Did Charlie Hedbo provoke the response they got?

[philosslayer]

Last edited Wed Jan 7, 2015, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

And before you express outrage at me for even suggesting it, Time magazine certainly suggested that when their offices were firebombed in 2011.

http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/

In addition, the White House publicly questioned Charlie Hedbo's judgement in 2012.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/01/07/white-house-questioned-french-magazines-judgment-in-2012-for-publishing-naked-muhammad-cartoon/

Of course none of this excuses what happened today. But it was foreseen. And regardless, its certainly a topic for discussion, and it will be interesting to see how Time magazine responds.

[tradewinds]

1. ..

[leftynyc]

2. No - they did not

Violence prone jihadists (or anyone else violence prone) don't need provocation. They're life's losers who will look to any excuse to behave like animals.

[MohRokTah]

3. Did the rape victim provoke her rape?

Same question, different circumstances.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

39. This^^^^^

[hrmjustin]

4. No.

[el_bryanto]

5. It's not an appropriate question at this time

They have been the victims of a crime, a crime that they should not have experienced. At another time we might want to have a discussion about the differences between good satire and bad satire, but there's no satire that deserves the death sentence.

Bryant

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. no satire deserves a death sentence...

perfectly stated! (and really all that need be said on the matter)

sP

[CJCRANE]

6. No, of course not.

But when you bait an organization that received a billion dollars of aid and weapons (directly and indirectly from the west, not to mention oil sales) and recruited hundreds of French people and Europeans known for their fanaticism, then you better have good security.

[NewDeal_Dem]

28. I more or less agree with you & think the outrage & moralizing is intensely hypocritical

with the blood of millions to answer for, but it's not a popular position, especially among political functionaries.

[CJCRANE]

33. I don't exactly mean it in that sense.

I just mean in a practical sense. We need to take the "funds" out of fundamentalism. We can rail against them as much as we want, but if we directly or indirectly support that ideology abroad (as we did in Libya and now Syria) then we are contributing to our own problems.

Although I sympathize with the moral argument it's not one I get into because it degenerates into "You started it!" - "No, you did!" ad infinitum.

[NewDeal_Dem]

37. Isn't railing against what you're funding hypocritical? But I take your point.

[CJCRANE]

40. Actually, you're right. It's the same point, just a different emphasis.

The problem is that the MSM never really gets to the bottom of this type of event before it moves on to something else, we just get a sensational response without looking at the wider context.

But that's what DU's for, we get a few different perspectives.

[GGJohn]

7. No. eom.

[Takket]

8. No

They exercised their legal right of freedom of speech (no I don't know the exact laws in France but I assume they are similar to our first amendment). Islamic terrorists do not have any legal standing to execute whom they choose when they choose. it is not the responsibility of those doing nothing illegal to alter their lifestyles to prevent others from not doing something illegal.

[drray23]

31. free speech laws

I was born in France and grew up there before moving to the US and becoming a US citizen. Yes, France has free speech just like here with one exception: Hate speech is subject to prosecution. Also, lying to smear somebody falls under libel laws (like in England) and the other party can sue you for it in civil court to get monetary compensation and retraction.

The ban on nazi propaganda stems from WWII and the effect it had in Europe. In France, like Germany, you can not promote anything related to Hitler or the like. Pretty much everything else you can do and write about.

[tkmorris]

9. No they didn't

Furthermore, stating that it's OK for you to ask this question because Time did too is no defense. Time has been guilty of some truly awful journalism and this is a pretty fair example of it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. Sure, just like the Murrah building and its inhabitants did. nt

[Marrah_G]

12. No, they did not

No more then a woman provokes a stoning by breaking some absurd archaic law made up by some very insecure men.

[icymist]

13. What a stupid question.

Sure, the magazine expressing satire brought this on to itself. The guy with no tolerance holding the gun was forced to shoot people. In other news with that idiotic logic of how we all need to 'get along' with these extremists; there will be no satire what-so-ever. All GBLT should disappear. There shall be no feminists what-so-ever because women are property and property has no civil rights or standing. There shall be no unapproved artwork. There shall be no music. There shall be no other religions. There shall be no freedom of thought. There shall be no liberty. Everything that make you human shall be outlawed.

[pennylane100]

24. Yes, it is a stupid question

but it was a rhetorical one that does not require an answer. However it gets us to a larger discussion about the role of religious fanaticism in today's world.

It is hard to deny that Islam provides us with much more examples of this extreme religious/ethnic/misogynist intolerance but it is also used here by various groups. There was a bomb found near the NAACP a few days ago. There have been incidents of violence at women's' health clinics periodically over the years. The use of force to impose one's views or to punish those who speak out against these views is a threat to all of us.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no easy answer on how to combat this type of violence. However we must continue to speak out against it even when we are the offenders. The cable news will spend all day recycling this attack but when our drones kill an innocent wedding party or a family compound, killing dozens of people, we manage to keep our knowledge of the facts to a bare minimum. Did these innocent victims of collateral deserve to pay the price of Bin Laden being found living in their country, That is also a stupid question that is never asked over here.

[daredtowork]

14. There should be no such thing as "Religious Offense" period

I have to say our own Religious Right walked into it when we started wringing our hands at artists desecrating figures of Christ. The bottom line is that if another person is not of our religion, their statement about our god doesn't matter in terms of religion. At that point it's art or philosophy, not religion. No belief is involved.

If the person is of our religion and has made some major heretical statement that would normally he considered an offense to god and or His/Her believers, then it is time for some doctrinal debate. If that person is at risk of stoning or beheading, that person should try to leave the religion, or at least go to a country where such extreme punishments are not allowed.

No, killing other people for "provoking" you over religion is not okay. It's barbaric.

[chrisa]

15. What a fool. Probably the same type who says "We need to give a little freedom in this post-9/11

world." People like this don't get that it isn't free speech if your speech is dictated by extremists. "Shouting fire in a theater" isn't the same thing - criticizing or laughing at a religion doesn't hurt anyone. It's embarrassing to see crap like this from Time.

I guess we shouldn't provoke the extremists. Wouldn't want to hurt their feelings or anything...

[HappyMe]

16. Absolutely not.

Nobody deserves to die for working on a satirical magazine.

[The2ndWheel]

17. They had to know it was a possibility

They went and did what they do anyway. That's what people do. Then you see where the cookie crumbles as time goes by.

It's all about life adapting to its environment. With any sort of adaptation, you're going to get conflict/violence. That's how an equilibrium gets figured out. Who will come out ahead, the satirist, or the fundamentalist? Only time will tell. Doesn't seem like either one is going away any time soon, so, it'll be an ongoing struggle.

[Throd]

18. No.

[lame54]

19. Their next issue needs to be about what an asshole Bruce Crumley is

[Sopkoviak]

20. Did the 1972 Israeli Olympic team provoke the response they got?

There seems to be a bit of a history with these 7th century godless fucking animals.

And it certainly pre-dates 2001.

[Brickbat]

21. Time suggested it, you say? Oh, WELL THEN.

Seriously, what the fuck is this shit right here?

[philosslayer]

23. The White House also publicly questioned the magazine's judgement

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/01/07/white-house-questioned-french-magazines-judgment-in-2012-for-publishing-naked-muhammad-cartoon/

Again, none of this excuses anything. But to express shock at the result is a bit naive.

[geek tragedy]

22. What happened to the Ohio zombie nativity people?

Oh yeah, nothing.

No, offending the fee-fees of primitive fundyclowns is not a provocation of violence.

[Zorra]

25. This response will erroneously be seen by many as a validation of Islamophobia in the west.

In this respect, it will have a negative effect on the lives of the majority of Muslims living in the west, especially in Europe. A significant percentage of the European population already distrusts Muslims, and has contempt for Muslims and Islam.

This may also be used as another justification/excuse for western imperialism (war and exploitation) in primarily Islamic countries.

[philosslayer]

26. You are exactly right

That is my fear also.

[NewDeal_Dem]

34. of course it will. and i also wonder about where hollande's recent expression of rapprochment

with Russia fits into this picture.

[backscatter712]

48. John Lennon was also murdered by a religious zealot.

Mark David Chapman thought John Lennon's music was offensive to Jesus.

When I see religious fucknuttery, unless explicitly stated, I have a hard time determining on which religion's behalf a particular bit of fucknuttery is committed.

[Recursion]

27. There were terrorist attacks and riots based on a film that was never actually made

Remember that whole "Innocence of Muslims" thing? There was never any such movie; one dickhead decided to take the dailies from another movie's cutting room floor and voiceover a narration. Hundreds of people ended up dying.

Never put the onus for crazy behavior onto non-crazy.

[Quantess]

29. This question should be presented to the muslim community in general.

What percentage would say yes, Hedbo asked for it and deserved what they got.?

[on point]

30. NO!! Free press means just that. If someone has a problem, write a response, not attack them

In fact, I wish every free paper in the world would now publish on their front page whatever Hebo published just to show solidarity. Post it everywhere on line as well.

[mmonk]

32. We should never put the blame on the sane

for murders committed by the touchy insane. In other words, anyone who would take lives over an insult, no matter how offensive to their belief system is not rational enough to know it won't harm their belief nor take down their religion.

[REP]

35. Remember how many died when the National Lampoon published this?

[elleng]

36. Sounds likely.

Charlie Hebdo Editor Made Provocation His Mission.
Stéphane Charbonnier, Known as Charb, Relished Defying Mores.

In 2012, Mr. Charbonnier defied the advice of the French government and published crude caricatures of Muhammad, shown naked and in sexual poses. Depictions of the prophet, even if reverent, are forbidden by Islamic law. One of the people killed Wednesday was a police officer assigned to guard the paper’s offices after those episodes.

“Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?” asked Laurent Fabius, the foreign minister at the time, when he closed French embassies, consulates, cultural centers and schools in about 20 countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-editor-made-provocation-his-mission.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

No outrage at all for you suggesting it, philosslayer. People have to behave rationally.

[Dawson Leery]

38. No.

There must be no tolerance for Islamic Jihad's double standard. For them only Islam is acceptable and all other faiths/beliefs are not.

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. Fuck anyone would would suggest shit like that... Time and the White House included.

I may not like what I read about faith or people of faith here and elsewhere but I sure as fuck would never want to live in a world where things were pre-censored.

[randome]

46. You DO live in that world. If by 'world' you mean both Eastern and Western hemispheres.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kurska]

42. Do women provoke their rapists by wearing sexy clothing?

They died for standing up for freedom of speech against religious thugs.

[Alittleliberal]

43. This right here

is the reason satire is necessary.

[MineralMan]

44. Victim Blaming Is Just Plain Wrong.

If you'll blame one victim, you'll blame them all.

[AzDar]

45. I find this question offensive! What is your exact address?

[backscatter712]

47. Responsible for getting murdered for drawing pictures?

That's the stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard in my life.

That is like saying rape victims "provoked it" by their choice of clothing. Idiotic.