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

[Antonio the Sixth]

Charlie Hebdo are massive FFs, as always.

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

Those people using their freedom of the press should know that what they publish has consequences. If those consequences led to the deaths of innocent people, then they have some responsibility on the moral level at least.

If we start bending to this kind of logic, then free press becomes an empty phrase. Blasphemy is a right, a right which ought to be proclaimed, but also enforced in reality. If admit that you can't publish certain things because you know that some nutjob somewhere in the world might be offended by them, then  you're basically surrendering this right. And this is unacceptable.

And as a side note, I am truly disturbed by Hollande and the government's lack of support (actually, an almost veiled condemnation) of the magazine. I guess their attitude is based on diplomatic concerns, but it's still sad. Freedom of the press isn't negotiable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Having a right to do something is not the same thing as saying that it is always right to do something.

The reason why it is right to publish blasphemous caricatures right now, is because it reaffirms a principle which, otherwise, would be severely eroded. Blasphemy is always to be accepted, regardless of how some people in the world could possibly react to it.

The fact that it comes from a markedly progressive magazine which uses to denounce anti-muslim bigotry in Europe as forcefully as it denounces Islamic fundamentalism, makes it even more of a principled standing.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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...

[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...

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

Wow, that's flattering. Thank you.

I guess that I invest more time and energy in my arguments when this topic comes up because I find it particularly frustrating to see so many left-wingers take a stance so diametrically opposed to all left-wing values.