Freedom of speech. When Macron is "upset" about a cartoon.

[Formless]

Emmanuel Macron, the man who decried retaliation over a cartoon, is now "upset" about another cartoon.

When the Charlie Hebdo incident happened, he spared no template of "freedom of speech" and turning a local incident into a global scene.

Fastforward a few years, and now he finds one particular cartoon posted by a Russian Embassy as "inappropriate".

Now, not only did he announce his displeasure over a cartoon. But he actually summoned the ambassador to talk about a cartoon.

So apparently, when you mock, bully and discriminate against a group of people using a cartoon, its freedom of speech and should be supported and maintained as a freedom right for anyone to excersize. But Political commentary is a reprehensible disgusting and distasteful action.

You know, for all the hypocrisy the west likes to practice, this is by the far the most laugh worthy I have ever seen. Rather than engaging in political discourse, we have a president of a country, focusing on a cartoon.

Sure, bully muslims, mock them, provoke them, that's freedom of speech and Muslims should just sit on their hands and take it. But make a single jab at the fucking circus that is the western politics and suddenly you've gone too far.

[Thufir Hawat]

So what you're saying is that an elected politician is being inconsistent when his interests are impinged ?

Perish the thought of such a thing being possible, of course... but I suspect this is neither the first nor the last time we see such an event !

[midnightblack]

I assume this is the incident being referenced:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-summons-russian-envoy-over-embassy-twitter-cartoon-that-mocked-europe-2022-03-25/

I'd argue there's a slight difference between the situations, even if fundamentally we're speaking about terrorism either way. In any case, Macron has also been critical of Biden's attitude towards Russia, namely by stating that he wishes to avoid escalating further through either actions or words, so at least in this sense he has a consistent attitude:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-macron-calls-restraint-words-actions-regarding-ukraine-conflict-2022-03-27/

Anyhow, the fact that people are dying in both situations, be it due to a cartoon (of all things), or the ego of a dictator drunk on power, is a woeful tragedy.

[gaggedLouise]

To me one of the key differences is that Charlie-Hebdo wasn't an officical spokesperson (or representative) for any entity - they were just a magazine, and comparable to an individual writer or comic artist - whereas the Embassy of a country is an official representative of its parent government, and so what the embassy and its staff make public are in some sense representative of the state they work for. Writers, authors, journals, newspapers and artists - or individual people - can afford to say things that are not appropriate for a government, especially not in the middle of a serious international crisis.  A government or its professional spokespersons - they're expected to be more careful with what they say. One of the things that shocked many people about Donald Trump was how flatly he ignored that kind of standard in his public communication.

Also, of course, Macron isn't threatening to kill anyone over the cartoon.

By the way, I've long had an album of cartoons and drawings by Jean Cabut, one of the graphic artists murdered in the Charlie-Hebdo massacre, He was very famous in France, for decades before his dire end, and I bought the album while on a summer course at the university of Dijon when I was twenty. I've learnt lots from it, both about French humour and French slang and spoken language. :)

[RedRose]

There's an islamophobia problem in France. And Macron has said various controversial stuff, like he "didn't see" said minister abuse women, etc.

[gaggedLouise]

There's an islamophobia problem in France. And Macron has said various controversial stuff, like he "didn't see" said minister abuse women, etc.

Yes, but I don't see how he or Charlie-Hebdo could have been legally taken to court for having broken the limits of free speech in a real sense. With Jean-Marie Le pen possibly, the old man was far more uninhibited than either of them, and he was in a position to actually direct his supporters to kill Muslims, something I really don't think you could say about Charlie-Hebdo.

One can claim of course that some things Charlie-Hebdo printed were morally wrong, irresponsible or tapped into very murky waters (and the same could be said about some of the pictures and stunts of Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who became divisive in the same way and received many death threats).  Vilks portrayed Muhammad as a dog, which is plainly about trying to test the sensibilities of Muslim believers and politicians. Within ten miles of where I live, a guesting Danish politician staged burning copies of the Quran, and some other people used the book as a football... :( Okay, very blunt and buttheaded - but is it a legal crime?  I think to be useful, freedom of speech and print has to have wide margins - if it would only protect what feels right and nice to most people in a country, then it ultimately gets toothless.

[RedRose]

France has this question of where does it stop, and I think it's unclear.

[Formless]

To anyone who try to spin the needle of "Different situation", allow me to answer you with what the Western media said.

Its just a cartoon. Get over it.

By the way, I've long had an album of cartoons and drawings by Jean Cabut, one of the graphic artists murdered in the Charlie-Hebdo massacre, He was very famous in France, for decades before his dire end, and I bought the album while on a summer course at the university of Dijon when I was twenty. I've learnt lots from it, both about French humour and French slang and spoken language. :)

Wow! Then I recommend Maurice Sinet. I learned a lot from his cartoons about the way of the French.

[gaggedLouise]

To anyone who try to spin the needle of "Different situation", allow me to answer you with what the Western media said.

Its just a cartoon. Get over it.

Wow! Then I recommend Maurice Sinet. I learned a lot from his cartoons about the way of the French.

Thanks, I'll check him out! :)

Cabut certainly knew how to test the sensibilties of the French too - one of the hundreds of drawings in my album has two street hookers posed on the pavement at night. The younger one is casually picking her nose, the older and taller one gives her friend a stern look and declares: "Jamais dans le nez - Toujours dans le cul!". (Never in the nose - always in your twat!".  And in another one, made in the 1970s, he portrays "Charles de Gaulle (present state)", upright but beginning to get mixed up with earth, rot and grass. (Most of the stuff is a bit more subtle, and superbly drawn.)

[Vekseid]

Man, the way this was described I was expecting something advocating Macron's assassination or something.

This, though?

It's hilarious. Not in the way the authors think it hilarious. But still hilarious.

It is rather pathetic that Macron is even dignifying this. He has been utterly sidelined as the US and UK have been playing the Ukraine situation rather masterfully. He's trying to maintain France's relevance after what could be described as an utter humiliation of intelligence.

To anyone who try to spin the needle of "Different situation", allow me to answer you with what the Western media said.

Its just a cartoon. Get over it.

One of these is an official diplomatic statement by a nation, which takes the current situations to not be serious when Macron just elevated France's nuclear readiness.

The other is a private actor mocking that which some view as sacred. In an ironic twist, people are offended by offensive depictions of their spiritual idol. Which proves to me the ultimate folly of iconoclasm - it didn't stop fanatics from elevating mortals beyond their station.

Should Macron have laughed this off? Sure. But he's been trying rather hard to deescalate things with Moscow - even now - and he probably took this as a rather personal snub.

Russia is not taking his efforts seriously - and it shows. This isn't Macron's fault, exactly. It's just that Putin/Russia has this view that you're either a puppet of the US or Russia and people don't actually have agency outside of this. The new world order is a tripolar one - US/EU/China - but Russia as the newest Old Man of Europe doesn't want to acknowledge that they aren't in the superpower club any longer.

[Formless]

It is pathetically laughable.

Should Macron have laughed this off? Sure. But he's been trying rather hard to deescalate things with Moscow - even now - and he probably took this as a rather personal snub.

Are you telling me a cartoon could escalate things between nations? Please tell me you're not serious about that. Because that just legitimizes any reaction towards any cartoon, regardless of circumstances.

[Vekseid]

It is pathetically laughable.

Are you telling me a cartoon could escalate things between nations? Please tell me you're not serious about that.

It certainly shouldn't be able to. No more than any other diplomatic communique.

An embassy's position is intended to be the official representation of a government. A diplomatic statement is a diplomatic statement, regardless of the medium it is presented in.

"We think you lot are no better than swine fucking each other." Not even acknowledging the separate nations therein. Especially when France has spent centuries cultivating its relationship with Russia. Not years or decades, centuries. Their relationship goes back to the Ancien Regime, and has been constantly pursued by every successive government of each power since.

France has been one of the few powers to treat Russia as America's equal on the world stage, even if it is nominally from a more Western-friendly perspective. Not even China does. I literally cannot think of anyone else who gives Russia such credit. Especially now, as their military is being thoroughly humiliated. Any sense of Russia being even a world power is now gone, and France has, even now, been one of the few powers treating Russia with the respect Russia feels it deserves.

Macron's position may be to ask the Russians if they consider their relationship with France to no longer be serious.

I would not be terribly surprised if Putin makes his embassy apologize for this or otherwise make some amends to France. They are literally the last power in the world willing to consider Russia as they believe themselves to be.

Because that just legitimizes any reaction towards any cartoon, regardless of circumstances.

You're comparing a diplomatic row with outright murder.

Do I believe Macron's response is appropriate? No.

Do I understand Macron's response? Yes.

In the same way I understand how Putin believed his own intel reports of how weak and feckless Biden was. Biden is one of the most experienced politicians the world has ever seen. I can entertain the idea - especially someone believing it - without accepting it.

[Oniya]

This, though?

It's hilarious. Not in the way the authors think it hilarious. But still hilarious.

Pig number three is busy setting up the pot under the brick chimney?  Things didn't turn out too well for the wolf at the end of that story.

[Formless]

You're comparing a diplomatic row with outright murder.

No, you're the one comparing a diplomatic stunt with murder.

I'm pointing out a single individual's reaction to two different cartoons.

[TheGlyphstone]

No, you're the one comparing a diplomatic stunt with murder.

I'm pointing out a single individual's reaction to two different cartoons.

I like Beetle Bailey, but I don't like Dilbert. That me, a single individual, reacting differently to two different cartoons. By this logic, I am an unreasonable and hypocritical person? If that's not what you mean, please clarify.

[Vekseid]

No, you're the one comparing a diplomatic stunt with murder.

I'm pointing out a single individual's reaction to two different cartoons.

You are pointing out Macron's reaction to people being murdered for their speech as private individuals.

Then pointing out his objection to an embassy's statement.

To be clear, he's not threatening legal consequences for making this speech. Or for anyone who repeats it. That is, he wishes to voice his concerns to the people who made it their official government position.

Exercising his own freedom of speech, in other words.

Like when Reagan made his "We begin bombing in five minutes" joke.

It was a joke. Were the Russians wrong to seek a better understanding?

Rather than escalate to the extent which they were capable. In which case we would likely not be having this discussion as IIRC my survival chances would be about 1/3rd and yours would be little better.



Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech. In addition to protecting Charlie Hebdo, it protects those Islamists who wish to communicate that it is offensive to them. In doing so, more sensitive media may take this into account - hiding Muhammad's image in certain contexts.

Murdering someone is not speech. It is an act of violence.

[Thufir Hawat]

You are pointing out Macron's reaction to people being murdered for their speech as private individuals.

Then pointing out his objection to an embassy's statement.

To be clear, he's not threatening legal consequences for making this speech. Or for anyone who repeats it. That is, he wishes to voice his concerns to the people who made it their official government position.

Exercising his own freedom of speech, in other words.

Like when Reagan made his "We begin bombing in five minutes" joke.

It was a joke. Were the Russians wrong to seek a better understanding?

Rather than escalate to the extent which they were capable. In which case we would likely not be having this discussion as IIRC my survival chances would be about 1/3rd and yours would be little better.



Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech. In addition to protecting Charlie Hebdo, it protects those Islamists who wish to communicate that it is offensive to them. In doing so, more sensitive media may take this into account - hiding Muhammad's image in certain contexts.

Murdering someone is not speech. It is an act of violence.

Yeah, that's an important distinction.
And I still stand by my first answer: a politician being inconsistent wouldn't be really a new thing. It's a good thing the two situations aren't really similar.

Cabut certainly knew how to test the sensibilties of the French too - one of the hundreds of drawings in my album has two street hookers posed on the pavement at night. The younger one is casually picking her nose, the older and taller one gives her friend a stern look and declares: "Jamais dans le nez - Toujours dans le cul!". (Never in the nose - always in your twat!".

That's factually wrong !

The translation is actually "always in the ass!"

[Formless]

You are pointing out Macron's reaction to people being murdered for their speech as private individuals.

Macron stood on a mantle and said, "Cartoons are a freedom of speech."

Macon summoned an Ambassador and told him that a cartoon is inappropriate.

In the second instance, Macron did not preview the cartoon and said, 'Its freedom of speech' and let it go.

Macron chose to react to a cartoon. Macron chose to react to something that he once defined as a venue of freedom to express one's self.

You can paint, twist or arrange the narrative however you like. At the end of the day, The same man who decried a reaction towards freedom of speech is the same man who went and censored an attempt towards freedom of speech.

You can discuss it amongst yourselves all you like. You can go on and on about how this is a sensitive and a political matter. I don't care. Because at the end of it, I'll just tell you what your media has been telling us all the time. "Its just a cartoon. Get over it."

it protects those Islamists who wish to communicate that it is offensive to them.

And you could've just used this as the counter argument to Macron's own attempt to censor a cartoon. But you choose to weigh his actions to those of the murderers.

Did anyone even compare his reaction to this cartoon he found so 'inappropriate', to my own reactions to the Hebdo bullying cartoons? No. People just keep bringing up the murder instead of those who were hurt, offended and slighted by those cartoons who simply asked not to be bullied by them.

Macron is a hypocrite. That's the moral of this story.

[midnightblack]

To anyone who try to spin the needle of "Different situation", allow me to answer you with what the Western media said.

It's a different situation and I'll try to briefly explain why. Satire is neither illegal nor immoral in France, and no one and nothing is exempt from satire, be it religious/political figures/movements. If memory serves, figures like Jesus Christ, religious institutions like the Catholic Church or political figures like Erdogan or Putin have been satirized in Charlie Hebdo. With the exception of Erdogan who was (understandably) a bit butthurt about it, these things were never classified as "provocations" and nor did they lead to terrorist attacks (possibly relevant question: why?). As far as I'm aware, Macron never had a different stance on any of these events. I believe that is largely due to the fact that you cannot have a free press that isn't free. Freedom comes along with the fact that the press may say things that you dislike or find offensive. And by and large the only thing you can do is deal with it. If as any given entity (private individual, company, religious institution etc.) you consider that you are being slandered, feel free to take it to court and sue them. But I don't think you stand a chance of winning in any even marginally liberal country if the whole basis of your argument is that your feelings were hurt.

Now, you are comparing the above to what ends up being the official position of the Russian Federation as was very well explained in this thread by other people. Macron's been somewhat obsessed throughout his term towards having an independent voice, largely so as not to resemble something that could be considered the USA's puppet. That can be seen in his approach to this crisis as well. He's been consistent in the way he has approached Russia officially and he would like to be approached in the same way through the same official channels. That is all.

[TheGlyphstone]

Since when do governments benefit from 'freedom of speech', though? An ambassador posting on the official embassy account is not acting in his own right as an individual, he is the official mouthpiece of his government. Governments are not individuals, they are not privy to the rights and freedoms that their constituent citizens should be entitled to. False equivalence is still a false equivalence.

[Thufir Hawat]

Also, I'd like to note that the OP presented the matter somewhat misleadingly. In fact, I find his choice of words...disturbing.
(And my reaction wasn't well-considered at all, either, but that's on me).

Emmanuel Macron, the man who decried retaliation over a cartoon, is now "upset" about another cartoon.

"Retaliation".
Retaliation is when Muslim businesses stop sponsoring Charlie Hebdo. What happened wasn't that, it was a terrorist attack!

When the Charlie Hebdo incident happened, he spared no template of "freedom of speech" and turning a local incident into a global scene.

"Incident". Not "terrorist attack".
"Local incident". Sure, media people getting murdered by terrorists is local to people in the same country...but it just might be cause for global concern, I've been told...

Fastforward a few years, and now he finds one particular cartoon posted by a Russian Embassy as "inappropriate".

Now, not only did he announce his displeasure over a cartoon. But he actually summoned the ambassador to talk about a cartoon.

And you know what is an embassy? It is an official representative of a foreign state. Part of Macron's job is to keep track of said positions - and when he considers them inappropriate, to discuss them with the ambassador. Because Macron represents France (tant bien que mal...) until the end of his mandate.
Furthermore, only someone who is an official representative is allowed to take action. If you're comparing the two situations...are you also implying that the terrorists were representing the Islamic faith in "the Charlie Hebdo incident" ?

So apparently, when you mock, bully and discriminate against a group of people using a cartoon, its freedom of speech and should be supported and maintained as a freedom right for anyone to excersize.

"Mock, bully and discriminate".
Mocking, yes, it's part of freedom of speech. Otherwise satire wouldn't be possible.
But "bullying"? Who did Charlie Hebdo bully by publishing a cartoon (and mind you, it's way less offensive than what they tend to say about Christianity)? (Note: I know full well that bullying might mean not only coercion, but also "acting in an insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion". But the only thing that would apply here is "insulting", and that's so related to mockery, that I assume you mean something else. And in any case, choosing a word with such double connotation only makes the argument less persuasive and more misleading. If you meant insulting, you should have written that).
Likewise with "discriminate". Who was discriminated against by the publishing of the cartoon? Charlie Hebdo doesn't have any power over Muslims so it obviously couldn't discriminate against them.
Or do you mean that it's only mocked Muslims? Oh wait...

Probably NSFW Mockery of Christianity by Charlie Hebdo

Definitely NSFW.  That's what url tags are for.  - Staff

But Political commentary is a reprehensible disgusting and distasteful action.

No, but when the "political commentary" by another state shows negative attitude towards yours, it's the job of presidents, foreign ministers and other diplomats to actually state that they're taking offense.

You know, for all the hypocrisy the west likes to practice, this is by the far the most laugh worthy I have ever seen. Rather than engaging in political discourse, we have a president of a country, focusing on a cartoon.

A cartoon posted by an embassy of another state. Which is currently in the focus of the world's attention.

Sure, bully muslims, mock them, provoke them, that's freedom of speech and Muslims should just sit on their hands and take it. But make a single jab at the fucking circus that is the western politics and suddenly you've gone too far.

"Bully" again.
Also "provoke". Provoking is part and parcel of satire, but the archaic meaning is "to incite someone to an action or feeling".
And we all know what actions were taken against Charlie Hebdo...
So are you implying here that those actions were taken due to the provocation ?

[RedRose]

I was local when Charlie Hebdo happened, as well as Bataclan (which is more than just Bataclan btw, restaurants were also attacked). Definitely not an incident. Not to mention the trauma for people even kilometers away. I remember my classy neighbour hanging out in the building corridor in her nightgown totally lost.

[Vekseid]

Macron stood on a mantle and said, "Cartoons are a freedom of speech."

Macon summoned an Ambassador and told him that a cartoon is inappropriate.

Yes.

In the second instance, Macron did not preview the cartoon and said, 'Its freedom of speech' and let it go.

Formless, I consider you a friend.

Imagine if I posted some image calling all Muslims pederasts for the crimes of some Afghans and Turks, and did so through the announcements of this forum.

It would be my right to do so. There is nothing anyone could do to stop me. I could have it up in a few minutes and the only thing that could take it down is either my choice, or a meteor impact strong enough to vaporize everything from Florida to Seattle.

It would likewise be your right to vent your concerns to me. Not just as a practitioner of the faith in question, but as a presumably valued, contributing member of this forum.

Which is to say, it would be extremely inappropriate of me to do so. Not just for a crass reduction of all Muslims, but your own efforts here to put a face and identity to your faith.

So it is with France and Russia. Macron took this personally, and while again, I disagree with his reaction, I understand where it comes from.

Macron chose to react to a cartoon. Macron chose to react to something that he once defined as a venue of freedom to express one's self.

Barring threats and deception, speech is a valid reaction to speech.

Did anyone even compare his reaction to this cartoon he found so 'inappropriate', to my own reactions to the Hebdo bullying cartoons? No. People just keep bringing up the murder instead of those who were hurt, offended and slighted by those cartoons who simply asked not to be bullied by them.

It took a few re-readings of this to understand that you probably intended to say something very different than how this comes across. You may want to take the time to express in in a clearer, more complete fashion.

Ultimately, for many in the West, the very notion that an idea can be sacred is in and of itself highly offensive. This includes idolizing, as the people offended by Charlie Hebdo's cartoons do.

[Formless]

Formless, I consider you a friend.

Likewise, and through your forum I learned a lot and expressed myself a lot, and especially through this very thread, which I am grateful to.

It took a few re-readings of this to understand that you probably intended to say something very different than how this comes across. You may want to take the time to express in in a clearer, more complete fashion.

Giving me the benefit of the doubt is a virtue I appreciate. So allow me to explain myself thoroughly. What I will write down below will touch on other points contributed by the other participants. My English may fail me so do bear with me and I will further explain if it comes to that.

Let me start by saying, A threat and murder is not the answer to a cartoon, a joke or a whole production meant to make fun of something I believe in.

When the murders happened, I didn't celebrate the act. I actually knew what happened will just set back all efforts made by millions of Muslims who were trying to better the image of my faith. With all that in mind, I still found those cartoons hurtful. But what makes it personal to me, is the lack of any meaningful discourse back then.

Whenever I tried to discuss what happened, and how the cartoons were distasteful, I was met with "Its just a cartoon, get over it." Or I was reminded that people were murdered for it. There was no way to even reach out to the world that in the middle of it all, some of us were simply offended by them. Someone was killed, and that was wrong. But what about those who were wronged by the cartoons themselves.

Many would say Satire does not discriminate, and the nature of it is to provoke. That is all well and understandable, but people also need to bear in mind that it is also inspired. The cartoons that sparked it all were made after a terrorist attack happened. And the magazine's commentary on it was to mock the Muslims. This is where the real problem lies.

The magazine's reaction is meant for the terrorists. The terrorists identify as Muslims. And yet the real Muslims like me do not associate with these terrorists. Yet we are mocked because they want to mock those terrorists. So even if the cartoons are satires, they are the result of a reaction. A reaction that most Muslims have nothing to do with it.

For years, there was no way to convey how these cartoons are meant to target the people of my faith, as opposed to how the world perceived them as just satirical comedy.

Yes cartoons are just another expression of someone, and they do not warrant any violent reaction, but also you have to take into consideration the cartoonist's intent behind them. The cartoon speaks a message that the artist conveys through a picture. Regardless of what that message holds, it could end up hurting someone. Sure, I'm not going to lose my mind over it, but doesn't mean I can't say it was offensive. But again, this is where the problem was. I wasn't allowed in most instances to say I'm offended (Elliquiy being the exception).

The murdering did not help with creating any meaningful discourse because most of the world took the murdering as the natural reaction of any Muslim. Its not. But because of the murdering, there was no way for the world to listen to how offensive the drawings were. When all I and many Muslims just wanted to convey was a simple message. "We're not like those murderous terrorists, so don't mock what we hold dear just to get a rise out of them."

I will admit, this is a personal gripe of mine that I have with Macron's actions. Not only because a head of state is reacting to a cartoon when other matters should be attended to, but because he just couldn't shrug it off and take it for what it is. It is as I mentioned earlier, pathetically laughable. And I won't change my mind on it. As juvenile or stubborn as that might make me look. I want to be as deaf to the circumstances of this event as the world was to my feelings about the cartoons.

I hope this make it much clearer now.

[Vekseid]

That is a lot more clear and I do think it helps your point.

I would just reiterate, again, that Macron's issue is probably more 'geopolitically personal'. He has been working diligently to try to resolve things with Russia, often personally, and Franco-Russian relations go back several centuries as I mentioned. Then this comes out and he may have to wonder if Russia takes France seriously. He's arranged his own independent talks with Putin and all, so he may be led to ask if discussions with Russia can be considered in good faith.