Charlie Hebdo

[HwoodMike2umate]

Here is there website - http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html and
Here is there Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charlie- ... 6879360459

[big mervyn]

Anybody know how you can go about buying next week's edition?

[Ampersand]

Anybody know how you can go about buying next week's edition?

Looks difficult, but others asking ON HERE.

Nothing there yet, but perhaps check back in a few days and there may be helpful advice added by then?

JE SUIS CHARLIE

[big mervyn]

Anybody know how you can go about buying next week's edition?

Looks difficult, but others asking ON HERE.

Nothing there yet, but perhaps check back in a few days and there may be helpful advice added by then?

JE SUIS CHARLIE

Yeah. Maybe they'll make an electronic copy available for purchase.

[fermain]

interesting article here

[Ampersand]

interesting article here

Not only interesting, but a lot of truth in what it says.

I have long been of the opinion that publications such as this are in the business of offence/satire/call-it-what-you-will simply for commercial gain and/or to shock. I have never found it particularly clever or funny, but then again I have never followed it closely for that very reason - it may have its better moments, but they would most likely be lost in translation to me. To be clear, I never was a fan of publishing cartoons of "The Prophet" in the name of "free speech". Sometimes free speech can can only be exercised by offending others, but I saw no need for that when Charlie and other similar publications did it in the past.

All that said, today I am happy to say, "Je suis Charlie" simply because there is no greater crime than taking the life of another human being simply because they have offended you, or even your religion.

I won't be buying the paper next week, but I can understand why others will or want to. My sympathies do go out to those affected by these killings, I utterly condemn this senseless violence and for that reason, Je suis Charlie.

[Snipe Watson]

I think the desire to have a discussion about the quality of journalism will not be helped by the circumstances. The massacre is a great tragedy and many will read that article without taking any cognisance of the fact that the writer is not in any way trying to justify or down play the horror of the past few days. The other side of that coin is that if this discussion was raised on a normal week, it would be largely drowned out by a chorus of "sure there's no harm in it" or "Muslim's should be ridiculed". Effectively the only time to raise an issue like this is the time when it seems least appropriate.
Interesting indeed.

[BaggyTrousers]

As someone with zero qualms about offending any people for any reason whatsoever, frankly I'd like to shoot Arthur Chu in his fat little face.

Why? Because I take leave to consider him someone I need no lectures from to decide whether I think Charlie Hebdo.

I wonder how many who read his piece have the slightest idea about his background or indeed The Daily Beast? Writers on the Daily Beast have things in common, most believe they know everything worth knowning, many think they are the most humorous political writers around, some are actually talented but their organ is just a slightly cleverer , slightly more accurate organ than the National Enquirer.

Furthermore, I disagree with his take on France's banning of religious symbols, it's not anti-Muslim exclusively, its a reasonable law in a ley society, no church ties with the state, no preferential treatment for religion, in short, my kind of law.

You will of course make up your own minds as two of my favourite mentalists have done, as is their right. I only suggest you inform yourself before agreeing that I am right.

Je Suis Charie, foutre Arthur Chu.

[Dave]

interesting article here

Not only interesting, but a lot of truth in what it says.

I have long been of the opinion that publications such as this are in the business of offence/satire/call-it-what-you-will simply for commercial gain and/or to shock. I have never found it particularly clever or funny, but then again I have never followed it closely for that very reason - it may have its better moments, but they would most likely be lost in translation to me. To be clear, I never was a fan of publishing cartoons of "The Prophet" in the name of "free speech". Sometimes free speech can can only be exercised by offending others, but I saw no need for that when Charlie and other similar publications did it in the past.

All that said, today I am happy to say, "Je suis Charlie" simply because there is no greater crime than taking the life of another human being simply because they have offended you, or even your religion.

I won't be buying the paper next week, but I can understand why others will or want to. My sympathies do go out to those affected by these killings, I utterly condemn this senseless violence and for that reason, Je suis Charlie.

I don't think there is much truth in that article. It's basically an opinion piece on Charlie Hebdo and largely irrelevant. I think the author completely misses the point of Je suis Charlie', it wasn't coined out of validation but out of a shared sense of solidarity and grief. The response of the mainstream rolling news I find to be more grotesque than any cartoon I've seen over the past few days.

[Snipe Watson]

As someone with zero qualms about offending any people for any reason whatsoever, frankly I'd like to shoot Arthur Chu in his fat little face.

Why? Because I take leave to consider him someone I need no lectures from to decide whether I think Charlie Hebdo.

I wonder how many who read his piece have the slightest idea about his background or indeed The Daily Beast? Writers on the Daily Beast have things in common, most believe they know everything worth knowning, many think they are the most humorous political writers around, some are actually talented but their organ is just a slightly cleverer , slightly more accurate organ than the National Enquirer.

Furthermore, I disagree with his take on France's banning of religious symbols, it's not anti-Muslim exclusively, its a reasonable law in a ley society, no church ties with the state, no preferential treatment for religion, in short, my kind of law.

You will of course make up your own minds as two of my favourite mentalists have done, as is their right. I only suggest you inform yourself before agreeing that I am right.

Je Suis Charie, foutre Arthur Chu.

I haven't made up my mind or drawn any conclusion except that Arthur Chu's article is interesting. Whether Charlie Hebdo is a repulsive rag or a bastion of truth and free speech is of no interest to me. However I do like the principle that he puts forth in saying that "When the only thing you’re reverent of is irreverence, you eventually get chan culture" is spot on, in my opinion.

[BaggyTrousers]

As you know Snipe, I do not not ever respond to responses, however on this one occasion I will break my rule because I am perplexed by you and your mate latching onto this particular piece of nonsense below.

However I do like the principle that he puts forth in saying that "When the only thing you’re reverent of is irreverence, you eventually get chan culture" is spot on, in my opinion.

You may say that his is a general comment, however if that is so, why make this point in his Hebdo article, so he must surely be making the point against Hebdo. If that is so, I fail to understand it, your help will be appreciated.

For an old man perhaps you will explain what you believe Chubby Chu means by that? If my understanding of "Chan Culture" mirrors yours then I see absolutely no relevance of his contention in relation to the admittedly little I know about Charlie Hebdo, never mind "spot on".

Charlie Hebdo,is a small circulation magazine and as by now the entire planet must know is most famed for it's Mohammed cartoons, though it is also widely known that there is nothing that is above or beyond their comment, they are known to satirise anything they feel needs a little public attention. Beyond that, my own knowledge of it is minute.

Satire: the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. I believe it to be a legitimate way to highlight issues, much in the way Private Eye does or in the past certainly did. A French word of course, and the French people appear to hold more genuine reverence of Freedom of Speech than the comparative lip service paid to the principal in this country.

I also abhor the cowardice of the UK press and most other countries equivalents, who were adamant that freedom of speech must be upheld, but as they have always done, refused to publish Mohammed cartoons for what they have confessed to be reasons of self preservation rather than taste. Like the cartoons or loathe them, they should have been on the front of every paper in the civilised world as a response to the massacre.

Now, whilst that is all I have to contribute to this thread, I do look forward to your explanation, should you feel like giving one.

[damianmcr]

4chan?

[rocky]

I share Baggy's disapproval of this article. How dare this man use this week's events to write an entirely subjective attack on Charlie Hebdo, presumably in pursuit largely of self-aggrandisement. In so doing, he largely misses the point. Charlie's publication and it's cartoons are often offensive, to say the least (I wasn't too taken with the Boko Haram captives one, I have to say) and I suspect there are lots of others I would consider in bad taste. But the point is exactly that - to shock, to shake out of a non-thinking complacency, to point the finger at all things establishment. by doing what it does, it may be the most important non-news publication there is.
Because, in today's world, there is no such thing as free speech. In many ways, we are constrained in what we say. In passing laws (rightly) against the worst forms of racism and sexism, our government and others have gone much too far the other way and it is difficult to parody and lampoon many things, when what is needed is often to give things a good shake and get rid of all the complacency and smugness. Not many people actually bother to think and use their brains these days, especially when the TV is in a permanent state of reality show or talent contest.
Charlie Hebdo is the last bastion of irreverence and of the necessary insult. It is designed to force people to use their brains, to think, to challenge the accepted mores of society, of culture and of religion - and not just Islam. It has fairly viciously attacked the Pope, an admirable man - but I don't think there are many catholics running around with AK47s or suicide vests.
And there is an issue for the wider Islamic community. Not for a minute do I think that they approve of, or agree with or condone in any sense what happened (although I have been appalled by the reaction of some so-called leaders and spokesmen, including in Belfast and Dublin).
The problem is that their blasphemy laws and thus their stance on any perceived slight on their prophet are utterly medieval and it is this that gives the raison d'être to their fanatics. It is not good enough for them to sit back and verbally condemn what happened, helpful though that is. They must, at least in Europe, agree that their laws need to be brought into the 21st century and made fit for a multicultural world. Otherwise, there is no chance that this will be the last atrocity we see on our streets (and I might as well be talking about the murderers of Lee Rigby). This is not my idea - it came from two eminent British Muslims over the weekend.
As for the response of the free press - utter and abject cowardice seems to sum to up. David Davies, a man I don't have a lot of time for - well, he is a Tory politician - got it exactly right on Question Time last Thursday. Every publication in Europe should have carried the cartoons on the same day. As it was, just one German paper had the guts to do it and, almost inevitably, their premises were firebombed the next night. Not a surprise.
Unequivocally, je suis Charlie!

[mikerob]

I was at an event at the Grauniad offices last Thursday (not connected with Charlie Hebdo but it got discussed) and the editor said they had a long and hard discussion about whether to print the cartoons and decided not to.... but wouldn't give the reasoning.

My guess there are commercial reasons behind this as well (ooohh.... better not upset the advertisers...)

It would be interesting to see the reaction of the UK media if a publication satirised a British "sacred cow". I don't think there are many of these left now (certainly not the royal family) but Remembrance Day, poppies etc. is probably one.

I expect there'd be calls to ban this sick filth etc. etc. forgetting that freedom of speech means the freedom to offend as well.

[Snipe Watson]

As you know Snipe, I do not not ever respond to responses, however on this one occasion I will break my rule because I am perplexed by you and your mate latching onto this particular piece of nonsense below.

However I do like the principle that he puts forth in saying that "When the only thing you’re reverent of is irreverence, you eventually get chan culture" is spot on, in my opinion.

You may say that his is a general comment, however if that is so, why make this point in his Hebdo article, so he must surely be making the point against Hebdo. If that is so, I fail to understand it, your help will be appreciated.

For an old man perhaps you will explain what you believe Chubby Chu means by that? If my understanding of "Chan Culture" mirrors yours then I see absolutely no relevance of his contention in relation to the admittedly little I know about Charlie Hebdo, never mind "spot on".

Charlie Hebdo,is a small circulation magazine and as by now the entire planet must know is most famed for it's Mohammed cartoons, though it is also widely known that there is nothing that is above or beyond their comment, they are known to satirise anything they feel needs a little public attention. Beyond that, my own knowledge of it is minute.

Satire: the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. I believe it to be a legitimate way to highlight issues, much in the way Private Eye does or in the past certainly did. A French word of course, and the French people appear to hold more genuine reverence of Freedom of Speech than the comparative lip service paid to the principal in this country.

I also abhor the cowardice of the UK press and most other countries equivalents, who were adamant that freedom of speech must be upheld, but as they have always done, refused to publish Mohammed cartoons for what they have confessed to be reasons of self preservation rather than taste. Like the cartoons or loathe them, they should have been on the front of every paper in the civilised world as a response to the massacre.

Now, whilst that is all I have to contribute to this thread, I do look forward to your explanation, should you feel like giving one.

I haven't said anything to suggest that I have latched onto this article or its author. I know nothing about him or his website. All I have said is that the article is interesting as did Fermain.
My understanding of Chan Culture is a situation where anyone is free to say what they like about anyone else whether it be true or not. It will be no surprise to anyone on this board that I think people should be accountable for what they say and those who falsely accuse anyone else should be held to account. Two current idiots of the week are that bucket mouth Katie Hopkins and that moron from Fox news who spewed all that garbage about Birmingham and parts of London. Millions of Americans will now believe the Fox news idiot and Hopkins diatribe that she aimed at a Nurse seriously ill with ebola was sickening. So yes, I believe freedom of speech and expression are non negotiable rights in a civilised society, but rights also bring responsibility. Anything that is deliberately defamatory, anything that is aimed simply to shock and titillate readers by riding roughshod over the rights and feelings of others is crass, cheap and has no place in a civilised society.

I am more than slightly surprised that you cannot see that my point had nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo, the website or the author or indeed the events which took place, but was an observation on society in general.

NB. I am at a loss to understand how publishing cartoons about Mohamed will achieve anything other than insult the millions of Muslins around the world and further the cause of the Islamist fundamentalist terrorist minority who hide behind religion and try to convince other gullible young Muslims that the entire western world is against them. I think people have the right to be sincerely wrong without being held up to ridicule. Condemn those who should be condemned, but not those who should not.
Obviously I am working on that assumption that you consider anyone who believes in God to be deluded and therefore worthy of ridicule.