that the Quran says to harm people who do not follow the Quran to the letter (funny as they don't). That is just like those Christians from West Burrow Baptist Church a few years ago who would protest at American Soldier's funerals, saying "God hates soldiers" and things like that.
I am a christian (baptist in fact, but that's a denomination and i follow the bible first and foremost.) and know for a fact that God does not hate anyone. Just like Muslims are taught that Muhammad is forgiving, and any wrong done to another (without cause) is to be done back to the doer (eye for an eye).
I am a christian (baptist in fact, but that's a denomination and i follow the bible first and foremost.) and know for a fact that God does not hate anyone. Just like Muslims are taught that Muhammad is forgiving, and any wrong done to another (without cause) is to be done back to the doer (eye for an eye).
1
As a Muslim, do you have any insight as to why it seems that moderate Muslim organizations are not regularly speaking out about radical Muslim groups? Or, are they speaking out, but not getting attention from the media?
3
So once again we have violence or the threat of violence emanating from various muslim community groups if anything is done that offends their sensibilities. Is this typical of Islamic culture, either Shia or Sunni? Those groups do not understand plurality or tolerate differences of opinion, which are some of the hallmarks of modern western civilization.
16
I wonder how Muslims can judge some cartoons of the prophet as blasphemous, when it is common to see demeaning and deeply hateful remarks coming from Muslims toward Jewish people and toward Western culture generally.
If they are not happy living within a society where there is freedom of expression, as in France, naturally they are free to go to another corner of the world which mirrors their values. But somehow, I doubt few Muslims will leave their homes in the West.
They are the provocateurs, those of hateful word, deed, including murder, not the publication Charlie Hebdo.
If they are not happy living within a society where there is freedom of expression, as in France, naturally they are free to go to another corner of the world which mirrors their values. But somehow, I doubt few Muslims will leave their homes in the West.
They are the provocateurs, those of hateful word, deed, including murder, not the publication Charlie Hebdo.
81
This is how Muslims can demonstrate that they can live in a western liberal democracy. They can be unhappy about the cover, they can protest, they can boycott. They don't have to like it at all. But if they want to live in a modern world, they cannot support a violent response to free speech. If they can't live by those rules, they should leave the West and live in a place that doesn't have free speech.
55
Dar al-Ifta, which I had never heard of before, does not have the right to speak for me as a Muslim. There is no equivalent to a Pope in Sunni Islam (Shiah Islam has the Imam or Ayatollah for each of its sects), so each Muslim is responsible for his or her own understanding and practice of the faith.
The Prophet Muhammad has been depicted in illustrations throughout Islamic history, albeit respectfully, so for any Muslim to claim otherwise is just false. And any Muslim who has studied the life of the prophet would know that he was always very forgiving and compassionate, to both friends and enemies (who are really just friends you haven't made yet!)
The Prophet Muhammad has been depicted in illustrations throughout Islamic history, albeit respectfully, so for any Muslim to claim otherwise is just false. And any Muslim who has studied the life of the prophet would know that he was always very forgiving and compassionate, to both friends and enemies (who are really just friends you haven't made yet!)
48
you are the future. not sure when, but your thinking is the future.
8
sfdenizen: If we heard the same response and thoughts from millions more Muslims throughout the US, Europe and the world, we citizens of the host countries would feel a lot easier. But until we do we live in a paranoid state, and so will they. The "silent majority" of peaceful Muslim cannot be silent any longer.
9
As a devout Christian, I respect your way of thinking. Religion divides people, and while I will never believe in God the way you believe in him I will respect your ability to believe what you believe.
Not sure how it is for Muslims, but God allows for freedom of choice. That means you have the, literally, God given right to decide what you believe... sadly just as in life every choice has its consequences. However that is not for us as people to judge.
If these Muslim extremist believe that we are terrible people than let their God sort us out. I do not believe any religion's God would ever condone the killing of innocent people, rather they have blasphemed him or not.
As you said Muhammad is forgiving and compassionate, and so is the Lord Jesus Christ, there for why can we as people not forgive others, and others religions.
Extremist plague, and make every aspect that they are extremist of look bad. I remember the Baptist extremist that protested at U.S Soldiers funerals. I am a baptist, and have family who serve in the U.S Military, I do not believe that God hates them, because God does not have hate.
Do i believe that murder even in the sense of war is wrong? Yes.
Do i believe it is necessary for one's survival sometimes? Yes.
Do i believe that God can forgive even these terrorist? Yes.
Not sure how it is for Muslims, but God allows for freedom of choice. That means you have the, literally, God given right to decide what you believe... sadly just as in life every choice has its consequences. However that is not for us as people to judge.
If these Muslim extremist believe that we are terrible people than let their God sort us out. I do not believe any religion's God would ever condone the killing of innocent people, rather they have blasphemed him or not.
As you said Muhammad is forgiving and compassionate, and so is the Lord Jesus Christ, there for why can we as people not forgive others, and others religions.
Extremist plague, and make every aspect that they are extremist of look bad. I remember the Baptist extremist that protested at U.S Soldiers funerals. I am a baptist, and have family who serve in the U.S Military, I do not believe that God hates them, because God does not have hate.
Do i believe that murder even in the sense of war is wrong? Yes.
Do i believe it is necessary for one's survival sometimes? Yes.
Do i believe that God can forgive even these terrorist? Yes.
The only way Islamic extremists with the medievalist world view will learn how to live in a modern world is if they have to put up with the indignities and infringements of free speech and a freer press over and over again.
They will eventually learn that you can't throw bombs or murder people in the West just because they didn't like a magazine cover.
They will eventually learn that you can't throw bombs or murder people in the West just because they didn't like a magazine cover.
17
Exactly. Maybe what we are in the middle of is just the beginning of a process that will centuries from now be called the "muslim enlightenment."
The whole purpose, frankly, is to incite. This must continue. It must be taken to some extreme. You, me and everyone must be willing to insult a specific symbol, even one of our own, to demonstrate that we cannot be touched. I have seen 'insulted' all manner of depictions of Christian symbols and even if people don't like it they shrug it off. I used to do alot of general cussing in Québécois which is designed around the insulting of sacred symbols! And so what? It certainly cannot touch the sacred.
6
Charlie Hebdo cannot give in or the terrorists will have won, so they once again put the Prophet Muhammad on the cover. Its predictable and unimaginative, but maybe there was another way to react.
I wish the cover today would have been completely black with a glossy coating to reflect the image of the reader back at him or herself, like the black granite used to construct the Vietnam Memorial. It would functioned as an abstract version of "Je Suis Charlie." It would have prompted each reader look inside his or her own heart, and it would have calmed the nation and helped everyone grieve and heal.
Instead the magazine chose to stand indigently and defiantly in the light of this horror and pour gasoline on the situation -to do the same thing once again and expect a different outcome- and it is madness.
I wish the cover today would have been completely black with a glossy coating to reflect the image of the reader back at him or herself, like the black granite used to construct the Vietnam Memorial. It would functioned as an abstract version of "Je Suis Charlie." It would have prompted each reader look inside his or her own heart, and it would have calmed the nation and helped everyone grieve and heal.
Instead the magazine chose to stand indigently and defiantly in the light of this horror and pour gasoline on the situation -to do the same thing once again and expect a different outcome- and it is madness.
5
It may be a type of madness but one in which I wish to be protected by the rule of law...few if any others have inspired me so much as Charlie Hebdo, power to them!
7
Of course it should be protected by law, that goes without saying. But just because it is your right to do something does not mean you should.
It is may be forbidden for a Muslim to depict Muhammad, it is may be forbidden for a Muslim to look at a cartoon depicting Muhammad, but as a non Muslim I can depict and look at whatever I want.
If we surrender for the cartoons what will be the next step? Niqab mandatory for every women?
If we surrender for the cartoons what will be the next step? Niqab mandatory for every women?
38
Charlie Hebdo does the right thing not to give in, insisting.That's why we will see more attacks in the future! We are dealing with a bunch of people, who have no future and who use force to impose their Stone Age rituals and beliefs on us. But we shouldn't be afraid! Fear is exactly what our enemies want to instil!
28
How about Americans who start wars with 100's of thousands dead and millions displaced under false pretense? The Iraq War was pretty Stone Age with far many more victims. Where were the millions to march against a far worse atrocity. What about OUR responsibility to mend bridges for our despicable actions in Iraq and the mideast. Also add to that the horror that is Palestine. People living in concentration camp like environment. The bombing of Gaza- killing children. Having said this does not excuse the violence in Paris last week but lets put things in some perspective. This radicalism and anger does not come out of nowhere.
1
The problem of not being able to ignore offending speech or satires aiming at Islam is a problem for the Muslims to resolve. Whether it is cultural, education, religious or anything else, it is a Muslims problem or issue. By raising concerns or disapproving opinions regarding Charlie Hebdo's Muhammad cartoon, Muslims are in effect imposing their cultural and religious belief on others and trampling on the freedom of expression and thought valued by other cultures. The higher the volume of Muslims' concerns and voices regarding what they deem as offending speech or wrting about Islam, the more and widespread the "offending" would be.
11
Appeasing radical fanatics doesn't calm them, it emboldens them.
Our PCness is going to kill us.
Our PCness is going to kill us.
61
Right on Jack!
Is it going to be a new form of political correctness that Mohammad was a "nice guy"? I mean, this cover is being portrayed as heroic, and it certainly is in a world where extremists kill people over such things, but it is also diluted to avoid offending moderate Muslims by offering a kind of praise to Mohammad.
6
Isn't the cover showing Muhammad in sadness that his followers would kill? The Quran prohibits killing ... the cover seems to reinforce the idea that the killing perpetrated in the name of Islam is a perversion of the faith. That by killing anyone you kill everyone, including Muhammad and Islam itself.
10
No the Quran does not prohibit killing.
5
It may be a cleverer ploy than you think - all these fatwas by Dar Al Ifta and other fanatics over a cartoon that is complimentary of Mohammed make them look like the kneejerk reactionaries they are. An olive branch from Charlie, to hoist them on their own petard.
2
As an open-minded, peace-loving New Yorker, I'm beginning to rethink my definition of "radical Islam". So far, I haven't seen the greater Islamic community rally against radicals. I didn't see leaders of the Muslim community walking in peace with our friends in Paris, they have not reigned in the radical faction of their own religion. Yet, they tell us a magazine cover of a publication that was just subject of a gruesome attack is not acceptable.
Perhaps Muslim culture is indeed a violent one, full stop.
Perhaps Muslim culture is indeed a violent one, full stop.
33
Clearly you haven't been paying much attentions. Muslim leaders all over the world have clearly and unequivocally condemned these horrific terrorist attacks. Did you not see the Palestinian leader Abbas marching the Paris Unity parade with all the other world leaders? have you not been reading news sources that aren't mainstream? The mainstream press rarely reports on these things. Muslims are speaking out, but no one is listening.
Also, it's quite unfair to ask all the world's 1.8 billion Muslims to "reign in" the radicals. News flash: the peaceful Muslims do not interact with the crazy fanatic ones! Do you, as a white person, interact with hard core Nazis or KKK members? Why don't you personally reign them in? Can you see the double standard here?
Also, it's quite unfair to ask all the world's 1.8 billion Muslims to "reign in" the radicals. News flash: the peaceful Muslims do not interact with the crazy fanatic ones! Do you, as a white person, interact with hard core Nazis or KKK members? Why don't you personally reign them in? Can you see the double standard here?
9
Perhaps some religions or cultures are the result of a mistake multiplied.
4
And are you asking the same of Christians and Jews?
Each person is responsible for his own actions. The claim that the offended person is freed of this responsibility because he is offended is moral nonsense.
20
Sure seems a lot of Muslims are overly sensitive about silly cartoons. I've seen plenty depicting the Christian Jesus the same way. Christians haven't done a Jihad in a few centuries. Strife between Christians have never been about cartoons. It's usually a power struggle. ISIS and all the rest of the radicals are really using this as an excuse to vent anger and seek revenge. This is just an excuse used to recruit fighters. Our own 'christians' use tactics much less extreme to recruit followers and voters. That is the only similarity.
4
The new cover is just Mohammed standing there with a sign. If this is all it takes to inflame the world, the we really are in a war of civilizations.
38
I think it's time for a new take on freedom of religion. You are free to worship however you like except if it involves bigotry, hatred, or violence.
3
You just excluded a vast number of "believers"
2
Void for vagueness. A legal concept. Look it up.
I'm all for freedom of expression, but insulting religions is asking for people to be killed.
2
Religion is long overdue for ridicule.
21
If that's true, then religious people are pretty unstable. Maybe it's time to outlaw all religions. Is wearing sexy clothing asking to be raped? Better ban all sexy clothing.
16
Yes I'm definitely asking that anyone that would be willing to kill someone in the name of religion be killed immediately. Thank you Charlie Hebdo for your courage!
5
If "one of Egypt’s highest Islamic authorities" is concerned about "tensions," perhaps he should focus less on a satirical cartoon and more on acts of terrorism carried out in the name of faith.
19
Or condeming such attacks with a fatwa against them!
3
Why would they condemn the slaughter of thousands by Boko Haram or the butchery of Syrians by Assad? Thousands of corpses evidently aren't nearly as offensive as a cartoon.
2
Just to be picky picky....
Since it is prohibited to depict Mohamed and presumably has always been so
HOW DO WE KNOW that a depiction is Mohamed? vs a random person
this point HAS been made, that the VIEWER decides if the depiction is Mohamed, b/c we just don't know
Since it is prohibited to depict Mohamed and presumably has always been so
HOW DO WE KNOW that a depiction is Mohamed? vs a random person
this point HAS been made, that the VIEWER decides if the depiction is Mohamed, b/c we just don't know
8
Right. And since no one knows what the prophet actually looks like, how do we know it's a representation of him other than through an assertion? Will I be the target of murderous extremists if I say that this emoticon ;) is a depiction of Mohammed?
5
I would contest Dar al-Ifta's statement that this cartoon would be an "unjustified provocation to the feelings of a billion and half Muslims around the world." When have we heard of Muslims in Albania, Kazakhstan, or Azerbaijan behaving barbarically at depictions of Muhammad? It seems to me only Muslims in or from nations influenced by the radical Wahhabi ideology of the Arabian gulf behave this way. As a Muslim,I am proud to say Je suis Charlie. I am not offended by free speech, but I am offended by those who behave barbarically in the name of Islam.
578
Bravo, I wish we could hear/read about more Muslims like you.
The same idea has, apparently, been voiced at prayer in most, if not all French Mosques, if I believe the French press. However, for some reason, yours is the only voice that the US MSM let us hear.
Free press, indeed.
Not "the free press" any; but "free the press" may be a worthwhile slogan.
The same idea has, apparently, been voiced at prayer in most, if not all French Mosques, if I believe the French press. However, for some reason, yours is the only voice that the US MSM let us hear.
Free press, indeed.
Not "the free press" any; but "free the press" may be a worthwhile slogan.
Interestingly, in Denmark, a country that tolerated the publishing of a cartoon, opined by some to be blasphemous, does not allow the Moslems or the Catholics or the Baptists access to broadcast their services on Radio Danmark or on television. Just those from the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The Danish royalty must belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church--not exactly a sign of freedom of expression by the standards of some countries. The default deduction on your paystub is a contribution to the Evangelical Lutheran Church; deductions for other religions is forbidden. When a birth or death occurs, one registers this at the state-subsidized offices of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, not a city or county office. Two holidays are associated with each Easter and Christmas, no holidays for other religions. Lastly, only those belonging to the state Church are entitled to be buried in a cemetery operated by the Evangelical Lutheran Church. At the bottom line: some Europeans may like to whistle and chew flour, as the Danes say, when publishing cartoons mocking the beliefs of others.
If you are an observant (fill in the blank) and you live in a secular country and then get upset that the people of that secular country act like they are secular and don't hold your sacred stuff sacred, then you have a choice. You can move to a place where you will be free from upset or you can tolerate your secular fellow citizens. If you choose violence, then you're showing that you and those like you do not belong. So why are you in France if you can't tolerate France being France? The same applies to Germany or the US or anywhere. If you can't abide secularism, then leave it. We really won't miss you.
28
Heartwarming new cover.
Muhammad expressing "We are in this together";
the "all is forgiven" is beyond brilliant-a healing gesture by each to the other (Muslim, Jew, French, Christian et al).
This cover as a united new beginning in a new year, depending on the reader.
Muhammad expressing "We are in this together";
the "all is forgiven" is beyond brilliant-a healing gesture by each to the other (Muslim, Jew, French, Christian et al).
This cover as a united new beginning in a new year, depending on the reader.
14
Sadly people will not view it like that, but instead view it as a mockery.
I not only support Charlie Hebdo in printing this cartoon, but encourage all other news outlets to do the same. While Muslims may dislike it, they cannot dictate the content of our speech. If many news organizations printed similar content, maybe the idea would start to take hold in the Muslim world that we have a different approach to freedom of speech that must be respected. Otherwise, to do nothing is tantamount to giving in to the terrorists and signaling to them that their tactics work and the murder of innocent people is an effective way to enforce their will.
25
There is a fine line in not wanting to hurt the religious sensitivities of people and being cowed by threat not to do so. This week's cover is an olive branch, not a provocation. Depicting Mohammed as a forgiving and understanding person fits with Mohammed's life and actions and shows a careful balance between 21st century Western beliefs (shared by many muslims by the way) and a medieval autocratic view of Islam (that most muslims despise and suffer from). Every time we censor ourselves we little by little reduce our freedoms and one day we may look back and not really know how we lost ourselves and our freedoms.
15
I have no objection to hearing that Muslim groups and scholars object to the cartoon. That is their inherent human right to freedom of speech (whether or not their countries acknowledge such a right). By exercising that right, they emphasize that all people have the same right.
I have no objection to the Times' not printing the cartoon. That is their First Amendment right of freedom of the press.
I have no objection to the Times' not printing the cartoon. That is their First Amendment right of freedom of the press.
1
After reading many of the comments I have but one question - has anyone actually read the cover of Charlie Hebdo?
It says, at the top of the cover page "Journal Irresponsable"
It is our duty in a democracy to protect all forms of free speech, even if we dislike it or find it insulting
It says, at the top of the cover page "Journal Irresponsable"
It is our duty in a democracy to protect all forms of free speech, even if we dislike it or find it insulting
5
Even though I am a staunch secular rationalist and agnostic, I feel that believers who enjoy an authentic belief in their supreme deity would display sufficient magnanimity to ignore the bufoonery of the irreverent. God or whatever is bigger than anything else, considerably above the monkeyshines of a few clowns. No justification whatsoever for this to lead to a clash of civilisations! Just shrug your shoulders and get on with the day at hand.
5
History shows several religions, more correctly several human leaders of the religion, resort to violence to gain some advantage over others. In a civilized world, there is an established legal course of action for everything. In spite of this, these leaders practice violence and they will continue to do so wherever the Government is weak or anti-freedom. Like several others in this forum, I support that it is the violence that must be condemned, not the cartoonists.
7
This was exactly the right thing to do - to reaffirm freedom of expression and also show an image of forgiveness and the tear. To have refrained from any reaction to what killed their colleagues would have been a surrender to that very action. Let us hope that the people of France, secular and religious, left and right, and every other demographic division will continue to stand together against the forces that hate democracy and all it entails.
I think that every newspaper, magazine, television station and website worldwide should publish the cover and tell these barbarians that we reject them and their cause.
I think that every newspaper, magazine, television station and website worldwide should publish the cover and tell these barbarians that we reject them and their cause.
10
Pardon me if I'm deeply sceptical of the rush to stand with Charlie Hebdo. I well remember the antiwar protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many of us were sincere. Of those, some were against all war, others against that particular war. Of that latter group, some were against the Vietnam war for moral and ethical reasons; others just didn't want to be drafted or see a loved one drafted. And a great many had no real convictions either way - they were marching because it was the hip thing to do, or because their friends were, or because it ticked off their parents, or just to 'belong' and get that sense of 'belonging' in a group movement. (Such people could get the same exhilaration from a Crusade, or a Jihad, or at the Nuremberg rally. On the good side, it's the same urge that fuels the Ice Bucket Challenge or charity walkathons.)
I wonder how many of that 1 million marching in France - or rushing now to proclaim 'I am Charlie Hebdo' - are actually just the flash mob I have described, jumping on the latest bandwagon rolling by.
I wonder how many of that 1 million marching in France - or rushing now to proclaim 'I am Charlie Hebdo' - are actually just the flash mob I have described, jumping on the latest bandwagon rolling by.
1
Over 4 millions during the week end.
And no, it was not a question of jumping on the latest wagon rolling by.
And no, it was not a question of jumping on the latest wagon rolling by.
7
Maybe not for you personally, Etienne, and maybe not in France, where it actually happened. But I have a little experience with American superficiality, and I know a fad when I see one. Your American allies are not really marching with you - just stampeding in the same direction.
1
Stampede, flash mob, fad, etc. call it whatever negative response you prefer, I'm loving it. Maybe if we all acted disaffected, moody, wax philosophical we'd win your approval...bwahahaha!
1
The tension between tolerance for others and the need to promote humanist values is the central dilemma of Progressivism.
How do we maintain allegiance to the principles of multiculturalism while also appropriately opposing certain beliefs and behaviors which are anathema to the the most sacred and hard-won advances of Liberal Democracy?
Ultimately, it involves some pretty hard choices. And sometimes those choices demand that we accept the risk of painful consequence...not only the likelihood of violence, but the far more difficult - demand that we reject a system of beliefs because within it are embedded certain fatally toxic elements.
In Islam as it presents itself in this day and age, we see the presence of widely-held beliefs which were leached out of the mainstream of other major religions only after many centuries of painful and costly struggle (not completely eliminated, to be sure, but certainly pushed to the very edges). Islam has not yet had that reformation behaviors such as the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, the acceptance of slavery and slavery-like constructs within Sharia law, the belief that leaving the faith should be punished (often brutally)...the list goes on.
So, we find ourselves, sadly, at a crossroads. The best resolution would be for Islam, as did Christianity & Judaism did before it, to reform itself. Time will tell as to whether that happens. But for the rest of us, the only acceptable cri de coeur must be "Je Suis Charlie!"
How do we maintain allegiance to the principles of multiculturalism while also appropriately opposing certain beliefs and behaviors which are anathema to the the most sacred and hard-won advances of Liberal Democracy?
Ultimately, it involves some pretty hard choices. And sometimes those choices demand that we accept the risk of painful consequence...not only the likelihood of violence, but the far more difficult - demand that we reject a system of beliefs because within it are embedded certain fatally toxic elements.
In Islam as it presents itself in this day and age, we see the presence of widely-held beliefs which were leached out of the mainstream of other major religions only after many centuries of painful and costly struggle (not completely eliminated, to be sure, but certainly pushed to the very edges). Islam has not yet had that reformation behaviors such as the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, the acceptance of slavery and slavery-like constructs within Sharia law, the belief that leaving the faith should be punished (often brutally)...the list goes on.
So, we find ourselves, sadly, at a crossroads. The best resolution would be for Islam, as did Christianity & Judaism did before it, to reform itself. Time will tell as to whether that happens. But for the rest of us, the only acceptable cri de coeur must be "Je Suis Charlie!"
7
The line is not so fine, in my mind. Tolerance has limits, and excepting self defense, we must not tolerate violence of any kind.
Around the time of Voltaire, an understanding emerged that 'crimes' such as blasphemy and apostasy were not crimes at all, and couldn't be compared with crimes in the real world such as theft or murder. Before this realisation, perfectly normal people were being tortured and killed in sadistic ways that would shock probably even a terrorist (being 'broken upon the wheel' for example) - simply for what they thought.
We got over this.
I think we agree in the West (despite our numerous other differences) that noone has the right to kill or maim in the name of an idea, nor to use violence to avenge criticism of an idea. We defend the right to offend, to be offended, and not to go to war about it.
Not everyone has learned this lesson yet.
We got over this.
I think we agree in the West (despite our numerous other differences) that noone has the right to kill or maim in the name of an idea, nor to use violence to avenge criticism of an idea. We defend the right to offend, to be offended, and not to go to war about it.
Not everyone has learned this lesson yet.
10
Those who believe it was wrong to publish the Charlie Hebdo cover because others may be injured or killed by extremists are allowing mainstream society to be controlled by criminals. We cannot allow the threat of criminal acts to dictate what we can or cannot do. The ideal of civil society is that we can disagree, but disagreement over ideas never justifies criminality.
17
Did these people really believe Charlie Hebdo would adopt a low profile after their staff is savagely murdered for having committed no other crime than representing a prophet?
Really naive are they.
And now 3 million prophet drawing are going to flood the planet, not counting the Internet ones.
That's not only deserved. It was the only answer to give.
And no, I see no reason why we should change our way of living because of these people. Are they changing theirs because of us ?
Really naive are they.
And now 3 million prophet drawing are going to flood the planet, not counting the Internet ones.
That's not only deserved. It was the only answer to give.
And no, I see no reason why we should change our way of living because of these people. Are they changing theirs because of us ?
7
The prophet with a tear seems appropriate. After all, we are told that the Islam religion is a religion of love and kindness and that every life is a gift.
If Mohamed doesn't weep over what those who have supposedly corrupted his message have done, perhaps the religion isn't all that loving or kind or caring about all lives.
Which is it.
If Mohamed doesn't weep over what those who have supposedly corrupted his message have done, perhaps the religion isn't all that loving or kind or caring about all lives.
Which is it.
5