Paris, anyone?

[Pabmusic]

This from Time has it quite well:

http://time.com/3657769/charlie-hebdo-attack/

[mercia]

is it a case of 'anything goes' with cartoons ? how far could or would a British publication go with a depiction of Christ ? a naked cartoon Jesus would probably cause offence but would it fall foul of any UK law?

[ardcarp]

Probably not since 'blasphemy' laws were repealed, but only as recently as 2008 (I think).

Interesting cartoons mentioned in R4's review of daily papers.

-Right hand holding a pen being cut off by a (presumably Muslim) sword. Caption, "The pen is mightier than the sword?"

-Cartoonist sketching in full body armour. Caption, "Keep calm and carry on".

-Charlie Hebdo today lampoons all those who aver "Je suis Charlie" but have never read a single edition.

[MrGongGong]

This might be worth a listen as it dismantles a misconception in a very succinct way IMV

http://www.islam21c.com/special/a-james-obrien-masterclass-in-how-to-deal-with-people-demanding-that-muslims-apologise-for-charliehebdo/

[Beef Oven!]

This might be worth a listen as it dismantles a misconception in a very succinct way IMV

http://www.islam21c.com/special/a-ja...-charliehebdo/

What is the misconception being succinctly dismantled here, and who is holding the misconception in the first place?

[Anna]

Not being a subscriber to the magazine, I can't generalise on exactly what the cartoons were attacking. It may be entirely selective in its choice,
but Huffington Post chooses these. How sophisticated do you have to be to interpret them as attacking neither 'Islam' nor the Prophet - but what is seen (by the West?) as the excesses and distortions of Islam as practised by 'extremists' (tbd)?

That is how I see the cartoons - mocking the clerics and imams who preach their distorted views of Islam. As for the crime of blasphemy, the French laws on this were repealed after the Revolution and then briefly reinstated during the 1880s. However, they still exist in Alsace-Lorraine as a hangover from territory changes due to WW1 and some Islamic groups have tried, and failed, to get those laws amended to include them. France, of course, like the UK has Hate Crime Laws.

In 2006 when Charlie Hebdo released the issue which featured cartoons pertinent to Islam, including some from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. A Muslim organization initiated criminal proceedings against Philippe Val, editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, for insulting a group of people because of their religion. In March 2007, the court of first instance acquitted Val. The first court of appeal confirmed the lower court's judgment on the ground that the cartoons targeted only terrorists or fundamentalists——not the whole Muslim community.

[Beef Oven!]

That is how I see the cartoons - mocking the clerics and imams who preach their distorted views of Islam. As for the crime of blasphemy, the French laws on this were repealed after the Revolution and then briefly reinstated during the 1880s. However, they still exist in Alsace-Lorraine as a hangover from territory changes due to WW1 and some Islamic groups have tried, and failed, to get those laws amended to include them. France, of course, like the UK has Hate Crime Laws.

In 2006 when Charlie Hebdo released the issue which featured cartoons pertinent to Islam, including some from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. A Muslim organization initiated criminal proceedings against Philippe Val, editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, for insulting a group of people because of their religion. In March 2007, the court of first instance acquitted Val. The first court of appeal confirmed the lower court's judgment on the ground that the cartoons targeted only terrorists or fundamentalists——not the whole Muslim community.

Somehow I didn't see ff's post - thanks.

They don't appear to be the crass offensive bile that some posters say they are. And they don't appear to be racist.

[Richard Barrett]

You say that "political satire is alive & well in Britain". Where might that be exactly, apart from the heroic but minority-interest pages of Private Eye ? There are no mainstream outlets worth the name which poke fun at our lords & masters -- how could Boris survive otherwise ? Yours appears to be the cast of mind which views anything hard-hitting as "crass"

Firstly, you seem to know nothing about my "cast of mind" but please rest assured that I am fully aware of what is "hard-hitting" and what is "crass".

Secondly, you mention "poking fun at our lords and masters" but actually here we are not talking about lords and masters but an impoverished minority with very little political influence, the subject of institutionalised restrictions (eg. on clothing) and racism, and in many cases (including the present one) the children of a generation brutalised by eight years of colonial war. Which once more is not to say that French Muslims have any right to go around killing people. FF, yes it is about how you read the satire, and in this case it's surely about how French Muslims are overwhelmingly likely to read it. A maxim attributed to H L Mencken states that good journalism should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". Neither Charlie Hebdo nor the outlets which in the aftermath of the massacres have reprinted its cartoons can be said to be doing this surely.

Thirdly, when I say satire in the UK is not dead, I'm not just referring to Private Eye (a "minority interest" which nevertheless has a typical print run almost four times that of Charlie Hebdo) but to numerous cartoonists working for national outlets, notably Steve Bell; satirical comedians such as Stewart Lee; online publications like the Daily Mash; and so on.

[french frank]

Getting back to the more general point which a couple of people have made - that, as was the message of the Sacco cartoons, the important thing is to build a world where people, no matter what their differences, can live peaceably together: it seems to me that that does imply universal acceptance of certain principles - or human rights, doesn't it? It's easy to say, but when one blames the West for their armed interference, let's, for the sake of argument, agree that these atrocities are 'justified' retaliation by fundamentalists. What about their massacre of Yasidis and Shia Muslims, and their culture which gives few rights to their own women? And some might say that this was where the trouble began ...

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Getting back to the more general point which a couple of people have made - that, as was the message of the Sacco cartoons, the important thing is to build a world where people, no matter what their differences, can live peaceably together: it seems to me that that does imply universal acceptance of certain principles - or human rights, doesn't it? It's easy to say, but when one blames the West for their armed interference, let's, for the sake of argument, agree that these atrocities are 'justified' retaliation by fundamentalists. What about their massacre of Yasidis and Shia Muslims, and their culture which gives few rights to their own women? And some might say that this was where the trouble began ...

On which note, this makes interesting reading:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ian-morris-one-day-the-madness-of-islamist-violence-will-come-to-an-end-9967725.html

[Richard Barrett]

On which note, this makes interesting reading:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/co...d-9967725.html

A very selective view of history IMO.

[ardcarp]

A maxim attributed to H L Mencken states that good journalism should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". Neither Charlie Hebdo nor the outlets which in the aftermath of the massacres have reprinted its cartoons can be said to be doing this surely.

Not sure The Sun, The Daily Mail nor indeed more august journals would have 'comfort the afflicted' as a mission statement either.

[Beef Oven!]

Getting back to the more general point which a couple of people have made - that, as was the message of the Sacco cartoons, the important thing is to build a world where people, no matter what their differences, can live peaceably together: it seems to me that that does imply universal acceptance of certain principles - or human rights, doesn't it? It's easy to say, but when one blames the West for their armed interference, let's, for the sake of argument, agree that these atrocities are 'justified' retaliation by fundamentalists. What about their massacre of Yasidis and Shia Muslims, and their culture which gives few rights to their own women? And some might say that this was where the trouble began ...

Indeed it would require the acceptance of universal principles. IMV, those principles must be those of the enlightenment. Freedom, liberty, equality and justice - which were developed for the purpose.

[aeolium]

Getting back to the more general point which a couple of people have made - that, as was the message of the Sacco cartoons, the important thing is to build a world where people, no matter what their differences, can live peaceably together: it seems to me that that does imply universal acceptance of certain principles - or human rights, doesn't it? It's easy to say, but when one blames the West for their armed interference, let's, for the sake of argument, agree that these atrocities are 'justified' retaliation by fundamentalists. What about their massacre of Yasidis and Shia Muslims, and their culture which gives few rights to their own women? And some might say that this was where the trouble began ...

The problem is that there are important areas where there seems to be a complete dislocation between the values of secular Western states and fundamentalist Islam. We should be clear that the recent killings are not the deranged acts of psychopaths but the logical application of sharia principles. After all, if the cartoonists had published (or attempted to publish) their work in an Islamic state it would almost certainly have been a capital offence. Many states in which Islam is the dominant or official religion now operate some form of sharia law of varying degrees of severity. In Saudi Arabia, they operate an uncodified system of sharia law in which the judges are not even bound by precedent, so the law is literally what the state and its judges decide. And under sharia there are severe restrictions of expression and behaviour as well as savage punishments. The fate of women and gays is not to be envied, either: since all adult women have to have a close male relative as a guardian, Human Rights Watch has considered their status to be little more than that of a minor. Gays are theoretically liable to be executed if discovered, though flogging and imprisonment has been more common. The position of women in education is far worse in Islamic countries than in non-Islamic ones and in some places there is violent opposition to girls being educated at all (as was seen with the shooting of Malala Yousafsai). And this form of strict sharia law is present, to a large extent, in much of the Middle East and some states in Africa and Indonesia. The use of sharia courts is also becoming more common in other more moderate states.

So when we think of the Islamic resistance movements - al-Quaeda, Islamic Jihad, IS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and many others - as extreme manifestations of Islam, we should look at the more mainstream examples of Islamic states to see that what these resistance movements are calling for, the implementation of strict systems of sharia law, are in fact little more than what is already in place in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Sudan, Mauritania, Pakistan. And it is these fundamentalist versions of Islam that seem to have an attraction for at least some Muslims in the West.

That there are other, more tolerant and more progressive, strains within Islam is not to be doubted, but unless they can be given greater voice here and internationally the prospect for good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims is not good.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What upsets me about Islam is that it seems a great vehicle for males with monster egos.

I don't think Islam has a monopoly on this by any means,

Indeed.

and let's also remember that there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, a very small proportion of whom use it as an excuse for hatred and violence.

Yes - and I'll hazard a guess that for Oddy and everyone else on the Forum, there is greater every day evidence that Islam is far more a great vehicle for males and females with a fascination with medicine.