Je Suis Charlie
I'm Charlie. We all are Charlie. Freedom of speech should be absolute. The right to subject each others fundamental beliefs to criticism is the bedrock of an open, diverse society. Once we give up such a right in the name of tolerance or respect, we constrain our ability to confront those in power, and therefore to challenge injustice. All religions deserve equal freedom of worship and practice, but none deserve the right to freedom from criticism. I support the right to abuse and insult religion, because of the essentially irrational nature of religious beliefs. I'm sorry, I'd to say it here. I'm deeply shocked by what happened in Paris. My thoughts are with the families of the brave journalists and the cartoonists who lost their lives.
Yeah, I agree with you. I've heard some people saying that they are not Charlie Hebdo because the magazine was too "strong". Alright, the magazine has published a few weeks ago a man, from Charlie Hebdo, kissing Maome. It is not easy to say if you believe in Maome (and it is not my case) but they need to have the right to give their opinion. And, as you can see, I think everybody has the right to express any kind of opinion, but you don't have the right to kill people only because they don't like "your god". And just for the record, Charlie Hebdo was always satirizing many "gods" or important people. Hollande, the pope and many others were the target. Et moi? Oui, je dis "Je suis Charlie".
JE SUIS CHARLIE!!!!PARIS EST CHARLIE, THESSALONIQUE EST CHARLIE, NOUS SOMMES TOUS CHARLIE!!!!!!!!! I am really shocked by the events in Paris. Charlie Hebdo is a sacred magazine, and it has proved what the results of the religious zealotry are. I'm not against islam, I'm against people who commit crimes with the "alibi" of their religion, it doesn't matter if they are Christian, Muslim, etc. Those people are so "blind" of their religion that they can't change their minds, so they must be put in jail for the rest of their lives or be killed. I totally agree with the French authorities, who killed the terrorists of the attack in Chalie Hebdo.
Absolutely agreed. To personally disagree with their publications is one thing, but to advocate censorship or to somehow blame the cartoonists after they've already been murdered just repulses me. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental right we have, and we have to make it clear that we're not going to give a single inch to people who want to impose their religion on society or think that free speech is negotiable, whether Muslims or otherwise.
Nobody has the right to not be offended, and I have no problem calling the people at Charlie Hebdo incredibly brave men and heroes for refusing to submit to bullies despite multiple threats, attacks, and danger to their lives. Obviously, they're dead now because of that. My thoughts go out to the victims and everyone affected by this tragedy.
Je suis Charlie.
I'm going to leave this link below for those that wonder why we have to support the work of CH even if we, personally, find it distasteful. This was written in 2008 and it's about a different set of circumstances, one where there was threat of censure of fiction based on the topics but basics of why we have to defend speech even if we personally don't like it.
"Why defend the freedom of icky speech" http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
"The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible."
As for CH specifically, I think that many of you are missing a huge cultural item. This is where the french would differentiate between the first and second degree. The satire of CH needs to be seen in the light of the events that drove them and they need to be seen from "the second degree" which it's readers were using to interpret it.
Actually this this post should be deleted because it does not pertain to language learning. Since it's still here I am going to say a few things:
To quote novelist Saladin Ahmed, in response to this veneration of Charlie Hebdonas some beacon of liberty: "In an unequal world, satire that "mocks everyone equally" ends up serving the powerful."
CH was racist, Islamophobic, sexist, antisemitic, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist and all-around chauvinistic. Drawing Africans as monkeys or naked slaves on leashes held by whites? Drawing Muslims as hooknosed and carrying bombs? Drawing religious people in same-sex acts intended to make them look depraved, because same-sex acts are supposedly depraved? (I could continue, but you get the gist, I hope) While I don't believe in censorship, that is not my beacon of liberty.
Systems of oppression exist. They are real. They are not by accident and they are not without cause. All oppression is manmade. And as long as oppression exists, this is an unequal world where the freedoms we claim to revere are exclusive property of the most powerful and privileged and they use these freedoms to perpetuate oppression of others. And often idealistic, naive arguments made to uphold these freedoms cowardly avoid confronting this reality, like all arguments made about why we should not critique CH or suggest in anyway what they did that contributed to perpetuating oppression, bigotry and hate.
Since the attack I have been listening to Muslims, Africans and other oppressed groups that CH freely degraded. I have to listen to them via Twitter, from their individual accounts, because unlike the cartoonists at CH they have no other platform to be heard. There is no Muslim, African or Arab CH in France or anywhere in the West. These are people who have systematically excluded from the privilege of simply being heard that CH took for granted. And they are saying Je ne suis pas Charlie, because for them CH was no beacon of liberty, but a contributor and apologist for the oppression,discrimination and hatred that they face from Westerners. To them, calling CH a beacon of liberty is hypocrisy. And because I do not believe in hypocrisy and oppression anymore than I believe in censorship, I stand with them.
JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE
Charlie Hebdo went sometimes too far, sometimes they were not funny. But they are not islamophobic, sexist and everything you accuse them of. They make fun of people who are all that. They have the spirit of May 1968 (which is faaaar from being bigotry and intolerance) and their only target is stupidity.
Take the pictures, read the texts, cut them with the affairs we had in France at the same time and you'll see there's a double meaning. To foreigners (I mean people who do not live in France), it may look racist, etc. But you lack context.
Some covers are not funny to me and borderline racist. But most of them are funny -but you need to be informed on the context they were drawn in. Please inform yourself and stop lowering down an event deeply traumatising for us.
The paper is very left-wing and frequently makes fun of all the things you just accused them of being, especially racism. I think you and others might be misinterpreting the meaning of the cartoons; which, as they are satirical and without specific context, admittedly can be sometimes difficult to not do.
You mention that CH is sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, etc. which shows that they aren't just selecting Muslims for their humor. No one has the right to kill someone who doesn't agree with their way of thinking. The terrorists are just murderers and nothing more.
Where are the good Muslims? Why aren't they protesting the terrorists' actions? They remind me of the good Germans in WWII who weren't Nazis, but said nothing.
The "good Muslims" (I'd rather say real Muslims) were all around the streets on Sunday. The great majority of them firmly condem the terrorists's actions. You cannot imagine the number of people who were there saying "Yes, I'm a Muslim, yes, I have been offended by the caricatures, but before being Muslim, I'm French. That means I am supporting freedom of expression".
Je suis Charlie. Yo soy Charlie. Ich bin Charlie. I am Charlie.
What good is freedom of speech if the only speech one wants to protect is that which the majority can agree on? I don't know if France has freedom of the press or not... but those countries that do support freedom of speech have to protect the speech that people find reprehensible. Nobody has to protect speech that everyone agrees with.