Hebdo Founder Thinks Editor Went To Far + Anti-Antisemitism Firing

[Shiranu]

http://rt.com/news/222899-charlie-hebdo-roussel-obs/

A founder of Charlie Hebdo has condemned the murdered editor Stephane Charbonnier of “dragging the team” to their deaths by overdoing the satirical magazine’s provocative cartoons.

Roussel, who writes under the pen name Delfeil de Ton, said that Charbonnier was an “amazing lad,” but also an obstinate “blockhead.”

“What made him feel the need to drag the team into overdoing it?” he asked, referring to the 2011 Mohammed cartoons.

“I believe that we are fools who took an unnecessary risk,” Roussel wrote. “That’s it. We think we are invulnerable. For years, decades even, it was a provocation and then one day the provocation turns against us.”

“Charb did it again a year later, in September 2012,” Roussel added, using Charbonnier’s nickname.

“I have refused to speak to the TV and radio, to everyone. I kept my message for Obs, and I am not prepared to open this subject again,” Le Monde quoted Roussel as saying.

Funny, I thought I wasn't a "Charlie"... and yet here is an original "Charlie" saying something far harsher than anything I did... weird...

Philippe Val, a previous Charlie Hebdo editor, fired cartoonist Maurice Sine over a drawing that depicted the marriage of Nicolas Sarkozy’s son, Jean, to a Jewish retailing heiress. Val said the drawing was anti-Semitic.

Wait a minute... I thought only Muslim criticism was silenced? What the hell is going on here... THE SAINT of Freedom of Speech, "Charlie", fired someone for an anti-Semitic cartoon... wait, maybe anti-Semitic means "Islam" and "Jewish" means "Muslim". That has to be it...

[dtq123]

Murder was way too far. Seriously.

[Solitary]

How anyone can criticizes cartoons or satire, and not retaliation by murder, including the Pope, is beyond me.  They take their beliefs way too serious. Solitary

[baronvonrort]

The guy who was fired by Charlie sued them and received a good payout.

Ch have been sued a few times

[Shiranu]

How anyone can criticizes cartoons or satire, and not retaliation by murder, including the Pope, is beyond me.  They take their beliefs way too serious. Solitary

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[physicist]

I know the disscussion can easily be deflected to political or financial  issues ..........or just simply  advertisement motivations.I do not think it is wise to be going that way , at least not for now while every bosy is still  in grief.

I once heard one of their editors say : ''Let's keep drawing Mahommet again and again, we will reach a point where it will become normal''.
I believe what Charlie hebdo did was wrong.Why?
I am not against drawing mahomet in princible  ( i am atheist!) in fact I BLAME that personality for the invention of an unecessary other religion (plus some other things that a big book is enough to write down).
BUT,
When wa are in a situatiion where 1billion man and woman are all muslims who live in 3rd world, with low educational systems, poverty, dominance of religious leaders, conservative communities (some very conservative),war on terrorism era, wzestern Occupation to many Muslim countries and threats to possible attacks on other muslim countries .................When we are in similar situation is it wise to draw Mahomet?.Mahomet is the only personality in Islam which is strictly not to be pictured by orders from Mahomet him self and no status were made for him nor pictures.These people (muslims) have traditions just like the west has the tradition of free speech.We should act wisely.
For the death of the 4 jewish innocent people I blame Charlie Hebdo frankly because Charlie did'nt endanger the life of it's staff only but also the life of every french citizen.
Charlie could criticise but in a manner that they should have studied before. You can no change Muslims from the outside, if they do not draw ...............if you draw for 1000 years it only cause them come and ''revenge'' as they say.

What worries me is that Charlie decided to publish 3 million copy instead of the usual 60.000 !.It is a challeneg to the terrorists and in my point of view it is a stupid challenege.And I  wish that this move is'nt motivated by money revenue. This way we only challenge  a very old tradition of one billion person and guess what? if we take the challenge to the upper level (from 60.000 to 3 million copy) we should expect terrorrists to take their attacks to the NEXT LEVEL!!!!!

This kind of acts make national security in danger only.

Again I give all the respect to every life that was waisted that black day, freedom of speech is a right and a must . 

[Jmpty]

If you poke a hornets nest with a stick enough times, you are going to get stung.

[Jmpty]

How anyone can criticizes cartoons or satire, and not retaliation by murder, including the Pope, is beyond me.  They take their beliefs way too serious. Solitary

Yes, yes they do. Should this fact not be considered?

[PickelledEggs]

If you poke a hornets nest with a stick enough times, you are going to get stung.

You need to sedate them and move them to a place where they can't harm you.

I'm sure that is a metaphor that can mean something. not yet exactly sure though. Something to do with educating them without being a belligerent and provoking asshole.

IDK, guys. I'm tired and can't complete the thought. I'll finish it tomorrow... or maybe one of you guys can think of something before I wake up

[pr126]

Free speech is never a license to denigrate a religion.

Unless it is Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Bahai, Jain, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Confucian, Tao, Scientology.

Only the One True Religion ^TM is exempt from all criticism, mockery, questioning or debate in any form whatsoever.

You have been warned.

Not that any of this has to do with Islam.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

When we are in similar situation is it wise to draw Mahomet?. Mahomet is the only personality in Islam which is strictly not to be pictured by orders from Mahomet him self and no status were made for him nor pictures.

As far as I'm aware, pictures aren't actually haram in the Qur'an, but idols (statues) are.  Is it a case, like so many, where hadith has been invoked rather than the Qur'an itself?  Much like alcohol - it's disapproved of in the Qur'an, but only when one comes to read some of the hadith does it become specifically haram.  I'm wondering if the picture thing is similar....

Again I give all the respect to every life that was waisted that black day, freedom of speech is a right and a must . 

I agree.  However, even in the west the right to free speech is often dependent upon who it is who is doing the speaking.  It's noticeable that in France, the wheels of the free speech bus have suddenly come off....

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7545501/dieudonne-charlie-hebdo-arrest

Days after free-speech rally, France arrests a comedian for this Facebook post

After the Charlie Hebdo killings, people around the world united in the name of free speech. But now, according to a Wednesday report in The Guardian, French authorities arrested virulently anti-Semitic comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala for a Facebook post â€" one that appears to sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo attackers.
Dieudonné has a long history of provocation â€" he's been arrested at least 38 times for violating French hate-speech laws. His routines are replete with anti-Semitic jokes and songs. He claims that Jewish "slave drivers" secretly run France and has said that "the big crooks of the planet are all Jews." So this Facebook post allegedly sympathizing with the Charlie Hebdo attackers is pretty par for the course. Here's the full text of the now-deleted Facebook post that prompted his most recent arrest, translated by the non-profit Index on Censorship:
After this historic march what do I say...Legendary. Instant magic equal to the Big Bang that created the universe. To a lesser extent (more local) comparable to the coronation of Vercingétorix, I finally returned home. You know that tonight as far as I'm concerned I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.
Most of the post appears to be supportive of the free-speech march in Paris that happened on Sunday. But one line â€" "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly" â€" is different. Dieudonné is mashing up Charlie Hebdo with Amedy Coulibaly, the man whose attack on a Kosher supermarket on January 9 was coordinated with the assault on Charlie Hebdo. Dieudonné appears to be saying that he sympathizes both with free-speech advocates and a killer who targeted Jews. Under Article 421-2-5 of the French Criminal code, condoning terrorism is a crime â€" one punishable by up to a â,¬100,000 fine and seven years imprisonment.
As repellent as Dieudonné clearly is, his arrest seems like rank hypocrisy. How can the French government mouth stirring words about free speech at the same time that it's arresting someone for a kind of oblique Facebook post?
From a certain French point of view, this is too simple. The French legal tradition doesn't protect unrestricted free speech in the way that its American cousin does. Per the New York Times, speech that defames the humanity of a group or community can be restricted in France, as can speech that represents a threat to public order. Holocaust denial is banned.
Charlie Hebdo was attempting to mock religion, hatred, and racism (though the cartoons may unintentionally have reinforced prejudice directed at French Muslims). Dieudonné, by contrast, promotes hate. The French view of free speech sees those two things very differently.

You can agree or disagree with this approach to hate speech (I'm inclined towards the American view, myself). But in some ways, Dieudonné speaks to its limits on its own terms. The comedian employs subtle jokes and allusions â€" many of them specific cultural references â€" that manage to get his point across without directly running afoul of French speech laws. So far, none of the charges against him have really stuck.

more at the link

Dieudonne is widely regarded as a card-carrying asshole, but is he entitled to the same 'rights' as anyone else regardless?

It's noticeable that the word 'responsibility' has been largely absent from mainstream discussion of this topic in the media etc.  I guess we have to be aware of the fact that when discussion of religion and archaic belief happens, we're rarely dealing with sane individuals....

[Shiranu]

Is it a case, like so many, where hadith has been invoked rather than the Qur'an itself? 

Yes.

A few pictures of him before the hadith gained as much following as it does now...









I am not sure how I feel about Dieudonné's case... "freedom of speech" does not have to mean unlimited freedom, and by the laws of France he did break the law. I am not necessarily a proponent either that ANYTHING can be said without repercussion. I think the punishment is perhaps too harsh, but I think fines would be an acceptable punishment.

[Jason78]

Free speech is never a license to denigrate a religion.

Unless it is Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Bahai, Jain, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Confucian, Tao, Scientology.

Only the One True Religion ^TM is exempt from all criticism, mockery, questioning or debate in any form whatsoever.

Philippe Val, a previous Charlie Hebdo editor, fired cartoonist Maurice Sine over a drawing that depicted the marriage of Nicolas Sarkozy’s son, Jean, to a Jewish retailing heiress. Val said the drawing was anti-Semitic.

[pr126]

My point was that there is no danger to life by criticising or debating other beliefs.

Maurice Sine did not suffer  bodily harm nor he was threathened by homicidal Jews.

[Shiranu]

My point was that there is no danger to life by criticising or debating other beliefs.

Maurice Sine did not suffer  bodily harm nor he was threathened by homicidal Jews.

Oh?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/05/yes-a-christian-shot-and-killed-an-atheist-but-theres-more-to-the-story/

http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/

http://www.examiner.com/article/soldier-shot-and-killed-for-being-an-atheist







I think Islam has a monopoly on the whole "kill the nonbeliever" schtick though, yeah?

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Oh. Well, at least Christians don't persecute and kill other religious groups because they chose the wrong sect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/09/radical-right-wing-christians-who-supported-the-iraq-war-want-to-convert-deport-and-kill-muslims/

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_far_right_terrorism_partner/

Well, I'm sure Christians would never kill innocent Muslims after a terrorist attack, this whole "call to be calm" is just good ol' panic, gotta' protect dem Muslim scum nonsense!

http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/01/killing-of-muslim-eritrean-refugee-in-dresden-exposes-racial-tensions-in-germany/

http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/01/moroccan-man-in-france-killed-at-home-in-front-of-wife-in-horrible-islamophobic-attack/



------

OBLIGATORY: "But... but, why are you bringing up Christianity, we are talking about Islam!".

Free speech is never a license to denigrate a religion.

Unless it is Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Bahai, Jain, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Confucian, Tao, Scientology.

Only the One True Religion TM is exempt from all criticism, mockery, questioning or debate in any form whatsoever.

Ohhh, right... "We are only talking about Islam" only applies when it's convenient to you. When it's to try (and utterly fail) to prove your point, then that rule no longer applies to you. Got it.

----

By the way, you misspelled Obama's name in your signature. I realise in your zeal to get to Hussein to prove he is a terrorist you left out the "C" (Barack"), but you really should be a bit more careful next time. And he is the second, so if you are going to spell out his whole name you should spell it, "Barack Hussein Obama II".

Just a little friendly advice, I hate to see your message fall on deaf ears thanks to it's hypocrisy and lack of attention to very basic details.