There are a lot of creatively drawn cartoons in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack. But while it is easy to criticize censorship, wouldn’t a stronger message be to draw what the terrorists found so objectionable that they were willing to kill for it? Or to put it differently, shouldn’t there be one Mohammed at the top of that image next to the pencil, and two images of Mohammed at the bottom?
Diana 1/11/2024 8:51 am
No, that would make it seem as if this issue is about baiting Muslims and Islam in particular.
There’s is now talk in the right wing blogosphere about how CH was phony because it “baited” Islam and Christianity and not Jews and Judaism. That’s totally false. They gave a job to an avowed anti-Semite (Maurice Sine) for years, and fired him when he submitted something patently mistaken.
The cartoon says it all, without singling out one particular thing. It’s perfect the way it is. Don’t mix up your personal agenda with the principle.
Daniel 1/11/2024 1:18 pm
I did not know I had a personal agenda. But I think it’s easy to adhere to a principle to avoid the possible fallout from actually using ones freedom of speech.
To put it differently, I have a huge respect for news organizations that did reprint the cartoons. They do not necessarily agree with them but they a) show what the issue was about and b) take a stand for freedom of the press. Others that merely say they are for freedom of speech, but do not test it … well, I wonder what that’s worth.
Cath 1/11/2024 3:54 pm
Neither Jews nor Christians committed these acts of terrorism over some stupid cartoons, Diana.
What’s wrong with “singling out one particular thing” when it’s only one particular thing that’s the problem here?
Cath 1/11/2024 4:00 pm
To be clear, I don’t blame RB for not wanting to antagonize any Muslims.
He’s got a family to protect, and his coworkers at Worth Magazine, and since we know and seem to accept that the price for antagonizing Muslims is death, I completely understand why he and so many others are sticking to “safe” cartoons.
Anonymous 1/12/2023 12:21 am
Mr. Bradley:
What is your position on punishing (legally or extralegally) so-called “holocaust denial”?
Anonymous 1/12/2023 12:25 am
Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.
In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.
In short, Charlie Hebdo was an extreme example of what is wrong with the “politically correct” line of the current French left.
-Diane Johnstone, “What to Say When You Have Nothing to Say?” Counterpunch (1/7/15)
Anonymous 1/12/2023 12:27 am
Cath wrote:
since we know and seem to accept that the price for antagonizing Muslims is death, I completely understand why he and so many others are sticking to “safe” cartoons.
All we know, actually, is that the price for bombing and killing Muslims, invading their countries, pushing them off their ancestral lands, is death. It’s simple reciprocity.
Cath 1/12/2023 7:57 am
Hi, Anonymous. Neither the cartoonists of Charlie Hedbo, nor the Jewish shoppers, were responsible for “bombing and killing Muslims”, etc etc etc.
The cartoonists were slaughtered because they mocked Mohammad and Islam; and the Jewish shoppers were slaughtered because they were Jewish, and shopping in a Kosher grocery store.
I hope that clears things up for you a little. You’re welcome!
InterestedObserver 1/12/2023 9:52 am
The problem is that hypocrisy and political correctness across the whole political spectrum encourages this kind of extremism both directly and indirectly without taking any responsibility for having done so. A few examples:
1) Many of these same people who are now ‘standing’ with Charlie Hebdo previously vilified CH for insulting Muslims. We heard nothing from them at the time about freedom of expression and we wouldn’t have heard a peep from them if CH, as they did so many times in the past, were insulting Jews or Catholics or…
2) The politically correct crowd is now saying we shouldn’t label all Muslims because of a few bad apples, although we never hear the same sort of caution when some other religious group in involved, not that that happens very much. And can someone tell me where is their concern for the families of these murdered souls?
3) It’s supposedly ‘racist’ to note that the Muslim faith encourages this sort of extremism by calling for death to anyone who insults Allah, although it is nothing more than a statement of fact. To be fair, the Crusades were centered around a similar thought process back then, not that we like to acknowledge that.
4) Related to #3 above, it’s likewise politically incorrect to point out that inviting devout believers (is that tautological?) of a faith which doesn’t believe in freedom of expression to come and live somewhere that ‘supposedly’ does is a disaster waiting to happen. I say ‘supposedly’ because any restrictions on free speech outside of defamation and/or the likes of shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater does not qualify as freedom of expression. Speech codes of any kind, as are all too common on U.S. campuses, to use but one example, make an utter mockery of free speech. We in the U.S. like to delude ourselves that we walk the walk as well as talking the talk about free speech, but in reality…
4) Similarly, we like to preach that freedom should be universal, but we keep selling weaponry to foreign governments that are supposedly on our side, to be used against their own citizenry who don’t like us. It’s impossible to separate out how much of our motivation in doing so is because of the desire to keep our munitions workers employed and how much is an attempt to suppress our would-be enemies, but it doesn’t really matter - it puts the lie to our wanting freedom for everyone, and it does generate hatred towards us. By the way, given that our Navy is larger than the next fourteen put together, and eleven of those are nominally on our side; and that our troops are in so many other countries around the world, could someone tell me how that squares with the concept of limited and small government?
Winter 1/12/2023 11:41 am
Diane,
It is not true that Siné was fired “for submitting something patently mistaken” He was fired and put on trial for anti-Semitism and eventually acquitted. He later sued Charlie Hebdo for wrongful termination and won a large amount of damages.
The back story was that Jean Sarkozy rear-ended a BMW driven by some random Arab guy. Instead of stopping, he fled the scene. The police were not interested, but the BMW owner’s insurance company tracked down the scooter driver and it ended up being the younger Sarkozy. He was eventually acquitted of all charges and walked away scot-free. He married an heiress to the Darty fortune (Darty is a chain of electronic stores in France similar to Circuit City in the US). It was rumoured he would convert to Judaism (his great grandfather was Jewish) for the marriage but he still denies he ever did this.
So in response Siné wrote the following in Charlie Hebdo:
Jean Sarkozy, a son worthy of his paternity and already a general counselor for the UMP, was set free –almost with applause — from his criminal proceedings for the offense of fleeing on his scooter. The prosecutor actually requested his release! It must be said that the complainant is an Arab! But that’s not all: he [Sarkozy] just declared his intention to convert to Judaism before marrying his fiancée, who is Jewish and the heiress to the founders of Darty. He’ll go far in life, this lad!
Additionally, almost exactly a year after the French establishment banned comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala from performing his comedy show in Nantes, because he mocks the sacred victim-hood of Jews, there are huge demonstration for free expression to mock Islam’s ban on Mohamed imagery.
There is a huge double standard in France. If you come anywhere close to mocking Jewish victimhood or connections to power you are put on trial. But if you mock Mohamed it’s perfectly fine.
Anonymous 1/12/2023 2:44 pm
“…but if you mock Mohamed it’s perfectly fine.”
Except for the Fatwas and murders and suchlike. But other than that!
Diana 1/12/2023 9:36 pm
“All we know, actually, is that the price for bombing and killing Muslims, invading their countries, pushing them off their ancestral lands, is death. It’s simple reciprocity”
Islamic fundamentalist insanity couldn’t be better expressed. Sure, and that’s why shoppers got slaughtered at a kosher supermarket, and that’s why the US faced a wave of Vietnamese terrorism during the Vietnam war. Got it. Understood completely.
Look, I am not engaging with psychopaths. Rave on….I will only add that France has different ideas of free speech than does the US. It’s a country where a blogger can get sued for writing an unfavorable restaurant review.
And you know what? Vive la France - they have their ways of doing things. It’s a question of who makes the rules. Do the French make the rules, or does a violent minority of a minority make the rules?
Regarding this commenters fellow psychopaths Dieudonne, and Sine, I suggest to Richard that he do a diligent search on the internet and he will see that the commenters here defending them are bullshit artists. I’m outta here.
13 Responses
1/10/2024 8:45 am
There are a lot of creatively drawn cartoons in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack. But while it is easy to criticize censorship, wouldn’t a stronger message be to draw what the terrorists found so objectionable that they were willing to kill for it? Or to put it differently, shouldn’t there be one Mohammed at the top of that image next to the pencil, and two images of Mohammed at the bottom?
1/11/2024 8:51 am
No, that would make it seem as if this issue is about baiting Muslims and Islam in particular.
There’s is now talk in the right wing blogosphere about how CH was phony because it “baited” Islam and Christianity and not Jews and Judaism. That’s totally false. They gave a job to an avowed anti-Semite (Maurice Sine) for years, and fired him when he submitted something patently mistaken.
The cartoon says it all, without singling out one particular thing. It’s perfect the way it is. Don’t mix up your personal agenda with the principle.
1/11/2024 1:18 pm
I did not know I had a personal agenda. But I think it’s easy to adhere to a principle to avoid the possible fallout from actually using ones freedom of speech.
To put it differently, I have a huge respect for news organizations that did reprint the cartoons. They do not necessarily agree with them but they a) show what the issue was about and b) take a stand for freedom of the press. Others that merely say they are for freedom of speech, but do not test it … well, I wonder what that’s worth.
1/11/2024 3:54 pm
Neither Jews nor Christians committed these acts of terrorism over some stupid cartoons, Diana.
What’s wrong with “singling out one particular thing” when it’s only one particular thing that’s the problem here?
1/11/2024 4:00 pm
To be clear, I don’t blame RB for not wanting to antagonize any Muslims.
He’s got a family to protect, and his coworkers at Worth Magazine, and since we know and seem to accept that the price for antagonizing Muslims is death, I completely understand why he and so many others are sticking to “safe” cartoons.
1/12/2023 12:21 am
Mr. Bradley:
What is your position on punishing (legally or extralegally) so-called “holocaust denial”?
1/12/2023 12:25 am
Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.
In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.
In short, Charlie Hebdo was an extreme example of what is wrong with the “politically correct” line of the current French left.
-Diane Johnstone, “What to Say When You Have Nothing to Say?” Counterpunch (1/7/15)
1/12/2023 12:27 am
Cath wrote:
since we know and seem to accept that the price for antagonizing Muslims is death, I completely understand why he and so many others are sticking to “safe” cartoons.
All we know, actually, is that the price for bombing and killing Muslims, invading their countries, pushing them off their ancestral lands, is death. It’s simple reciprocity.
1/12/2023 7:57 am
Hi, Anonymous. Neither the cartoonists of Charlie Hedbo, nor the Jewish shoppers, were responsible for “bombing and killing Muslims”, etc etc etc.
The cartoonists were slaughtered because they mocked Mohammad and Islam; and the Jewish shoppers were slaughtered because they were Jewish, and shopping in a Kosher grocery store.
I hope that clears things up for you a little. You’re welcome!
1/12/2023 9:52 am
The problem is that hypocrisy and political correctness across the whole political spectrum encourages this kind of extremism both directly and indirectly without taking any responsibility for having done so. A few examples:
1) Many of these same people who are now ‘standing’ with Charlie Hebdo previously vilified CH for insulting Muslims. We heard nothing from them at the time about freedom of expression and we wouldn’t have heard a peep from them if CH, as they did so many times in the past, were insulting Jews or Catholics or…
2) The politically correct crowd is now saying we shouldn’t label all Muslims because of a few bad apples, although we never hear the same sort of caution when some other religious group in involved, not that that happens very much. And can someone tell me where is their concern for the families of these murdered souls?
3) It’s supposedly ‘racist’ to note that the Muslim faith encourages this sort of extremism by calling for death to anyone who insults Allah, although it is nothing more than a statement of fact. To be fair, the Crusades were centered around a similar thought process back then, not that we like to acknowledge that.
4) Related to #3 above, it’s likewise politically incorrect to point out that inviting devout believers (is that tautological?) of a faith which doesn’t believe in freedom of expression to come and live somewhere that ‘supposedly’ does is a disaster waiting to happen. I say ‘supposedly’ because any restrictions on free speech outside of defamation and/or the likes of shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater does not qualify as freedom of expression. Speech codes of any kind, as are all too common on U.S. campuses, to use but one example, make an utter mockery of free speech. We in the U.S. like to delude ourselves that we walk the walk as well as talking the talk about free speech, but in reality…
4) Similarly, we like to preach that freedom should be universal, but we keep selling weaponry to foreign governments that are supposedly on our side, to be used against their own citizenry who don’t like us. It’s impossible to separate out how much of our motivation in doing so is because of the desire to keep our munitions workers employed and how much is an attempt to suppress our would-be enemies, but it doesn’t really matter - it puts the lie to our wanting freedom for everyone, and it does generate hatred towards us. By the way, given that our Navy is larger than the next fourteen put together, and eleven of those are nominally on our side; and that our troops are in so many other countries around the world, could someone tell me how that squares with the concept of limited and small government?
1/12/2023 11:41 am
Diane,
It is not true that Siné was fired “for submitting something patently mistaken” He was fired and put on trial for anti-Semitism and eventually acquitted. He later sued Charlie Hebdo for wrongful termination and won a large amount of damages.
The back story was that Jean Sarkozy rear-ended a BMW driven by some random Arab guy. Instead of stopping, he fled the scene. The police were not interested, but the BMW owner’s insurance company tracked down the scooter driver and it ended up being the younger Sarkozy. He was eventually acquitted of all charges and walked away scot-free. He married an heiress to the Darty fortune (Darty is a chain of electronic stores in France similar to Circuit City in the US). It was rumoured he would convert to Judaism (his great grandfather was Jewish) for the marriage but he still denies he ever did this.
So in response Siné wrote the following in Charlie Hebdo:
Additionally, almost exactly a year after the French establishment banned comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala from performing his comedy show in Nantes, because he mocks the sacred victim-hood of Jews, there are huge demonstration for free expression to mock Islam’s ban on Mohamed imagery.
There is a huge double standard in France. If you come anywhere close to mocking Jewish victimhood or connections to power you are put on trial. But if you mock Mohamed it’s perfectly fine.
1/12/2023 2:44 pm
“…but if you mock Mohamed it’s perfectly fine.”
Except for the Fatwas and murders and suchlike. But other than that!
1/12/2023 9:36 pm
“All we know, actually, is that the price for bombing and killing Muslims, invading their countries, pushing them off their ancestral lands, is death. It’s simple reciprocity”
Islamic fundamentalist insanity couldn’t be better expressed. Sure, and that’s why shoppers got slaughtered at a kosher supermarket, and that’s why the US faced a wave of Vietnamese terrorism during the Vietnam war. Got it. Understood completely.
Look, I am not engaging with psychopaths. Rave on….I will only add that France has different ideas of free speech than does the US. It’s a country where a blogger can get sued for writing an unfavorable restaurant review.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28331598
And you know what? Vive la France - they have their ways of doing things. It’s a question of who makes the rules. Do the French make the rules, or does a violent minority of a minority make the rules?
Regarding this commenters fellow psychopaths Dieudonne, and Sine, I suggest to Richard that he do a diligent search on the internet and he will see that the commenters here defending them are bullshit artists. I’m outta here.