Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

[Axulus]

By way of Banksy:

It's a fake but still very good:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fake-banksy-charlie-hebdo-illustration-2015-1

 

[Jokodo]

The problem for a terrorist group like al-Qaeda is that its recruitment pool is Muslims, but most Muslims are not interested in terrorism. Most Muslims are not even interested in politics, much less political Islam. France is a country of 66 million, of which about 5 million is of Muslim heritage. But in polling, only a third, less than 2 million, say that they are interested in religion. French Muslims may be the most secular Muslim-heritage population in the world (ex-Soviet ethnic Muslims often also have low rates of belief and observance). Many Muslim immigrants in the post-war period to France came as laborers and were not literate people, and their grandchildren are rather distant from Middle Eastern fundamentalism, pursuing urban cosmopolitan culture such as rap and rai. In Paris, where Muslims tend to be better educated and more religious, the vast majority reject violence and say they are loyal to France.

Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.

<snip>

The operatives who carried out this attack [...] spoke unaccented French, and so certainly know that they are playing into the hands of Marine LePen and the Islamophobic French Right wing. [...] This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes instead of faltering in the face of lively Beur youth culture (French Arabs playfully call themselves by this anagram).

<snip>

The only effective response to this manipulative strategy [...] is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals.

Linky-thingy

 

[barbos]

Really?

Here’s what’s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic.

Source, with some cartoons for your appraisal.

Racist depiction of Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens.

Yeah, they're pretty disgusting. But they have a right to be as disgusting as they want. Freedom of speech trumps offended people, every time.

I believe you and the article writer don't understand French politics and French language enough.
This cover is a double snipe in classical Charlie style, both against Boko Haram and our right wing, NOT against the sex slaves or "welfare queens". To misunderstand that shows complete ignorance of French press and the left wing / anarchist tradition of Charlie.

Can you translate and give a crash course on french press traditions?
I suspect right said something nasty about Boko Haram sex slaves, no?
I understood everything here

 

[Davka]

 

[dismal]

It seems like defining people who have different values or beliefs than you do as "insane" is both the pinnacle of intolerance and far more dehumanizing of Muslims than anything the so called islamaphobics believe.

You're the one placing value judgements on all this, and calling them insane. I neither said, meant, nor intended to classify them as insane. I believe I even called them reasonable. Just not rational. it is ok to live in the world and be merely reasonable, to have a reason for one's actions and be willing to listen to others. But when even that much isn't met, when there can be no discussion, no challenge, and no skepticism whatsoever, that is neither rational or reasonable. That's neurotic, and it's intrinsically disordered. It's 'nuts'.

You're doing that thing where you twist the definition of words past their common meaning to suit your purposes. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world "nuts" continues to mean "insane". That said, if you agree these particular killers are not insane we are glad to have you on our side.

 

[dx713]

When a drawing in Charlie Hebdo addresses two themes, it doesn't necessarily mean they are related. Just that a cartoonist found a way to evoke the two at the same time.
Charlie was founded after its previous incarnation, Hara Kiri, was forbidden (France still had censorship at the time) after a cover titling "tragic dance in Colombey, 1 dead", conflating the death of general De Gaulle (homed in Colombey) and a deadly fire in a dancehall the same week.
Conflating 2 unrelated events has become a staple of Charlie Hebdo covers since.
I don't remember this one, but I suppose in the same week, there must have been news about Boko Haram abductions and one of our right wing politicians going on one of his usual rant about welfare queens.

Basically, after a basic knowledge of French language, what one has to remember to appreciate Charlie covers is to remember the paper has always been very much left-wing, non-religious, anti-racist, and anti-authoritarian.
If there's some doubt as how to interpret a cartoon, that should help.

BBC made a correct summary here.

 

[dismal]

If the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet (peace be upon him), then the future will belong to those who would murder you for drawing a cartoon.

I fervently hope the future belongs to the slanderers.

It's a very curious choice of words as well - what exactly is the issue with slandering a person who died long ago? If he said the future must not belong to those who slander Muslims, that would've been far more agreeable.

Can I say "the Muslim religion is bunk" or is that slandering Muslims?

 

[Axulus]

It's a very curious choice of words as well - what exactly is the issue with slandering a person who died long ago? If he said the future must not belong to those who slander Muslims, that would've been far more agreeable.

Can I say "the Muslim religion is bunk" or is that slandering Muslims?

No, that is not slander, nor is it against Muslims themselves. Slander against Muslims would be saying something like saying all Muslims are either terrorists or support terrorism.

 

[jonatha]

What is the solution?

I doubt the two shooters will be captured alive, and even if they were my proposal is contrary to sound legal practice.

But if I had the magic wand, I'd empanel a jury consisting solely of French Muslims, and give them plenty of airtime afterwards...

 

[barbos]

When a drawing in Charlie Hebdo addresses two themes, it doesn't necessarily mean they are related. Just that a cartoonist found a way to evoke the two at the same time.
Charlie was founded after its previous incarnation, Hara Kiri, was forbidden (France still had censorship at the time) after a cover titling "tragic dance in Colombey, 1 dead", conflating the death of general De Gaulle (homed in Colombey) and a deadly fire in a dancehall the same week.
Conflating 2 unrelated events has become a staple of Charlie Hebdo covers since.
I don't remember this one, but I suppose in the same week, there must have been news about Boko Haram abductions and one of our right wing politicians going on one of his usual rant about welfare queens.

Basically, after a basic knowledge of French language, what one has to remember to appreciate Charlie covers is to remember the paper has always been very much left-wing, non-religious, anti-racist, and anti-authoritarian.
If there's some doubt as how to interpret a cartoon, that should help.

BBC made a correct summary here.

I understand now, they are just lazy french bastards and instead of two drawings make one for both events and then go for a smoke.

 

[jonatha]

Are you guys telling me that all the tough gun laws in France didn't prevent this?

Neither did the presence of armed guards (the "good guys")....

 

[Davka]

Are you guys telling me that all the tough gun laws in France didn't prevent this?

Neither did the presence of armed guards (the "good guys")....

France has not had crazies with automatic weapons shooting up theaters, schools, etc. etc. When the random-lunatic-with-a-gun deaths in France begin to approach those in the USA, we can talk about how gun control doesn't work. So far, the stats seem to indicate a startling trend: Nations with gun control laws have far fewer shootings (by any measure) than those without.

Whoda thunk? Good guys with guns don't help all that much. And when guns are easily available, the good guys with guns get a bit paranoid, and have an unfortunate tendency to shoot children with toy guns, and dark-skinned people with wallets or cell phones.

 

[DrZoidberg]

According to a friend with an Algerian father, the ethnicity and birth date of the attackers is significant. They were born in the 80'ies, sons to Harkis. Harkis are Algerians who fought on the French side during the Algerian civil war (1954-1962). When France pulled out of the war they refused all Harkis French nationality, and De Gaulle actively prevented them from fleeing the country. Most of them were beaten to death. Numbers vary. Somwhere between 100 000 and 3000 thousand were killed in these revenge killings. Still about 100 000 managed to flee to France. These, naturally, feel betrayed by France and have plenty of resentment against the French government for it. A lot of them left good lives in Algeria and ended up in French slums and working class neighbourhoods. Widespread and flagrant French anti-Islamic racism isn't helping. They aren't welcome in their own country (Algeria) and feel rejected by France. So they're rootless. The kids of the Harkis are either well adjusted productive members of society who can't stand their parents whining or, like these guys, petty criminals with allegiance to no one and nothing. Just the kind of people who are attracted to radical Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki

It's not an excuse. But it is an explanation. Obviously the perpetrators are alone responsible. But it didn't happen out of nowhere. There's a cultural context and France have really done their best to piss this group of people off.

 

[dx713]

Another good article from the BBC might help understand why this is such a blow to the French cartoonist community, and the French in general.
Some of those guys were as famous as a French-speaking cartoonist can be.

 

[Playball40]

Neither did the presence of armed guards (the "good guys")....

France has not had crazies with automatic weapons shooting up theaters, schools, etc. etc. When the random-lunatic-with-a-gun deaths in France begin to approach those in the USA, we can talk about how gun control doesn't work. So far, the stats seem to indicate a startling trend: Nations with gun control laws have far fewer shootings (by any measure) than those without.

Whoda thunk? Good guys with guns don't help all that much. And when guns are easily available, the good guys with guns get a bit paranoid, and have an unfortunate tendency to shoot children with toy guns, and dark-skinned people with wallets or cell phones.

EXCELLENTLY PUT!

 

[Playball40]

According to a friend with an Algerian father, the ethnicity and birth date of the attackers is significant. They were born in the 80'ies, sons to Harkis. Harkis are Algerians who fought on the French side during the Algerian civil war (1954-1962). When France pulled out of the war they refused all Harkis French nationality, and De Gaulle actively prevented them from fleeing the country. Most of them were beaten to death. Numbers vary. Somwhere between 100 000 and 3000 thousand were killed in these revenge killings. Still about 100 000 managed to flee to France. These, naturally, feel betrayed by France and have plenty of resentment against the French government for it. A lot of them left good lives in Algeria and ended up in French slums and working class neighbourhoods. Widespread and flagrant French anti-Islamic racism isn't helping. They aren't welcome in their own country (Algeria) and feel rejected by France. So they're rootless. The kids of the Harkis are either well adjusted productive members of society who can't stand their parents whining or, like these guys, petty criminals with allegiance to no one and nothing. Just the kind of people who are attracted to radical Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki

It's not an excuse. But it is an explanation. Obviously the perpetrators are alone responsible. But it didn't happen out of nowhere. There's a cultural context and France have really done their best to piss this group of people off.

Why did they do that?
I suppose that is like the blacks that fought in American wars only to be shunned upon return. Stupid.

 

[dismal]

Can I say "the Muslim religion is bunk" or is that slandering Muslims?

No, that is not slander, nor is it against Muslims themselves. Slander against Muslims would be saying something like saying all Muslims are either terrorists or support terrorism.

So I can draw a cartoon of Mohammed saying "the Muslim religion is bunk"?

 

[jonatha]

No, that is not slander, nor is it against Muslims themselves. Slander against Muslims would be saying something like saying all Muslims are either terrorists or support terrorism.

So I can draw a cartoon of Mohammed saying "the Muslim religion is bunk"?

Better would be one of him saying "Just kidding...."

 

[Davka]

So I can draw a cartoon of Mohammed saying "the Muslim religion is bunk"?

Better would be one of him saying "Just kidding...."

. . . can i have my nine-year-old bride back, now?

 

[RavenSky]

In the absence of events like this, I would discourage people from mocking and insulting Islam and Muslims the way this paper appears to do. But given events like this, I find it imperative that such mocking and insulting of Islam happens. When thugs try to stop you from doing X, the response should be to be defiant, and doing X becomes important. It shows that thuggery won't be effective.

Overall I agree completely, but I will note that Charlie Hebdo wasn't solely mocking and insulting Islam/Muslims. They were a satirical magazine that mocked and insulted everything/everyone. They went after Catholics in a huge way, too; and are well known for their harsh mocking of politicians and celebrities.