French Mohammed cartooons

[Crateria]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/world/eur ... index.html

Paris (CNN) -- After a week of deadly, international protests against an anti-Islam film, a French satirical magazine is fueling the debate between freedom of expression and offensive provocation.
The magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Mohammed in an issue that hit newsstands Wednesday.
Magazine director Stephane Charbonnier said his staff is "not really fueling the fire," but rather using its freedom of expression "to comment (on) the news in a satirical way."

"It happens that the news this week is Mohammed and this lousy film, so we are drawing cartoons about this subject," Charbonnier told CNN affiliate BFM-TV on Wednesday. "It's more turning in derision this grotesque film than to make fun of Mohammed."

The "lousy film" he's referring to is "Innocence of Muslims," an amateurish, 14-minute video that mocks the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizer, child molester and killer. The video drew international attention last week and spawned heated protests in more than a dozen countries.

Any depiction of Islam's prophet is considered blasphemy by many Muslims.
Charlie Hebdo journalist Laurent Leger said the magazine's cartoons show Muslim men and Muslim extremists, but the magazine does not explicitly state that the cartoons are depictions of the Prophet Mohammed.
Rather, he said, the cartoons are open to interpretation.

"The aim is to laugh. We want to laugh at the extremists -- every extremist. They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept," Leger said.

"In France, we always have the right to write and draw. And if some people are not happy with this, they can sue us and we can defend ourselves. That's democracy. You don't throw bombs, you discuss, you debate. But you don't act violently. We have to stand and resist pressure from extremism."

The cartoons are already drawing strong condemnation by the French Muslim community.
Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the French Council of Muslim Faith, described a feeling of "indignation against this new Islamophobic act" to BFM-TV.
He said the cartoons are "insulting for the prophet of Islam," and described their publication as a "new provocation."
French authorities have already taken precautionary measures, with police vehicles parked outside the offices of Charlie Hebdo late Tuesday.
The offices were the scene of an attack last November, when they were burned on the day the magazine was due to publish an issue with a cover appearing to make fun of Islamic law.
The cover featured a bearded and turbaned cartoon figure of the Prophet Mohammed saying, "100 lashes if you're not dying of laughter."

The magazine received threats after it announced that the edition would be guest-edited by the Prophet Mohammed and dedicated to the Arab Spring, Charbonnier told BFM-TV in November.
The cartoonist known as Luz has been under police protection since last year, when one of his illustrations depicting the Prophet Mohammed was featured on the cover of that issue.
Luz told CNN the latest cartoons depicting Mohammed are not featured on the cover.
"We learned our lesson," Luz said.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault weighed in on the debate Tuesday, expressing "his disapproval of any excess" and appealing "to the spirit of responsibility of each," according to a statement from his office.

"The prime minister states that the freedom of speech makes up one of the fundamental principles of our republic. This freedom is expressed within the confines of the law and under the control of the courts," the statement read.

Outside the country, security at French embassies have been reinforced, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said.

"I am against all provocations, especially during a period as sensitive as this one. I do not see any usefulness in such provocation," he told the radio station France Info. "There must be freedom of speech, but I am absolutely opposed to any provocation."

France has seen rising tensions over its rapidly growing Muslim minority -- the largest Muslim population in western Europe. Last year, the country banned the wearing of Islamic veils and other face coverings, claiming they were both degrading and a security risk.
Belgium has passed similar legislation, and Switzerland banned the building of minarets, the tall spires which often stand next to mosques.

[DarkArk]

There's something on the NY times front page that says France is planning to close 20 of its embassies in Muslim countries. Can't read it because I've already used my 10 free articles for the month. The WSJ also says that France is going to close embassies in 20 countries, but is also behind a pay wall.

[Zaune]

I really, really hope the French government can sue Charlie Hebdo for what this little stunt is costing their taxpayers. I could just about buy the "Innocence of Muslims" production team acting out of genuine ignorance, though it says very little for their research, but this is just straight-up trolling.

[ray245]

The issue with depicting Mohammed is you are not just offending the extremist. Even the more moderates would be extremely pissed and annoyed with the deliberate trolling.

The French government should threaten to remove protection for cartoonist who deliberately tries to stir shit up. Why should they have protection when their actions are threatening the lives of people working in embassies?

[Stark]

Yeah, making fun of extremists is counterproductive if you're just creating more extremists by pushing regular everyday people into giving a shit.

[Tanasinn]

Yeah, let's curtail freedom of speech because man-children might get angry or violent.

[Stark]

Troll more? I'm sure you think you're very clever and possibly edgy, but when their stated goal is to 'laugh at extremists' and they may be creating new extremists, maybe it's fair to say they are being counterproductive.

Unless their goal is to have more extremists to laugh at in future. Is this a good or a bad plan?

[Kon_El]

If a person is capable of becoming a violent extremist due to a film or comic, then perhaps they were never really a moderate to begin with.

[Stark]

And I'm sure it makes you feel really clever for saying that, but its avoiding the issue. Surely it's a better idea long term to normalise Islam and make it acceptable and good to be both a Muslim and French to create a better and more harmonious future than y'know, to just piss a lot of guys off.

It's a bit sad that you think poking someone and condemning them if they don't react the way you want is a sensible way to make friends.

A least the guys in the article have high ideas about protecting freedom. They go out of their way to not hate Muslims - their plan is probably simply a bad one.

[Flagg]

If a person is capable of becoming a violent extremist due to a film or comic, then perhaps they were never really a moderate to begin with.

There's being an extremist and then there's being a violent extremist. And free speech is one thing, but when you purposefully use it to cause a violent reaction in people who you know will react violently, and that gets people killed? There's being for freedom of speech and expression, and then there's being an absolutist asshole.

[Ralin]

The issue with depicting Mohammed is you are not just offending the extremist. Even the more moderates would be extremely pissed and annoyed with the deliberate trolling.

The French government should threaten to remove protection for cartoonist who deliberately tries to stir shit up. Why should they have protection when their actions are threatening the lives of people working in embassies?

Sort of like how I shouldn't be protected by the police when I say that Jesus was a stupid hippy and that he and everyone who believes in him can go fornicate themselves with an iron rod?

[Stark]

I don't think anyone but Ray is saying the authors shouldn't be protected. I'm just saying that considering their goals, this is probably not an effective action.

Unless their goal is to create violence that will force the government to come down on their side in a culture war. But how likely is that?

[Flagg]

The issue with depicting Mohammed is you are not just offending the extremist. Even the more moderates would be extremely pissed and annoyed with the deliberate trolling.

The French government should threaten to remove protection for cartoonist who deliberately tries to stir shit up. Why should they have protection when their actions are threatening the lives of people working in embassies?

Because they are human beings simply excersising their right to freedom of speech? Even if unwisely?

[Kon_El]

It's not avoiding the issue it IS the issue. Limiting your speech in order to avoid offending someone because they are likely to become violent is letting them control your speech through the threat of violence.

No one is above ridicule.

[Tanasinn]

Saying that these folks are "trying" to provoke a violent reaction is dubious. I don't know anywhere in the modern world where hurting someone's feelings is reasonable cause for them to murder a totally unrelated stranger or burn private property or whatever other sort of asinine response occurs.. The folks making this "they know what's going to happen" argument against criticizing Islam wouldn't be caught DEAD saying "well, she was asking for it" if a girl in a low-cut dress got raped walking through a bad neighborhood, but the principle behind the argument is basically the same, that a victim shares blame for "enabling" a criminal in some sort of way. Which is absurd.

[Jub]

Why don't we instead impose restrictions upon people so blind to reality that they think a drawing of a long dead man is reason for protest? I, for one, would rather restrict religion that speech.

[Stark]

It's not avoiding the issue it IS the issue. Limiting your speech in order to avoid offending someone because they are likely to become violent is letting them control your speech through the threat of violence.

No one is above ridicule.

Nobody is saying this should be illegal (well maybe Ray is but y'know). I'm saying it's dumb and probably counterproductive if the goal is peaceful and beneficial relations with Muslims. All the freedom chestbeating doesn't change the outcomes.

[Flagg]

Why don't we instead impose restrictions upon people so blind to reality that they think a drawing of a long dead man is reason for protest? I, for one, would rather restrict religion that speech.

So you want to restrict their religion so they won't speak out about things they find offensive?

[Jub]

Why don't we instead impose restrictions upon people so blind to reality that they think a drawing of a long dead man is reason for protest? I, for one, would rather restrict religion that speech.

So you want to restrict their religion so they won't speak out about things they find offensive?

People are saying that we just shouldn't draw mean cartoons about the sacred prophet. If the choice is between being told you can't draw or say things - because of a bunch of people who believe in myths from the bronze age will get offended, some of them violently so - and trying to keep a bunch of crazies happy, I'm going to say fuck the crazies each and every time. They can suck it up and realize that it's just ink on a page.

[Purple]

Why don't we instead impose restrictions upon people so blind to reality that they think a drawing of a long dead man is reason for protest? I, for one, would rather restrict religion that speech.

So you want to restrict their religion so they won't speak out about things they find offensive?

Maybe not restrict religion outright but he does have a point. Extreme religious groups should even if not violent probably receive about the same treatment as other extreme right wing organizations. After all, what is different between a bunch of extreme Christians/Muslims who call out for the murder of homosexuals and non believers but don't actually follow through with it and a bunch of Neo Nazis who do the same. (note, I am not equalizing violent groups with non violent ones. But I am equalizing violent groups with violent groups and non violent groups with non violent groups.) Religion just seems to get an extreme helping of double standards in our society when it comes to this.

[Kon_El]

It's not avoiding the issue it IS the issue. Limiting your speech in order to avoid offending someone because they are likely to become violent is letting them control your speech through the threat of violence.

No one is above ridicule.

Nobody is saying this should be illegal (well maybe Ray is but y'know). I'm saying it's dumb and probably counterproductive if the goal is peaceful and beneficial relations with Muslims. All the freedom chestbeating doesn't change the outcomes.

The only way to have peaceful relations with someone who believes they can use the threat of violence to control the speech of others is to prove them wrong.

[Stark]

Probably because it wouldn't work. If you want to create a better, more open, tolerant and varied society, is it better to emphasize similarities and benefits or differences and threats? Looking to the long term, changing values is a path of least resistance thing.

[Col. Crackpot]

No Stark. We do not need to tolerate intolerance, and must not accept people who would casually murder randoms because the feelings of their invisible sky pixie got hurt. For fucks sake another thread full of apologists lining up to defend neanderthal homicidal thugs?

[Col. Crackpot]

Clearly i am now guilty of murder.

[Flagg]

No Stark. We do not need to tolerate intolerance, and must not accept people who would casually murder randoms because the feelings of their invisible sky pixie got hurt. For fucks sake another thread full of apologists lining up to defend neanderthal homicidal thugs?

Who is apologizing for them, asshole? Not me. Not Stark. But I guess today is "React with kneejerk swiftness in a most retarded manner" day in adition to "Talk Like a Pirate" day. All I've suggested, and all Stark has suggested is that maybe when dealing with a snarling grizzly you don't throw peanuts at it?