Jump to content

Charlie Hebdo - Satire or F*ckwittery?


Recommended Posts

An interesting cartoon in the French magazine shows the drowned Syrian boy grown up as a sex pest - responses range from "Clever satire" to "blatantly racist".

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/14/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-depicting-drowned-child-alan-kurdi-sparks-racism-debate

So what's P&B's take? And have any P&Bers ever drawn an ambiguous satirical cartoon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting cartoon in the French magazine shows the drowned Syrian boy grown up as a sex pest - responses range from "Clever satire" to "blatantly racist".

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/14/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-depicting-drowned-child-alan-kurdi-sparks-racism-debate

So what's P&B's take? And have any P&Bers ever drawn an ambiguous satirical cartoon?

I can't decide in my head whether it is a great display of free speech and not backing down or simply poking the bear.

Not too sure why the felt the need to refer to the drowned child specifically, they could've made the same point using a generic Syrian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they consult their staff who work near the front door (receptionists etc) before publishing such material. I know that I would be quite concerned if due to what happened previously.

Of course you can't just close the magazine down and hide away forever in case something happens but its just about not trying to create problems. I could probably walk for a mile or two down the M8 without getting hit by a car but it doesn't mean I'm going to try it - most people would try not to create such problems for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cover is being perceived in the wrong way. It's showing the way the MSM changes their mind on things, first trying to appeal for sympathy for the boy and then trying to insinuate that all refugees are rapists.

Not too sure if Billy Terrorist will be able to see that TBH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cover is being perceived in the wrong way. It's showing the way the MSM changes their mind on things, first trying to appeal for sympathy for the boy and then trying to insinuate that all refugees are rapists.

That may well be the case, but surely if the perception is that far off, it suggests a failure in the content.

If you have to explain the joke, it can't really be that funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cover is being perceived in the wrong way. It's showing the way the MSM changes their mind on things, first trying to appeal for sympathy for the boy and then trying to insinuate that all refugees are rapists.

Interesting analysis. If accurate it's worth exposing and bringing into public debate.

I've no idea how insidious the press is in other parts of Europe but we've seen the role of the MSM in the UK in stirring up racial tensions.

Not too sure if Billy Terrorist will be able to see that TBH.

If there's a guy out there called Billy Terrorist he should be brought in for questioning. OK I know I'll be accused of profiling but I think it's worth the flak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they consult their staff who work near the front door (receptionists etc) before publishing such material. I know that I would be quite concerned if due to what happened previously.

Of course you can't just close the magazine down and hide away forever in case something happens but its just about not trying to create problems. I could probably walk for a mile or two down the M8 without getting hit by a car but it doesn't mean I'm going to try it - most people would try not to create such problems for themselves.

Charlie Hebdo is now run from a highly secure office in a secret location. I'd imagine that there are armed police/generadmes on duty there 24/7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too sure if Billy Terrorist will be able to see that TBH.

That reply indicates one of the issues with censorship for reasons of offence - whose standards do we adopt? The people who attacked Charlie Hebdo or the people who attacked the Danish cartoonist or the people who issued a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie? If you say that there's a line of offensiveness that overrides freedom of expression, who decides where it sits?

At the risk of repeating the article I linked to above, these proposed lines of offensiveness are often drawn up by those who shout the loudest. You are abolishing free speech in favour of placating people who you are never going to satisfy. It's also hugely patronising and Orientalist, if not outright racist, to say that Catholics can cope with being relentlessly mocked but Muslims cannot. There are a billion people in the world who are at least nominally Muslim - they aren't all special snowflakes, waiting to take offense at something.

Free speech and the right to say outrageous, offensive, stupid things is more important than protecting people's feelings, or being seen to protect people's feelings. If you adopt provisios on it then you are going down a road to a santised society with acceptable truths and limitations on what people can write, study, believe.

ETA - We also shouldn't consider Britain an oasis of freedom of speech. Blasphemy laws were only abolished here in 2009 and in 1977 the publsihed of Gay News was convicted and given a suspended prison sentence for publishing a poem about Jesus getting a blow job on the cross.

Edited by ICTChris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...