France steps up security at embassies as magazine publishes Prophet Mo cartoons

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What is desirable might be another thing but I don't think we should embark on a policy whose goal is essentially to wind up extremists...

[Silent Hunter]

What is desirable might be another thing but I don't think we should embark on a policy whose goal is essentially to wind up extremists...

[Insula Dei]

Gotta agree with the Antonio/Franzl axis on this one.  Just keep making Mohammed cartoons until the protestors get tired of protesting.  Next week, they'll be onto protesting over something else anyway.

You're right (without realizing why, perhaps), cartoons like these are only accidental to the protests they incite.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

OK, let me rephrase. If they stopped making cartoons about the Prophet because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

OK, let me rephrase. If they stopped making cartoons about the Prophet because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

It would also be a highly ethical and responsible decision to make, but, you know, whatever.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

OK, let me rephrase. If they stopped making cartoons about the Prophet because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

It would also be a highly ethical and responsible decision to make, but, you know, whatever.

Letting some fanatic nutjobs decide what the newspaper of a free country can draw and what they can't is ethical and responsible to you?

[Insula Dei]

Taking the decision not to publish a cartoon which only is meant to insult and cause mayhem may be considered adult behaviour, yeah.

At the very least it betrays some concern for the quality of the stuff you're publishing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Taking the decision not to publish a cartoon which only is meant to insult and cause mayhem may be considered adult behaviour, yeah.

At the very least it betrays some concern for the quality of the stuff you're publishing.

Oh dear lord, once again?

This is a f**king satirical magazine. Satirical magazines publish, you know, satirical cartoons. That's what they are supposed to do. And while satirical cartoons are not necessarily meant to insult, some people in the world will always take them as insulting. People publish them nonetheless. So, how in the world can you call people out for publishing satirical cartoons about a specific thing and claim with a straight face that you're not advocating for censorship?

The options are two: either you're saying that blasphemy is generally OK, except toward Islam. So, that means Islam is somehow particular and deserves a special treatment. Sounds like a very dangerous idea, which is also quite condescending toward Muslims. Or you are saying that blasphemy is bad in general and should never be practiced. Hurray to the Inquisition!


I like how this forum seems more outraged about people exerting their freedom of expression (and doing their goddamn job in the process) than about the mass of human trash who actually think it's OK to attack buildings and kill people because they didn't like a movie or a drawing.

[Insula Dei]

At the very least the people of Charlie Hebdo aren't doing a very good job if they think that cartoon was funny.

[Antonio the Sixth]

At the very least the people of Charlie Hebdo aren't doing a very good job if they think that cartoon was funny.

...and that's completely irrelevant to the point.

[Insula Dei]

At the very least the people of Charlie Hebdo aren't doing a very good job if they think that cartoon was funny.

...and that's completely irrelevant to the point.

Oh it is, because it makes the difference between an empty, vapid provocation and between legitimate satire. Charlie Hebdo's job is not to jump up and down some imaginary barricades in the defense of Free Speech, but to bring actual satire. Nobody's disputing that the magazine has a right to print whatever filth it wants (and let's be honest here: there are very few other accurate descriptions of a deliberately insulting yet simultaneously meaningless and inane cartoon like this), the question is whether our little knights of the liberal table are right to do so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

First of all, no, there is absolutely no deliberate intent to insult anyone. Someone who feels insulted by a religious satire needs to grow up and understand that he can't force people to give a sh*t about what his beliefs are. If there were a religion whose doctrine said it's blasphemous to depict trees, would any drawing of a tree be deemed "deliberately insulting? Acknowledging that some people can legitimately feel insulted is the first step toward obscurantism.

I can actually say, from having a look at those caricatures, that their actual message was to poke fun at the movie, by pointing out how silly and grotesque it was. The caricatures are still dull and unfunny but that's, again, besides the point. It's not the first time Charlie Hebdo makes bad caricatures and when their bad caricatures are about things other than Islam nobody gives a sh*t about them. BTW, they also happen to have good cartoons, some of which are about Islam and some of which are about something else.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

If we're gonna dictate what news papers are allowed to publish, and what movies are allowed to depict based on wether someone might be offended by it we're on the wrong path.

Should we not allow South Park because it sataries mormonism? Or is it only when the offended party gets violent that we should allow them dictate our actions? What sort of logic is that?

Satire and Parody is an important Democratic tool and should be allowed on all levels of society, politics as well as religion, even if the satire happens to be stupid and unnecessary.   

[Antonio the Sixth]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

I guess that might be part of my old-style French "laïcard" tendency.

Incidentally, the quote in your sig is also a rare and interesting instance of me completely disagreeing with Al.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

You can not believe in progress and still think that the right to blasphemy is a fundamental principle which ought to be protected, not only in legislation but also in facts.

(in fact, I personally believe it's impossible to be really left-wing without believing in some kind of Progress, but whatever)

[Vosem]

I agree Antonio on this one

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

You can not believe in progress and still think that the right to blasphemy is a fundamental principle which ought to be protected, not only in legislation but also in facts.

What? Whyever not? Even if we're constructing the most ridiculous strawmen possible, transition from a non-theocratic government to a theocratic one is a form of 'progress', just not towards something one might necessarily want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe in 'progress', and I'm certainly not of the right. I believe in symptom relief.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The same discussion is ongoing with Al on the Democratic "factions" thread, which is probably more appropriate than this one. I think we can have an interesting debate on this issue.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The same discussion is ongoing with Al on the Democratic "factions" thread, which is probably more appropriate than this one. I think we can have an interesting debate on this issue.

I'd like to. Let's move there.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

You can not believe in progress and still think that the right to blasphemy is a fundamental principle which ought to be protected, not only in legislation but also in facts.

What? Whyever not? Even if we're constructing the most ridiculous strawmen possible, transition from a non-theocratic government to a theocratic one is a form of 'progress', just not towards something one might necessarily want.

Well, I obviously give a normative content to the notion of progress, otherwise it's indeed utterly meaningless.

The point is that theocracy is not the kind of government which a leftist would normally support...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

You can not believe in progress and still think that the right to blasphemy is a fundamental principle which ought to be protected, not only in legislation but also in facts.

What? Whyever not? Even if we're constructing the most ridiculous strawmen possible, transition from a non-theocratic government to a theocratic one is a form of 'progress', just not towards something one might necessarily want.

Well, I obviously give a normative content to the notion of progress, otherwise it's indeed utterly meaningless.

The point is that theocracy is not the kind of government which a leftist would normally support...

Unless the leftist were Michel Foucault or somebody like that, you're probably right.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

You can not believe in progress and still think that the right to blasphemy is a fundamental principle which ought to be protected, not only in legislation but also in facts.

What? Whyever not? Even if we're constructing the most ridiculous strawmen possible, transition from a non-theocratic government to a theocratic one is a form of 'progress', just not towards something one might necessarily want.

Well, I obviously give a normative content to the notion of progress, otherwise it's indeed utterly meaningless.

The point is that theocracy is not the kind of government which a leftist would normally support...

Unless the leftist were Michel Foucault or somebody like that, you're probably right.

Don't get me started on Foucault...

[Silent Hunter]

even if the satire happens to be stupid and unnecessary.   

That's the thing - it was stupid and it was unnecessary. I'm all in favour of satire (I subscribe to Private Eye), but not when it makes things worse.

[Zanas]

I came here to see how this thread had gone, and I hereby officially state that :

I'm in love with Antonio V.

He defended each and every point I would've, probably better than I would've, and never let go.

Now I'm curious. One of these days I'll draw a stick-man and write Muhammad under him, even in Arabic as I happen to know how to write in it, and publish it on this forum. Will it be censored ? And then I'll keep publishing it every day. I could even include a Muhammad caricature in my sig. We should get everybody used to it.

It's not because the Muslim world is in their 14th century that they should act like we did in ours...