Je suis Charlie

[Cosi bel do]

Florestan, I think you should change your avatar and ask you to do so. I find it deeply offensive and purely xenophobic. Racism is not an opinion, and has nothing to do with what Charlie Hebdo stands for, and what I and (I think) most of the people posting on this forum want to see.

[Florestan]

Florestan, I think you should change your avatar and ask you to do so. I find it deeply offensive

Discobolus, I think you should change your avatar (although not asking you to do so, because it´s none of my business what avatar you use). I find it deeply offensive.

I´m curious, though: do you even know who Charles Martel was? And in case you do, what´s he got to do with racism and xenophobia, pray tell?

[Ken B]

And terrible things are happening to the Palestinians in Gaza.

Apparently some french pupils objected to a minute's silence for those who died in France last week, saying that it was unfair, that a double standard is operating.

The French news was full of stuff yesterday focusing on the role of schools. I have no idea what the teachers in secondary education can say to the kids. That they should campagne against perceived injustice peaceably?  . . . I don't think that will be very convincing as an effective strategy for change.

By the way, the cartoons I've seen in Charlie Hebdo aren't so very offensive - they're offensive to extremists that's all. The famous one just shows Mahomet saying that it's tough to be loved by arseholes, with a headline saying that Mahomet is overwhelmed by fundamentalists. Nothing offensive about more moderate Islam as far as I know.
The one Discobolus has chosen is one I hadn't seen before, I think it's more offensive, even though I agree with the idea.

What I don't know is whether Charlie Hebdo published similar things about fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians. If not, well . . . it's not fair.

The claim is that it's an offense against sharia because it depicts Mohammed at all. It does rather seem though that the real offense is the kaffir not bowing down. You can see from the link in my sig that in fact there have been muslim depictions of Mohammed for a very long time.

Of course Charlie Hebdo need not be fair. And "fairness" is not the complaint. But yes CH mocks Jews and Christians and their books quite savagely.

[Mandryka]

This phrase, Je suis Charlie Martel, slipped out of Jean Marie Le Pen's mouth, it certainly presents a more agressive stance towards muslims than "Je suis Charlie" The latter is saying I am a victim too; the former is saying I am a soldier who is going to hold back the muslim threat.

One aspect of all this which interests me is to do with the French attitude towards freedom of speech. France's record doesn't seem so good here - they stopped Coluche when they decided that they didn't like what he was saying, and they stopped Dieudonné too. In the UK I don't think the government would get away with denying people the right to airtime like they did with Coluche, the journalists wouldn't let them. It's as if the establishment controls the media much more in France than here. Here the media control the political establishment 

So I find it a bit rich that this thing that Voltaire didn't say about fighting to the death to defend the right to speak, even when I don't agree with what you're saying, is being touted everywhere at the moment.

But maybe I've really misunderstood French culture - it's not easy to understand another culture.

[Ken B]

This phrase, Je suis Charles Martel, slipped out of Jean Marie Le Pen's mouth, it certainly presents a more agressive stance towards muslims than "Je suis Charlie" The latter is saying I am a victim too; the former is saying I am a soldier who is going to hold back the muslim threat.

One aspect of all this which interests me is to do with the French attitude towards freedom of speech. France's record doesn't seem so good here - they stopped Coluche when they decided that they didn't like what he was saying, and they stopped Dieudonné too. In the UK I don't think the government would get away with denying people the right to airtime like they did with Coluche, the journalists wouldn't let them. It's as if the establishment controls the media much more in France than here. Here the media control the political establishment 

So I find it a bit rich that this thing that Voltaire didn't say about fighting to the death to defend the right to speak, even when I don't agree with what you're saying, is being touted everywhere at the moment.

But maybe I've really misunderstood French culture - it's not easy to understand another culture.

I remember complaining about Diedonne being banned to friends. My own opinion was that rather than banning him, his remarks should be widely quoted. I want everyone to see that kind of attitude. Don't know Coluche.

In Canada we had, and to some diminishing extent still have, kangaroo courts that have done extraordinary things. A protestant minister was *banned for life* from preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality for instance. One government official dismissed free speech, saying "that is an American value" not a Canadian one.

[Mandryka]

I remember complaining about Diedonne being banned to friends. My own opinion was that rather than banning him, his remarks should be widely quoted. I want everyone to see that kind of attitude. Don't know Coluche.

In Canada we had, and to some diminishing extent still have, kangaroo courts that have done extraordinary things. A protestant minister was *banned for life* from preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality for instance. One government official dismissed free speech, saying "that is an American value" not a Canadian one.

https://www.youtube.com/v/aWEbtiH0jqY

[André]

That culture thing... One essential trait of the French is that they will defend free speech in some cases, but not all. For example, you can't silence Coluche and Charlie Hebdo even though they are (were in the case of the former) savagely anarchist in their pronouncement. And yet it is verboten to discuss corruption of officials and/or the sex life of the Président. This last taboo has somewhat taken a beating under Sarkozy, who was quite open about his amorous life. IOW what is public MUST be debatable, what is private is best kept under (bed sheet or swiss bank)  covers.

[Ken B]

The BBC indulges in bullying whataboutery regarding the Kosher market killings, and a brilliant insight on European anti-semitism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/12/the-bbcs-tim-wilcox-projects-the-last-two-hundred-years-of-european-anti-jewish-ideology-on-an-elderly-french-woman/

[Mandryka]

That culture thing... One essential trait of the French is that they will defend free speech in some cases, but not all. For example, you can't silence Coluche and Charlie Hebdo even though they are (were in the case of the former) savagely anarchist in their pronouncement. And yet it is verboten to discuss corruption of officials and/or the sex life of the Président. This last taboo has somewhat taken a beating under Sarkozy, who was quite open about his amorous life. IOW what is public MUST be debatable, what is private is best kept under (bed sheet or swiss bank)  covers.

My point was that Coluche was silenced, he found himself unable to get air time on public TV, for example. During the presidential campaign.

[Mandryka]

The BBC indulges in bullying whataboutery regarding the Kosher market killings, and a brilliant insight on European anti-semitism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/12/the-bbcs-tim-wilcox-projects-the-last-two-hundred-years-of-european-anti-jewish-ideology-on-an-elderly-french-woman/

.

Part of the confusion comes about because Israel sets itself up as the homeland for Jews, even this week Netanyahu said something along those lines, inviting French jews to Israel. Israel itself promotes the idea that Jews out of israel aren't at home, and does so loudly. He has his own (political) reasons for encouraging this idea I suppose.

As far as Isreal being colonizers oppressing the natives - well that's what they are doing in Gaza, Jerusalem, Hebron etc.

[Cosi bel do]

The French attitude towards free speech is perfectly clear. You can say everything, except when it is illegal, therefore :
- no apology of terrorism and violent actions
- no negationism or apology of crimes against humanity (which is the case with Dieudonné)
- no racist and xenophobic claims or insults.
Of course, religion or political ideas do not, in any case, apply to a specific "race" or, more precisely, origin, therefore criticizing or mocking religion and political opponents has no reason to be illegal. That being one of the great heritages of the Lumières that were recently debated on other threads.
And I don't see where France could receive lessons from countries where you find laws against blasphemy, or where newspapers blurred covers of Charlie Hebdo next to Charb or Cabu. Seriously, have you already forgotten where Charlie Hebdo is, or are you only making absurd points just for the pleasure of it?

"Je suis Charlie Martel" is a reference to a sentence by far-right ex-leader (and condemned multiple times) Jean-Marie Le Pen, who explains that the solution to avoid more terrorist actions is to throw all muslims and arabs out of France, as Charles Martel supposedly did in Poitiers. Which is a clearly racist and xenophobic claim.
As to Charles Martel, it's funny that a Romanian would think he'd make a lesson of French history to a French, even if I didn't have a PhD in Medieval history. But I think Le Pen and his admirers (among which, apparently, Florestan) should study history more, and stop trying to compare the war between the Franks and the Umeyyads in the 8th century to Northern African immigration during the past decades. Again, it is at the same time ridiculous and deeply offensive.

I still demand that Florestan changes his avatar or is made to do so. If not, then I'll consider the political line here is decidedly more officially on the far right that I thought, and will have no choice but to leave your company. I can't stay on a place where racism, xenophobia and illegal claims for violent racist actions are accepted.

[Florestan]

I still demand that Florestan changes his avatar or is made to do so

Soyez realistes, demandez l'impossible! 

If you, or any moderator for that matter, can produce one single racist or xenophobic post of mine, here or elsewhere, I'll repent and change my avatar. Until then, I'll keep it. Meanwhile you can object to my signature as well.

[Cosi bel do]

Your avatar IS racist and xenophobic, in addition to being a crude insult to the memory of the victims of the attacks.

[Ken B]

The French attitude towards free speech is perfectly clear. You can say everything, except when it is illegal, therefore :
- no apology of terrorism and violent actions
- no negationism or apology of crimes against humanity (which is the case with Dieudonné)
- no racist and xenophobic claims or insults.

I think you have made Mandryka's point: France's record on free speech is spotty. All of these impede debate. Who should be the arbiter of what counts as 'xenophobic claims'? I claim the Germans invaded France, the Russians raped German women, Italians make good prosciutto. And more obvious than even that: " You can say everything, except when it is illegal". Nice to be allowed to do only what is permitted!

"Je suis Charlie Martel" is a reference to a sentence by far-right ex-leader (and condemned multiple times) Jean-Marie Le Pen, who explains that the solution to avoid more terrorist actions is to throw all muslims and arabs out of France, as Charles Martel supposedly did in Poitiers. Which is a clearly racist and xenophobic claim.

That was  Le Pen's position long before Charlie Hebdo was bombed, so it cannot logically be a synonym for that position. Not only that, but Le Pen is not the only person to have used that phrase.  Not only that, I do not accept you as sole arbiter of what the phrase means. In some contexts I agree it may be a sly way of saying what you think it does. But not necessarily, not always, and not explicitly. Florestan can elaborate what he means if he chooses. I think other interpretations make sense too.

I still demand that Florestan changes his avatar or is made to do so. If not, then I'll consider the political line here is decidedly more officially on the far right that I thought,

This is an egregious and foolish error. If the moderators decide Florestan's avatar is within the bounds of what they will accept that does not mean they endorse or disavow any meaning behind it. Further if you cannot be part of a discussion where the "official position" aligns with your preferences and prejudices that is your failing, not a failing of GMG or its moderators. 

illegal claims for violent racist actions

What if I say likening the Torah to a roll of toilet paper is a repudiation of the Jews, who define their identity by it, and accuse you of advocating violence against Jews? You'd call me stupid, and you'd be right. 

[Cosi bel do]

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que ton avatar veut dire,  mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour que tu aies le droit de l'utiliser.

Again, an appeal to violence is not an opinion, but dangerous and illegal. Not only in France. Again, there are illegal things that one cannot say, even where free speech is absolutely free. One cannot legaly make appeals for the jihad, for instance, not in France, not in the UK, not in the US...

About the Le Pen reference, it is clear. Even the font and colors are identical.
http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2015/01/09/jean-marie-le-pen-front-national-charlie-martel-hebdo-tweet-declarations_n_6443248.html

[Florestan]

Again, an appeal to violence is not an opinion, but dangerous and illegal.

Sue me!

[Florestan]

Your avatar IS racist and xenophobic, in addition to being a crude insult to the memory of the victims of the attacks.

Your avatar is a crude insult to my, and tens of  millions of other people's, religious belief, so we're even.

[knight66]

Things are becoming overheated here. We don't have total free speech here as the rule is that there should be no personal insults and there are other kinds of behaviour that can draw censure or involve editing or deletion of posts. Clearly some here, especially two have upset one another and I have decided to lock this thread.

There is also the issue of the avatars, it seems to me that again, each find the other's avatar offensive. I am not going to call only one to remove the perceived offense. I am not convinced that either of you originally purposed offense to the other, though it seems you are each content that it has upset the other, not  an attitude  that I want to see continued.

In locking the topic I want you to each basically avoid the other until things cool down.

Knight

[Gurn Blanston]

I am making the final post in this thread, it is in fact the cover for the newest issue of Charlie Hebdo, and I think it makes a good point in human relations, beyond politics, beyond religion.

GB