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

[Sara Nilsson]

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.

I snipped a part just to highlight, but I think you really wrote that perfectly. I found the exact same problem here when I was trying to discuss it with many of my husbands friends. So I hope that you don't mind if I steal your words to use :) Sometimes arguing in a language that isn't your own can be difficult but also sometimes it can help as you are forced to really think. Sorry I just had to butt in and say I liked your post.

[Bezukhov]

As much as I loathe Mr. Macron, I'd agree with Vekseid (and with some of the points you raised, too!). Anyway, there was an Italian comedian who once pointed out how the entire purpose of satire is to make the powerful look ridiculous... which is why, during my time in France, I never (or hardly) really understood Charlie Hebdo's sense of humor. I remember an acquaintance of mine pointing out how people generally hardly cared about Charlie Hebdo before the attacks. But I see we have French users here and I'd be curious to know if they would agree with this.

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.

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.

I know it's a bit off-topic (perhaps way too much) and I apologize for that, but... do you really consider EU as one of the poles in the new world order? I have troubles with seeing EU, in its current shape, as an autonomous actor on the world scene. I'll admit this might have to do with my views on EU institutions and policies, which are in turn influenced by living in Southern Europe.

But, yeah, Macron did try to carve out a relevant role for France (and himself, if I may) in the current war.

[Formless]

I snipped a part just to highlight, but I think you really wrote that perfectly. I found the exact same problem here when I was trying to discuss it with many of my husbands friends. So I hope that you don't mind if I steal your words to use :) Sometimes arguing in a language that isn't your own can be difficult but also sometimes it can help as you are forced to really think. Sorry I just had to butt in and say I liked your post.

Not at all. I'm glad if anything I write can offer help.

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.

As much as I loathe Mr. Macron, I'd agree with Vekseid (and with some of the points you raised, too!). Anyway, there was an Italian comedian who once pointed out how the entire purpose of satire is to make the powerful look ridiculous... which is why, during my time in France, I never (or hardly) really understood Charlie Hebdo's sense of humor. I remember an acquaintance of mine pointing out how people generally hardly cared about Charlie Hebdo before the attacks. But I see we have French users here and I'd be curious to know if they would agree with this.

I know it's a bit off-topic (perhaps way too much) and I apologize for that, but... do you really consider EU as one of the poles in the new world order? I have troubles with seeing EU, in its current shape, as an autonomous actor on the world scene. I'll admit this might have to do with my views on EU institutions and policies, which are in turn influenced by living in Southern Europe.

But, yeah, Macron did try to carve out a relevant role for France (and himself, if I may) in the current war.

I really can't comment any further. I've said my piece.

Everyone's free to discuss the thread how they see fit.

[Thufir Hawat]

I want to be as deaf to the circumstances of this event as the world was to my feelings about the cartoons.

Formless, I respect you from our (somewhat limited) interactions on the forum. That said, I'd like to ask you two things about your feelings on the cartoons, if I may?

1) What would you have liked the world to do about the cartoons? Condemn Charlie Hebdo for publishing them?
2) If it was legal in France, would sending the artist and/or publishers to jail have been appropriate? In other words, would you support blasphemy being a crime?

OK, there is a third thing as well.
3) By what logic do you expect any reaction in defense of your religion when there was no reaction against Charlie Hebdo for publishing much harsher cartoons that mock Christianity - the dominant religion in France? (I mean here "a reaction that doesn't come from the religion itself, but from the broader society").

[RedRose]

France needs to come up with a clear rule. It's clear not everything can be said, but it's unclear. Charlie: no, I don't care for their style, their mocking, etc. I only #jesuischarlie after what happened. I generally do not "like" crass drawings and they mocked my religion as well as others'

[Thufir Hawat]

France needs to come up with a clear rule. It's clear not everything can be said, but it's unclear. Charlie: no, I don't care for their style, their mocking, etc. I only #jesuischarlie after what happened. I generally do not "like" crass drawings and they mocked my religion as well as others'

To clarify, I do believe Charlie Hebdo lack manners, refinement, common sense and a few other things. I also don't think blasphemy is a good idea even for atheists, since it offends the feelings of those of us who are believers.

But there's one thing I can't accuse Charlie Hebdo of: they definitely haven't avoided satire towards the most popular religion in France to concentrate on Islam or another minority religion.
In fact, the picture I posted should be clear enough even for those that don't speak French (I know you do, RedRose)...and I'd say it's actually way harsher.
So yes, they mocked my religion just as much or more than they mocked Islam. But I still think they should be allowed to say so.
Because conversely, I believe that everything can be said and nobody owes it to me to spare my feelings.
That said, choosing to say or not to say something would, of course, speak to one's character and would influence my attitude towards said person - my attitude as a private EU citizen, that is.
But that's a separate matter from Charlie being forbidden to say it.

[midnightblack]

France needs to come up with a clear rule. It's clear not everything can be said, but it's unclear. Charlie: no, I don't care for their style, their mocking, etc. I only #jesuischarlie after what happened. I generally do not "like" crass drawings and they mocked my religion as well as others'

I would assume that slander and hate-speech are covered by the law like in all other EU countries. But imposing rules on satire would be a very wrong step in a very wrong direction. There is nothing sacred about any religion that would put it above question, criticism, derision or mockery if it comes to it. Of course it's up to the individual as to if, how or why they would go about that. I've practically no interest in CH and their publication, but I do believe they should have the right to do what they do, just as you have the right to disagree with them and ignore their product.

[Humble Scribe]

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).

But you do understand that there's a difference between mocking the religion that has been established and dominant in France for centuries, and mocking the religion of a visible minority who are often discriminated against? Especially when the mockery is coming from white middle class intellectuals in a country that has historically colonised and oppressed Muslim countries around the world (yes, I'm British, I know I have no leg to stand on there, but that doesn't exculpate France). Comedy works best when it punches up. Punching down can look suspiciously like simply reinforcing racist or other cultural stereotypes, and yes, smacks of bullying.
So to echo Voltaire, while I defend to the death their right to publish, I really wish they hadn't.
For the avoidance of doubt, that is obviously not to take away from the terrible acts that happened later, which were clearly in a different league of wrongness.

[RedRose]

It's impossible to never hurt anyone, but some things are just too much. Shoah jokes? Mocking people's dear beliefs? I don't know where the limit is and neither does French law. It is clear our free speech is more restricted than, I dunno, in some other countries. It's also clear we have more than many, too.

[RedRose]

But, yeah, Macron did try to carve out a relevant role for France (and himself, if I may) in the current war.

Yes, he tried. He tries. His problem is that he doesn't live in the same reality as many of us, especially Eastern Europe. Heck, he shows lack of knowledge (and maybe concern) for French peasantry, too. Young bourgeois... May not be/identify as right wing but pretty old school.

[Thufir Hawat]

Oops, I had forgotten about this thread. Now I almost wish I hadn't scrolled down...

But you do understand that there's a difference between mocking the religion that has been established and dominant in France for centuries, and mocking the religion of a visible minority who are often discriminated against?

No. Sorry, I'm not buying that.
In fact, what you're saying is "it's fine to mock the dominant religion, but the minority religion should have special protection". Which is what the far-right wants everybody to believe that Muslims are asking for... if you want to play into their hand, please, keep doing that - Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour would send you their gratitude, I guess... if that's what you're after !
And if not, it pays to rethink that point .

Also, the religious feelings of a devout French Catholic are neither less important nor less strong than the religious feelings of a devout French Muslim. What is offensive to one, is offensive to all. And if Charlie Hebdo is can be offensive to some, it should be allowed to be offensive to all, or you're asking for the creation of a privileged class.
So, you might be unhappy that the law allows publishing articles and pictures that would be sacrilegious to some religion. Well, I've got good news for you - the law in other places, like Russia and Pakistan, forbids that !
So people who can't countenance the French law can make a choice! But if you choose to live in France, you have to accept that the French law is what it is.
And killing people isn't going to change that, it just makes you a criminal.

Especially when the mockery is coming from white middle class intellectuals in a country that has historically colonised and oppressed Muslim countries around the world (yes, I'm British, I know I have no leg to stand on there, but that doesn't exculpate France).
I'd say!

Comedy works best when it punches up. Punching down can look suspiciously like simply reinforcing racist or other cultural stereotypes, and yes, smacks of bullying.

Sorry, but unlike you, I'm Bulgarian. My country (and the surrounding area) has been "colonized" by a Muslim country for far longer and far more brutally than the French had colonies - in fact we refer to that time as slavery and not colonization. And yet that is conveniently ignored every time there's a debate in the West and the "historical arguments" are being taken out...
So would you say that it's fine if Bulgarian and Balkan artists publish the same kind of material?

If no, your argument is inconsistent. Obviously we've been wronged so it should be fine!

If yes, what distinguishes them from an artist in the Netherlands or France? Trying to create a privileged minority within the EU ?
Well, yes, you're no longer part of the EU, but trying to sow division like that is very ungentlemanly, sir!

So to echo Voltaire, while I defend to the death their right to publish, I really wish they hadn't.

I wish the whole of Charlie Hebdo never existed. But I still defend their right to publish and not be attacked for it.
I also defend the right of others to discuss the material and not be attacked for it.

For the avoidance of doubt, that is obviously not to take away from the terrible acts that happened later, which were clearly in a different league of wrongness.

Then we're in agreement. And I'm glad you specified that, because the last person I heard using your arguments IRL concluded with "so they got what they asked for"...

Yes, he tried. He tries. His problem is that he doesn't live in the same reality as many of us, especially Eastern Europe. Heck, he shows lack of knowledge (and maybe concern) for French peasantry, too. Young bourgeois... May not be/identify as right wing but pretty old school.

Actually, as someone who very much lives in Eastern Europe...that's only halfway true. The young bourgeois here often would agree with Macron on most points (other than his personal tastes ). But the rural populations both here and in France, I suspect, often wouldn't quite see eye to eye with him.

[Formless]

Oops, I had forgotten about this thread. Now I almost wish I hadn't scrolled down.

Anyway, let's see about the "sensational" argument we have here.

Oops, I had forgotten about this thread. Now I almost wish I hadn't scrolled down...
No. Sorry, I'm not buying that.
In fact, what you're saying is "it's fine to mock the dominant religion, but the minority religion should have special protection". Which is what the far-right wants everybody to believe that Muslims are asking for... if you want to play into their hand, please, keep doing that - Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour would send you their gratitude, I guess... if that's what you're after !
And if not, it pays to rethink that point .

I hate to break it to you, but Islam also protects the sanctity of both Christianity and Judiasm as Heavenly religion. So let me spill it out to you, you who doesn't want to buy it, A muslims should be offended when any of the three religions is mocked.

Also, the religious feelings of a devout French Catholic are neither less important nor less strong than the religious feelings of a devout French Muslim. What is offensive to one, is offensive to all. And if Charlie Hebdo is can be offensive to some, it should be allowed to be offensive to all, or you're asking for the creation of a privileged class.
So, you might be unhappy that the law allows publishing articles and pictures that would be sacrilegious to some religion. Well, I've got good news for you - the law in other places, like Russia and Pakistan, forbids that !
So people who can't countenance the French law can make a choice! But if you choose to live in France, you have to accept that the French law is what it is.
And killing people isn't going to change that, it just makes you a criminal.

French law impose anti-semite laws. Apparently one religion is deemed worth protecting as opposed to others. But that's hypocrites to you. Its ok to protect the religion/race/minority we deem appropriate, but we'll broach about it like its the universal law.

Sorry, but unlike you, I'm Bulgarian. My country (and the surrounding area) has been "colonized" by a Muslim country for far longer and far more brutally than the French had colonies - in fact we refer to that time as slavery and not colonization. And yet that is conveniently ignored every time there's a debate in the West and the "historical arguments" are being taken out...
So would you say that it's fine if Bulgarian and Balkan artists publish the same kind of material?

So we're doing the 'tit for tat' argument? Really? In an adult discussion? Also, I really liked how you said that the Europeans did something horrible, but you just had to say that the muslims did worse. Its like, "Hey guys ... yeah we kinda pillaged and exploited other lands. But HEY!!! Muslims did it too!!!!"

Should I bring up the name Leopold II since you're from Belgium?

Or do we need to ask what proper comparison YOU deem worthy so we can discuss it?

This is what I was actually referring to by sensationalism, at the start of my post. Washing the recent horrors committed by someone that probably happened ages ago.

Wait ... The Vikings left Belgian lands in ruin but you don't seem to be bothered about it! I suppose its because they're white like you are so it was probably a disagreement, right?

You can't be selective in your arguments, and I advise you to stick to recent times. At the very least you can decry Terrorism because that argument easily sticks among your ilk.

Trying to create a privileged minority within the EU ?

You mean like Israel? The country that is protected by all Europeans? Forced into the Middle East because the Europeans who had bigger guns said so? You know when they didn't even ask the native people who were living in that land about their opinions? Because they're not white Europeans like them? Kinda like that? Should I put an obligatory smiley face too to make what I said more obnoxious and clever?

If no, your argument is inconsistent. Obviously we've been wronged so it should be fine!

If yes, what distinguishes them from an artist in the Netherlands or France? Trying to create a privileged minority within the EU ?
Well, yes, you're no longer part of the EU, but trying to sow division like that is very ungentlemanly, sir!

Also what is this supposed to accomplish? You're forcing your own opinions and answers on someone and call that an argument? Is this middle school?

"Hey either you agree with me, or you're a stinking poo poo head!"

Grow up and say what YOU want and wait for people to answer. Don't force your own mantra on people.

In closing, if my thread is going to be used for juvenile and childish arguments like the ones presented above, then I'll close it. I left it open because this forum had always maintained an adult tone through most of its threads. But this is unacceptable. If people will resort to sensationalism just to garner agreement, then they can piss the fuck off. I have enough of that from Modern day Journalism.

Peace.

[Lama88]

Hello everyone, I just arrived on the site not too long ago and I just saw this topic :)

An answer already mentioned above in the conversation, but Mr Macron (politician) who changes his mind when it suits him, shouldn't really surprise us. This has been the tradition of our politicians for decades.

Being French myself, I can tell you that satire is one of the oldest voices of protest. Beginning to spread from the 17th century and denouncing the failings of our society, with more or less humor.

Besides, we love black humor in France, but it is completely different from that of English-speaking countries which relies more on situational comedy. And it is intimately linked to satire. We use it to denounce what displeases us personally / ideologically, makes us suffer. while applying a detached attitude or wearing a smile.

In fact it seems that we love tragedies, maybe that's why we don't solve them anymore 

To go back to the questionable jokes theme. It would sometimes be interesting to take a step back and ask yourself if the person who does it regularly, on the same theme, has not been shocked in his life by this theme?

Whether or not we appreciate the work of cartoonists is not important, what shocks me is the failure of our system of social integration. Immigration itself is not really a problem.

But it becomes so when the newcomers do not integrate, or do not recognize in the republican model which is the foundation of our culture. We end up with people who exclude themselves from society, form a parallel society , wish to impose their culture and are surprised by the rise of nationalism in response.

It has now been thirty years that our politicians have been playing appeasement, buying social peace, squandering public funds, and we now hear constantly on the left of the political spectrum, that it is not enough, that these poor people are not not enough good received. While the workers or peasants are abandoned to their fate and have not received a tenth of his aid.

We then see young bourgeois who find vocations to defend the so-called oppressed, because socially it's cool and they are necessarily morally superior to others. It would therefore be a shame not to share their great ideological generosity, and to call all those who have a diverging opinion, a Nazi. It must necessarily make you want to join them. On the other hand, they will not live with the oppressed, a demonstration together at the limit, but no more. 

I can't wait for the legislative elections to end here, so that the hypocrisy stops. The most notable example of late was the failed football match, where foreign fans were assaulted en masse by thugs.

But hey, everything is fine, the Minister of the Interior said that it was the fault of the English supporters 

I hope I didn't take too long, one thing is certain, I drifted off topic. have a good day.

[Formless]

I was made aware that I referred to Thufir as Belgian when it was mentioned that he is Bulgarian.

I wanted to bring attention to the fact that I erred in that regard and should be more careful next time.

[RedRose]

The French are really not of one mind. Many like anti religion satire. Some especially against Catholic, some especially against Muslims. I find it all of horrible taste. France has a problem with religion. Imagine saying a Burkini is dirty as an excuse.