Comments

1
The Paris attacks were symbolic and apparently meant to squelch free expression while those you mention were random attacks based on religious ideology - the current marches are intended to show solidarity for freedom of expression, not some kind of religious blow back. Apples and oranges, me thinks.
2
As a Parisian who participated in the March yesterday, I'd just like to add that organizing demonstrations is pretty much our national sport... but it does tend to concern domestic affairs. So Norway and Oklahoma City are a little bit beside the point.

But you should know that over a million people poured into the streets in 2002 when Le Pen Senior, jean-Marie, had acceded to the second round of the elections. Simply to protest the election results. In a free and fair election that had simply produced an upsetting outcome. Trust me, if there is ever a white nationalist terrorist attack like the ones you cited in your post, we'll be in the street then too.
4
Despite the body count, Brevick didn't attack an institution.

He didn't attack a newspaper specifically designed to stifle the precious institution of free speech. It was political. But it was deranged and the work of one misguided fool.

Brevick wasn't directly funded and trained by army of fanatics currently killing thousands of people like ISIL is in Syria and Iraq.

I have many friends in Paris. they were there. EVERYBODY was there. Black. White. Catholic. Muslim. Socialist. Everybody. Of course right wingers are going to take advantage of it. But they were in the distinct minority.

You point is idiotic.
5
@2 Exactly. Listen to #2.
6
Haha, look at all you guys expecting a Mudede post to contain nuance and factual representations. Silly rabbits.
7
Marching against McVeigh or that Norwegian lunatic is like marching against insanity. They had no movements of any size supporting them.
8
Actually, the Paris attacks were not about freedom of expression at all. This kind of terrorist attack is intended to provoke a massive response directed against Muslims who are totally uninterested in radical Islam. But if that those Muslims are harassed and persecuted for something they had nothing to do with, some of them will become radicalized, and it weakens the legitimacy of those who oppose the radicals.

That is the whole lesson of 9/11. ISIS is a direct child of the Bush America's irrational (and illegal) attack on Iraq, and exactly what Bin Laden was trying to provoke.

The question we don't want to face is who benefits in the United States from this process of action and reaction.
10
@4) what are you talking about? what is a political party? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_…
11
Good Morning Charles,
I read your post and thought, you have somewhat of a point but it is weak. Indeed, @1 & @2 are spot on. I can't compare Breivik, McVeigh et al with the perps who attacked Charlie Hebdo. All of these events are graphic tragedies attacking civilized humanity but it is a bit more complicated than comparing it to Right vs. Left or Islamic terrorists vs. institutions of the free press & White Power terrorists vs. institutions of the state to ensure human rights and dignity.

I believe it far more nuanced. Yesterday's show of solidarity was important in that it was a gathering of the WORLD (not all of it but much of it was represented) not just France. One could ask why wasn't this kind of march appearing in cities as diverse as Toronto, Chicago, Shanghai, Islamabad, Lagos or Johannesburg? That there was a demonstration in Paris, the City of Light was significant in itself. Not all can be Charlie perhaps, but yesterday, I was one in spirit with a large chunk of humanity.
12
Norway is not France, and if you were paying attention at the time, there was plenty going on in Oslo (and elsewhere in the country) after the Breivik murder. If you had any appreciation for the cultural differences between Norway and France, you might understand. Norway is the global bullseye of introspective action, and almost never goes to the streets (especially compared to the French, who are a bit twitchy in that regard).

This was an incredibly insensitive posting, and seems to insinuate that Norway wasn't deeply wounded/pissed off by that monster Breivik.
13
@10 First off AUF ISN"T a political party. Norwegian Labour Party is the party and AUF organizes to support it.

Second, no, a single political party is not a principle institution.

Third: The Storting building, where Norway's parliament meets, would be an institution. The Supreme court in Oslo would represent an institution. Attacks to those things would be comparable.
14
#13: STFU you pedantic idiot. It was a terror attack and it was affiliated with a movement, and it was targeting a specific political part. Stop playing semantic games.
15
"specific political partY."
17
Fourth: As #2 pointed out France and Norway are wildly different in their public reactions to these events and to how they hold their institutions. If you compared the Ch attack to a rightwing attack in France you'd have a leg to stand on.

Fifth: The attack on CH was coordinated with multiple attackers as were the subsequent sieges. Chérif Kouachi received financing from the late Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and the two brother received training with AQAP in Yemen. Brevick wasn't off training with a large terror network. He was a lone nut.

Sixth: You don't understand the cultural importance of the Press, and CH, in particular in France - particularly in Paris.

Summation: Stupid post and jizzlobber eats too much toxic jizz.
19
This is coming from the same black man who complained that Macklemore didn't acknowledge the death of Michael Brown? This is coming from the same black man who had no complaints that President Obama sent two dignitaries to the funeral of a black man whose only claim to fame is that he committed a hate crime on an elderly Asian store clerk, tried the same thing with a cop and ended up dead?

This complaint is coming from a black man who writes for a paper that will never condemn the rampant black on non-black violence in Seattle but will do a million articles about some black male who dies at the hands of a white person in another state?

You are the same black man who whinned about how the acquittal of George Zimmerman made you feel unsafe despite living in a city where in almost all interracial violence involving blacks the black person is the perp.

And now you are whinning that no one should organize for a barbaric massacre committed by Islamists because some of the perps look like you... I mean, because Oklhama and some crime a white person committed in Norway 5 years ago?

You are a troll Charlie. And a racist one at that.

If a Jewish man had targeted a store run and frequented by black immigrants you would have a very different reaction. The targeting of Jews in France is mainly done by Muslims, with black Muslims comprising a large percent. And you cry about the far right while treating the victims of black racist violence as though they are subhuman. Then you want sympathy for people of your own race.
20
"There was no march to protest the Oklahoma City bombing."
Since there was no march to protest a massacre committed by a white man in Oklahoma in the 90's Parisians have no right to protest a massacre done by Arab and African Islamists in France in 2015. Very logical.
Is there a reason you didn't use this uh, "logic" on all those black protesters who have been going hog wild over ever rare act of white on black violence? Their outrage seems to depend a lot of the racial makeup of those involved, no? If I remember correctly, it was only weeks ago that black protesters said that proclaiming #alllivesmatter was racist and offensive to them and all the sympathy and advocacy have to be to blacks only. I don't remember you objecting. Did you?
21
When White people engage in violent acts which kill scores of people, it's not terrorism. Terrorism is only something Brown people do.

Surely, you know that by now, Charles.
22
@21 Your sarcasm is total BS. After the Breivik murders, there were lots of Norwegian news organizations calling the massacre 'terrorism', and that monster was most definitely white.
23
The left actually won the battle of this past weekend by orchestrating a popular show of unity against obscurantism that was devoid of anti-arab posturing.
24
If Europeans were marching for Michael Brown you wouldn't object. If 40 heads of state assembled to condemn the shooting of Trayvon Martin you wouldn't object. Your point is "How dare anyone mourn for any murder that doesn't have a black victim. Worse yet, one of the perps is black and he killed people for being Jewish. How racist to condemn it when (fill in the blank)". How about this for a headline "Blacks March When They Are Killed by Whites In Self Defense Not So Much When They Are Stomping To Death Elderly White People, Thowing Asians in Front of Trains, or Murdering People for Being Jewish" How about that headline? It certainly is true.

Now the Charles has made it clear that when people of his race kill Jews in hate crimes (something that is epidemic both in American and Europe) he is offended by Europeans objecting to this. Now let him, the Stranger, and the left returning to crying their heads off over every black person killed by a white person and every Palestinian killed by an Israeli. You can bet if the attack on the supermarket was by Zionists and the supermarket was owned by Palestinians Charles would have been the first in line to march.
25
the current marches are intended to show solidarity for freedom of expression


France is the only country in the world to literally OUTLAW pro-Gaza protests. Six months ago. They also famously banned hijabs in schools (including parents picking up their kids) and niqabs anywhere in public. It's only when white people are drawing brown people like monkeys that they seem to care about freedom of expression.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-…
26
@20, 24: Get in your mouse and get out of here.
27
Are there any adults working at The Stranger anymore?
28
#25, that cartoon isn't racist, it's meant to denounce racist depictions of Christiane Taubira, France's minister of justice. In general, I'd avoid linking to the Daily Mail as a source of nuanced, reliable journalism.
29
@25 " It's only when white people are drawing brown people like monkeys that they seem to care about freedom of expression"

Thank you for showing your ignorance. Christiane Taubira (black justice minister) was drawn as a monkey under the heading "racist blue gathering" ("marine blue gathering" is far right National Front propaganda) on the cover of the Charlie issue following the National Front calling Taubira "smart a monkey who just found a banana", I paraphrase). The cover bore the symbol of the National Front leaving little doubt about who was speaking. Charlie Hebdo was calling out the national front for the racists they are.
30
28/29: Racist logic- "My extreme racism is just proving that racism is bad." Give me a break. Insulting brown people or Islamic people or Jewish people or women are not innocent rhetorical tools. If you are defending something that you would only ever personally show to other white people, you know you're being a white supremacist.

28: I thought of posting a personal experience blog link and then an Al Arabiya link, but you can never win against bullshit respectability politics. It happened. It was in every European news outlet. Find your favorite, it's not my job to find your favorite for you.
31
Poor research. The Norwegians DID in fact march.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-…
32
@30 quit making shit up, CH didn't insult any brown people or Islamic people or women. Making fun of religious taboos, fanatics and right wing nutjobs has nothing to do with making fun of average people. I am not sure where you got that CH was only written for white people especially given that most Arabs in France aren't religious and CH is a well know anti-racist publication. It's obvious you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about yet you are regurgitating any drivel you find on the internet. I guess the French left doesn't have to thank you for your support, asshole.
33
@ 30, actually, yes, it's your job to back up your charges with good evidence. The moment you tell someone to look it up themselves is the moment you admit that you don't have it.
34
"But what should the left do?"

easy, the left should limit the freedom of expression of peoples views they don't agree with, right?
35
Man, there's race-hustling clickbait and then there's this. This is just lazy.
36
This is why I refuse to label myself a "progressive". Why can't an event ever just stand alone? You all have taken too college classes on how to be offended.
37
@30, as has been pointed out, all of the "racist" cartoons you are referring to are scathing satirical images criticizing the right wing in France. It's really frustrating that when this objective truth is presented, you just keep fortifying your sand bag fortress from an imaginary deluge.
38
37: Since white people seem to only think other white people can decide what's racist, here's a former Charlie Hebdo writer clearly explaining why it has become a severely racist, white supremacist, Islamophobic rag in the past 10 years.

French: http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo…
Translated to English: http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/cha…

If you want to actually listen to people who are directly affected by racial and religious hatred, there are hundreds of Muslims, Jews, and brown people across the Internet also clearly explaining why Charlie Hebdo is clearly and obviously racist. But, by not being white I know they do not represent the "objective truth" to you.
39
One person doesn't speak for an entire class of people, raku.

But that's beside the point. Cartoonists ought to be as racist as they want without being shot. If you truly value diversity and freedom of expression, you'll hail the fallen Charlie Hebdo cartoonists as martyrs without reservation.
40
BTW, that's in no way a concession of your judgment of the cartoons, or to the notion that only members of any social minority group possess the right to judge. I'm just saying that it's immaterial to the larger issue.
41
@38 Below is a link to a response to Cyran by Zineb, a Moroccan female refugee journalist at Charlie Hebdo. Cyran attacks Zineb's writing in his letter but somehow never mentions her (probably because she is Arab and it undermines his argument) and effectively calls her racist like others he criticizes in the piece. Sweet irony. It's in French and if you don't read it, I can tell you that she isn't very nice to him.

http://www.cercledesvolontaires.fr/2013/…
43
@42 You are confused. Of course depicting Africans as monkeys is racist. That's precisely what Charlie was saying with that cover. They were accusing the National Front of racism right on the cover. Wake up.

What is bigoted is to believe that Arabs can't make the choice of atheism and can't be for the separation of church and state even though most French Arabs appear to do so.
44
@43 Spot on.

From Kenan Malik:

"What is really racist is the idea that only nice white liberals want to challenge religion or demolish its pretensions or can handle satire and ridicule. Those who claim that it is ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’ to mock the Prophet Mohammad, appear to imagine, with the racists, that all Muslims are reactionaries. It is here that leftwing ‘anti-racism’ joins hands with rightwing anti-Muslim bigotry."
45
I most definitely do not want to live in a world where the religious people (of any faith) get to set the global rules for what is considered offensive, and then not be challenged because doing so is called "racist". We certainly don't (or shouldn't) mark the criticism of homophobia as "racist" when they execute gays in Islamic countries, so I don't see why it should be any different for free speech.
47
it's straightforward that recycling bigoted narratives is an expression of the same bigotry, and if the bigotry is racist, then recycling it is also racist.


No. No it's not. No matter how hard you attempt to torture logic and contort rhetoric with absolutist horseshit. Christ all mighty. Some people really don't understand satire or even art.

Anybody believes what you and raku have written here doesn't want art. You don't want to really think or be challenged. You want a mirror.

What you want is propaganda to reinforce your insecure world views.

For the TRILLIONTH time - Portrayal is NOT endorsement.

By your logic all the white actors Spike Lee's in Do The Right Thing were racists. By your logic every single depiction of historical racism - from Shindler's List to The Color Purple is racist.

Jonathan Swift "recycled racist narratives." I guess to the sanctimonious morons in this thread he was endorsing racist baby eating cannibalism.

49
@46 "it's funny cause it's racist"

Nobody says this but you because it suits your narrative. When I think it is funny, it is because bigots are laughable and should be ridiculed. The fear they express through their bigotry shows their insecurity. Their arguments are ludicrous and point to feeble intellects. While describing it, I am not sure whether it is sad or funny but laughter is one way to deal with the absurd.

Recognizing that racists argument project dehumanizing images of their victims is implicit to these drawings. The Boko Haram sex slave cartoon says that racist and right wing arguments are dehumanizing. It says here is a dehumanizing image of the right wing welfare queen meme and that is the image provided to you by racists. You are not supposed to take that cartoon in the first degree because it is absurd and gross and every French person knows it.
50
"it's straightforward that recycling bigoted narratives is an expression of the same bigotry, and if the bigotry is racist, then recycling it is also racist. "

If I recycle it while wearing a sign that says "i am a big fucking racist" or pretend that boko haram sex slaves are on welfare it should at least tip you that you aren't reading the situation correctly.
51
i don't think being offensive is inherent to art


More tortured logic, tautology, and strawmen.

Nobody here has said art HAS to be inherently offensive. Nobody. Sometimes great art is offensive, though. Fascinating. You conflate "challenge" with "offense." That should tell you something right there.

What we are saying is genuine and honest expression, as opposed to the single worldview you wish us all to consume, requires the freedom to possibly offend. Offense is entirely subjective. Even the most mild art will offend somebody on a planet of 7 billion humans. Art is not inherently ANYTHING.

Think about how you've narrowed the criteria for what constitutes acceptable satire or art down to an orthodox ideological pinhole.

Art isn't about YOUR filters.

Therefor you don't want art. You don't want genuine expression. You don't want challenge.

What you want, my absolutist friend, is called propaganda.

Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.