I rather like Charlie Hebdo’s new cover for tomorrow’s edition. (The first since the slaughter of their staff by Islamist homicidal maniacs last week.)
The Huffington Post have published it here.
I’ve already sent it to all my mates, as I did with the others because our mainstream press refuse to print them!
P.S. I also rather like the Asterix one 🙂
Boadicea's Chariot 
Great! It is interesting to see that the attacks were carried out due to such cartoons, but the result is a huge proliferation of more. One could argue that it is the Muslims who are now responsible for the wide distribution of such pictures. Just deserts!
Just deserts? That’s where most muslims live, eh? 😉
Oops 🙂
gaz, interestingly, there is nowt wrong with the spelling at all. Just desserts are what you get in a Pud à Manger.
Gaz you’re quite right.
I’d never heard of Charlie Hebdo before this outrage never mind bothered to view their cartoons!
Now? Not only have I seen the cartoons but have forwarded them to friends who, I’m sure have done likewise.
Just desserts indeed
… 😉 …
Terrorist atrocities aside, it does strike me as though the Charlie Hebdo people were not very nice. I mean free speech is one thing, but to convey your message in order to deliberately hurt and insult others is unpleasant. CH seems to have prided itself on being as unpleasant as possible. I do not believe that Private Eye would stoop to such depths. One can make the point by being clever rather than extremely offensive.
It is ironic that so many pseudo Charlies have worked the phrase, ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ as an expression of triumphalism over the acts of terror. If the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, then one could argue that the cartoonists have been using fiercer weapons than the terrorists, and they started it.
The point I am making, is don’t pretend that shits running Charlie Hebdo were saints. They certainly did not deserve what happened, but I am not sure that they did not deserve a slap.
Sipu, I couldn’t disagree more. When the terrorist attack happened I had not heard of Charlie Hebdo. On reading the initial reports of this atrocity I also thought to myself “well, what did they expect to happen. They had been warned and continued to go ahead with such satire and ridicule.”
Since then I have, as many of us, read a huge number of reports and comments from various sources. My view had gradually completely changed. If any religion or organisation threatens death to anyone who speaks against them, we should all stand up and speak loudly against them. We should ridicule them, curse them, and never stop until they are destroyed. Such evil cannot be tolerated and Charlie Hebdo were completely right in their past and, from what I hear, subsequent actions.
Je suis Charlie.
Sipu.
I agree with much of what you say. The media are publishing in the main what are the most acceptable of these cartoons. Many are bordering on the obscene and exceptionally unpleasant and target all religions, not just Islam. Humour and biting satire is one thing, gratuitously offensive is another.
Sipu and Arrers, I said the same about the Danish cartoons. One ‘insult’ may be tolerated, multiple repetitions should not, because they are gratuitously offensive.
…not to imply that I approve of murder in response.
Janus.
Quite, and I do not believe for one moment that murder is a reasonable response either.
And should we even consider that banning all cartoons relating to Islam would stop terrorist atrocities, I think we would be sadly mistaken. I’m sure they would come up with another reason for murder and mayhem.
In a backhanded way I am neither sorry nor surprised at any of the events in this whole scenario.
I have always thought that allowing them into Europe as immigrants was a big mistake.
They tried in previous centuries to take Europe by force and were repulsed. This time the Islamification was to be by stealth and outbreeding us.
I regard most Europeans to be particularly naive or deliberately obtuse if they think these people come in peace.
The more they behave in their own inimitable, vicious, depraved and parasitic way, one hopes that a few more Europeans will wake up and smell the roses.
It should come as a source of amazement to humans that ‘such’ should be exacerbated to murder over a few silly ill drawn pictures.
It is of interest that these animals have a 2000+ year history of violence well before the conception of islam. The history of the Persian Empire if rife with wars over trivia and the ability to quarrel with their own shadow and commit atrocities that best the worst of ours in the West. Notably Zoroastrianism was viciously suppressed and supplanted by islam in due course.
The more people in the West who come to see that it was a huge error in letting them in the better.
Far better that they are systematically removed back to their country of origin for infringement of our laws and culture in a peaceable manner than what will happen if the situation is left to fester and descend into a civil war with murder on our streets. We too have form! Pogrom of York anyone?
Rather than perpetration of stupid pictures I would like to see the demolishing of one European mosque for every person killed in these acts of cowardice. That ought to concentrate their minds on buying one way tickets to either the Middle East or oblivion, either will do!
Interesting to note that the Vancouver Sun is carrying a story of acts of retribution/retaliation against French mosques.
Evidently 16 so far have had fire bombs, pigs heads and the like.
It is also reported that the social media is alive with threats against muslims right across Europe.
I saw no evidence of such articles in the British papers.
Like the politicians, running scared?
Nothing being reported in our media at the moment Tina, but yes, the US/Canadian press is reporting such incidents.
I really don’t know. Social media can be a bit hysterical though: hashtag activism on Twitter. Things spread like wildfire, and occasionally some of them are true!
I’m with you, Christina. “Removed back to their country of origin … in a peacable manner”. We should have started this with the families of the 7/7 bombers, continued with all the extended families of those found guilty of “honour killings” and any convicted of terrorist acts or preparation of such acts. Little by little we could have cleaned our society up a bit and sent a very firm message to the whole muslim community, just as the Mayor of Rotterdam has done.
This might be of interest to you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/11342282/Rotterdams-mayor-tells-Muslims-to-pack-their-bags-and-go-if-they-dont-like-freedom.html
Some here seem to be condemning the sort of satire that Charlie Hebdo published – my answer is quite simple – don’t look at it.
You may find it obscene, deliberately provocative and unpleasant – if sufficient people agreed with you such publications would not survive. Indeed, as I understand it Charlie Hebdo was sliding into bankruptcy. All these idiotic extremists have done is to ensure that the paper will thrive and survive.
Like many people around the world, I had never heard of Charlie Hebdo. I believe that one of the assassins shouted that he had “Killed Charlie Hebdo”.
Far from it. By his actions he has ensured that the whole world knows about Charlie – and whatever their opinions on the type of material the paper published the world has determined to stand up for the right to ridicule religion, politics and, indeed, anything else.
I am more than a little tired of being told that aspects of my Western culture ‘offend’ those who follow some dark-age religious belief system – but still choose to live and benefit from life in my society.
I am heartily sick of the fact that they can criticise my way of life – but I am not allowed to criticise theirs – simply because it is part of some ‘organised’ religion.
But more than anything else, I am very angry with those who seem to have forgotten the long and hard journey we in the West have travelled to achieve our present freedoms of free speech, and equality. They are selling these freedoms for a peaceful life…
Appeasement never works – give one inch…
… and be aware that you will have to give more – until there is nothing more to give.
Boadicea, if we had an ‘uptick’ box I would have used it. Your comment it bang on.
Should we therefore call this a cultural war, no holds barred?
Trouble is Bo, too many like you, fed to the back teeth but not yet prepared to do anything about it.
First step to vote in a party that will do something.
But I shan’t be holding my breath.
The liblabcon are far too far up the cloaca of the EU to stand up for the UK! They just want more immigrants to dilute any resistance to further govt repression and control.
J, fine, have a ‘cultural’ war and see how fast it degenerates from pigs heads to lead!
CO, my point precisely. ‘No appeasement’ is policy of war, not peaceful coexistence.
J, they can prop us up with a rifle at the barricades! Too old to run.
Good comment, Boadicea and as I said earlier in the thread, banning these cartoons would not stop terrorists.
Regarding our hard won freedoms, I absolutely agree with you, but how ironic that in France, the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were a re-incarnation of a magazine which was closed down by the French government because they hated their scurrilous political cartoons!
I’ve just read that since the murder of these people the French government have arrested 54 people for hate speech offences, although I have no idea how accurate this is.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/14/france-arrests-comedian-dieudonn-for-con
Just reported on Public TV by a frog that attacks on mosques now number 54!
Now then, haven’t we heard all about it in the UK press?
Not one whisper!
Really does make one give credence to the conspiracy theorists doesn’t it?
Boadicea, I am not sure if any of what you said was directed at my comment. If it was, you have misunderstood. Regardless of whether they had the right, or no,t to do so, I get the impression that many of those who published the more extreme cartoons are, or were, not very pleasant people.
One may have the right to fart in a crowded bus or elevator. To do so inadvertently is forgiveable, to do so deliberately deserves a slap.
My comment was not about rights, it was about motives. Like you, I have never read the magazine, nor had I even heard of it, but I from what I have gleaned since the attack, the people of Charlie Hebdo deliberately set out to offend people who do not share their views; and their views are pretty extreme.
I recall some years ago in a part of London over-inhabited by Australians (is that a tautology?) a young woman wearing a shirt saying “I support Australia and anybody playing England”. She had the right to wear that shirt, but if she despised England so much, why did she feel the need to live and work there, or even visit. To my mind she was being deliberately offensive and deserved a slap. But I would not have shot her.
Mrs O,
The lack of coverage in the world meeja of the slaughter of 2000 or so Nigerians by Boko Haram compared to the attention paid to the twenty odd who died in the Paris attack, did make me think that somebody knew that there would offer little or no threat to the supply/export of light Nigerian crude.
Sipu, you are right – again! Morality is measured as much in motives as in actions. I cannot accept that there is moral strength in repeating provocative acts of ‘humour’ or deliberate damage to mosques. We don’t condone lynch mobs to deal with other criminals, do we? Is it gping to be open season now? And will be simply blame muslims for our return to the stone age? Enough I think of the Daily Mail behaviour here on the Chariot.
1. a couple of weeks ago someone (mentioning no names!) posted a cartoon on this site which, even tho’ I detest the person lampooned, struck me (and Bearsy) as being obscene, crude and, even worse (!), not particularly funny. We discussed it – and left it up – even tho’ we both found it offensive. The point I am trying to make is that what is offensive to some is not necessarily offensive to others – and I do not think that the definition of ‘offensive’ and, thus, subject to legal sanctions should be defined by vocal minority groups.
2. No one really knows why other people act as they do – and to claim that one does is, in my opinion, the height of arrogance. To state as a fact that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists set out to deliberately offend because ‘it seems they were not very nice people’ is imputing motives on the basis of information that no one here knows is true or false. The whole point of satire is to shock and to make people look at ‘sacred cows’ in a different light… and, as far as I can make out, Charlie Hebdo did not confine its satire only to Islam.
I spent two years mocking the hymns that were sung every morning in the school in which I taught. Initially the person to whom I directed my comments was highly offended – eventually she understood what I was saying and all those hymns which extolled violence were replaced by those which confirmed the Christian values of love and peace.
3. Janus – yes it is a cultural war – between those who are prepared to accept diabolical cartoons denigrating red-heads and those who want to silence anyone who tries to hold up their world-view for scrutiny – and is prepared to use violence and murder to do so. As far as I can see damage to mosques has been just that… property damage with no injuries to people. However, like Christina, I foresee a time when, if governments do not act to protect the original culture of their countries, violence against property will turn to violence against people.
4. JL – I take your point, But brutal as my response might seem – charity – and action must begin at home. There was an interesting article here on just that subject – and, sadly, I had to agree. Until governments like Nigeria are prepared to make a stand against terrorists it is unreasonable to ask the West to go in and sort out their problems.
Boa, are we to wink at attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries? Or are mosques different?
“To state as a fact that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists set out to deliberately offend because ‘it seems they were not very nice people’ is imputing motives on the basis of information that no one here knows is true or false.”
Really? In both my comments I stated words to the effect that it was my impression (and I submit that use of the word ‘gleaned’ in this context implies ‘impression’ rather than statement of fact) that they were not very nice. Generally speaking, if a creature looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. But it may not be.
I suspect that there are one or two people on this site who have a less than stellar opinion of me because of the things that I say here, even though they have never met me. I imagine that they have even expressed their dislike to others; their spouses, perhaps. But they are wrong not to hold me in the very highest regard because I am in fact a delightful person, though I do understand that because I sometimes provoke, (purely to stimulate debate, you understand) they would occasionally welcome the opportunity to slap me.
Wow! Janus you are quick off the mark!
I most certainly do not think we should wink at attacks on synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, Christian churches, churchyards or any other such place.
My apologies if I wasn’t clear – I thought I had been quite specific. All should be treated equally – it is unequal treatment that I object to… I want to make it clear to Muslims, Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Christians, Conviction Atheists, et al that their desire to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with them is abhorrent and not acceptable…
Sipu:
I know. And that is how I look at satirists like those of Charlie Hebdo 🙂
My opinion remains stellar Sipu. 🙂
This is a very difficult subject to debate as there are so many interlinking facets, and many of them attract quite strong opinions and emotions. As many of you know I am also still on MyT and find the debate here rather more grown-up.
Boa, my reflexes are aided by my smart phone. I sit down with my beverage, check my messages, the FX and the Chariot and sometimes the spirit moves me…..😀
I think you and I broadly agree but I do worry about provocation either as an editorial policy or an entertainment. Gadflies are different though. 😳
Gaz, I find that the occasional glance at the Big House reassures me that the Chariot is (ow you say?) a safe haven from the kindergarten.