imatfaal Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Gunmen have shot dead 12 people at the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in an apparent militant Islamist attack. Four of the magazine's well-known cartoonists, including its editor-in-chief, were among those killed, as well as two police officers. A major police operation is under way to find three gunmen who fled by car. President Francois Hollande said there was no doubt it had been a terrorist attack "of exceptional barbarity". The masked attackers opened fire with assault rifles in the office and exchanged shots with police in the street outside before escaping by car. They later abandoned the car in Rue de Meaux, northern Paris. From the BBC Condemnation is automatic, necessary, and yet essentially futile. We must stand together; it is only if we hope and work in the belief that a determination to preserve freedom of speech, human rights, and the tolerance through the ideals, existence and maintenance of the democratic pluralistic state will eventually win through. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Would a mass posting of (ostensibly inoffensive, but who knows what offends people) cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, be an appropriate response or merely inflammatory? Respect to those who died exercising their right to free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Would a mass posting of (ostensibly inoffensive, but who knows what offends people) cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, be an appropriate response or merely inflammatory? Respect to those who died exercising their right to free speech. I think it would be inflammatory. The criminals must be catched and condemned by justice. Some others would begin a war. My position is that war is much much worse than anything. No more wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I think it would be inflammatory, and that would largely be a good thing. Time to flood the internet with active protest against those who seek to silence others and make speech less free. Cowering and hiding and "giving in" only exacerbates the issues at play here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Would a mass posting of (ostensibly inoffensive, but who knows what offends people) cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, be an appropriate response or merely inflammatory? Respect to those who died exercising their right to free speech. I think cartoons that depicts solidarity and/or the fact that freedom will not bow before radicalism would work. Aiming specifically at Mohammed alone (instead of the larger issue of violence) could make moderate Muslims feel that they are being left out or grouped with the crazies. But they should realize and feel that they are part of the same society and that their freedom is under threat as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 A nice short article summarizing what happened and showcasing several of the covers that represented what this journal is all about: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Several newspapers are printing a best of from these cartoonists, which is a great response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Like it. Proponents of freedom of expression must show that the pen is mightier than the sword ...or the Kalashnikov. Edited January 8, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Recent terrorist attack in Paris (12 killed and 4 seriously injured) on the magazine Charlie Hebdo, and I have not heard anything about getting their message out to the world to counter the intentions of the terrorists. So what I propose is some big publishing company, covertly behind the scenes, coming to the aid of Charlie Hebdo and translate their magazine into English and Spanish, the most widely spoken languanges on Earth, and send it all over the world to supporters of free speech. It could prove to be a big money-maker. Translate it into as many languages as possible to show these terrorists what their actions will inspire. I would subscribe to a year of Charlie Hebro if it was available in English. That is how you counter delusional actors. If N.Korea attacks Sony over a silly comedy, then "The Interview" becomes popular, most downloaded. Same should happen to Charlie Hebdo. And I don't even know how good a magazine it is. "The Interview" was stupid and offensive, but I defended their right to be so, and so I enjoyed watching it! Edited January 8, 2015 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 https://twitter.com/LucilleClerc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) In the future, publishers of such provocative magazines should maintain anonymity of LOCATION, so the bad guys don't know where the magazine-makers are located. And the magazine is available on thousands of public newstands as well as online. Edited January 8, 2015 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 * IMO, that's a bit like saying women should not wear tight jeans if they don't want to be raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 * IMO, that's a bit like saying women should not wear tight jeans if they don't want to be raped. For what reason would the cartoonists and writers of a satirical magazine, that had been fire-bombed and received death threats, NEED for the public to know where they are located? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 A better question is, "For what reason would cartoonists and writers need to HIDE from the public where they are located?" Hint: They are none and they shouldn't have to. . Also, where do we stop? Should we hide the location of the NYTimes... just in case they happen to publish something some asshat extremist doesn't like? What about CNN? Maybe it's a bad idea for us to know their world HQ is in Atlanta? Or how about BBC? Maybe all of them should remain hidden and never divulge their location? Seriously... where does it stop? On another note... Pure, unadulterated, beautiful brilliance (I think my favorite is #7): http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2015/01/07/world-cartoonists-je-suis-charlie-photos.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 A better question is, "For what reason would cartoonists and writers need to HIDE from the public where they are located?" Hint: They are none and they shouldn't have to. . Also, where do we stop? Should we hide the location of the NYTimes... just in case they happen to publish something some asshat extremist doesn't like? What about CNN? Maybe it's a bad idea for us to know their world HQ is in Atlanta? Or how about BBC? Maybe all of them should remain hidden and never divulge their location? Seriously... where does it stop? On another note... Pure, unadulterated, beautiful brilliance (I think my favorite is #7): http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2015/01/07/world-cartoonists-je-suis-charlie-photos.html Well, there shouldn't be, but there certainly are. Obviously, or we wouldn't be talking about this right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I thought about changing my facebook picture to "I'm Charlie", but that didn't seem to cut it. I wished I could compose some elegant cartoon, but that's not my forte. Then I thought- the reason they did that was to curtail free speech and thereby reduce the number of people who will see the paper's critique of their world, so I took out a subscription. Here's the website http://www.viapresse.com/abonnement-magazine-charlie-hebdo.html It's a bit tricky to work through if, like me, you are bad at French. I intend to take my copy and ask some of my French speaking friends to translate the cartoons for me so I can annotate them and leave them on the table at work. That should ensure that a few hundred more people see them than would have done so before some ****s shot some people. I realise I'm lucky to be in the position that writing off the £90 or so that the subscription cost isn't a problem for me. Not everyone can do that but, perhaps some who can't sensibly afford a subscription can spread the word. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Well, there shouldn't be, but there certainly are.I disagree. The proper response to those seeking to silence free speech is not to hide, but to speak with greater vigor and passion and purpose. It may be dangerous, but so too is driving a car. We need far more courage here on these issues than we need cowardice and compliance with the extreme demands of an ignorant and radical few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I agree. One has to remember that these are the actions of few. And while these things (just like mass shootings) cannot be prevented with absolute certainty, society should not change because of that. Threats like these are ideally opposed by further ensuring freedom of speech and not curtailing (voluntarily or other wise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) I support entirely the Cause of Bringing Peace to all the troubled and troubling Souls in our Humanity. So Sad we feel for those who were killed and the Freedom of Speech which is being Gagged, Targeted and Murdered. Our Heartfelt Condolences for the Bereaved Families and Prayers for the Souls of the Victims. How can a Human Being [with minimal Civility] ever Kill or Maim a fellow human Being whatever be the Cause, however be the Situation and Feeling and what is the Result ? The Killers degrade themselves and become Non-Humans and their Souls get condemned to Hell as per every Faith. The Victims and Families suffer million deaths and agony. The perpetrators get hunted out and killed like rats [mostly]. IS IT WORTH ? And then we go back to History and start analyzing where it all started and the Pros and Cons without an iota of a Clue as to how to put a Stop to it ! Gandhiji once said " There are many Causes for which I can Die but none for which I will Kill " !! Perhaps this needs serious Acceptance and Implementation by All of us Individuals, All Governments whether Friendly or Enemies and Every Angry Soul Living. We are at such a Pass because our Past Existence has not brought about a State of Stability to our Humanity which shows that our Rulers and Governments have failed and We have Failed to produce TRUE LEADERS capable of GLOBAL LEADERSHIP !!! .... with Followers having enormous weaknesses themselves as well ...... Edited January 9, 2015 by Commander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 It isn't freedom of speech if you need to hide because of your opinions. QFT Gandhiji once said " There are many Causes for which I can Die but none for which I will Kill " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 It isn't freedom of speech if you need to hide because of your opinions. QFT Yes, I agree ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) A better question is, "For what reason would cartoonists and writers need to HIDE from the public where they are located?" Hint: They are none and they shouldn't have to. That is absurdly rhetorical and very easy for you to ask. If YOUR life is threatened, you take steps to be safe, or you are an idiot ready to die for your cause. Right? The people of Charlie Hebdo, who were killed, were living recklessly, and even joked about it. They could still be alive and doing their magazine in safety if they simply moved their operations. Magazine producers have no need for public access. I am not a cartoonist making fun of Islam, and I value my anonymity anyway, and I am sure you do too. We all know why cartoonists and writers SHOULD hide from threats to their lives. The answer is to survive. Duhhhh. Cartoonists and writers who insult such a sensitive group as radical Islamist, SHOULD not have to. But the world is the way it is, sorry about that. You must roll with the punches. Don't be delusional about your safety, do whatever you must to be safe. Edited January 9, 2015 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 Followed John's advice - gonna have to work on my French 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 That is absurdly rhetorical and very easy for you to ask. If YOUR life is threatened, you take steps to be safe, or you are an idiot ready to die for your cause. Right? The people of Charlie Hebdo, who were killed, were living recklessly, and even joked about it. They could still be alive and doing their magazine in safety if they simply moved their operations. Magazine producers have no need for public access. I am not a cartoonist making fun of Islam, and I value my anonymity anyway, and I am sure you do too. We all know why cartoonists and writers SHOULD hide from threats to their lives. The answer is to survive. Duhhhh. Cartoonists and writers who insult such a sensitive group as radical Islamist, SHOULD not have to. But the world is the way it is, sorry about that. You must roll with the punches. Don't be delusional about your safety, do whatever you must to be safe. I feel sad to read this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now