If Enlightenment Values Are Too Upsetting To You, Stay In Tents Back In The Desert
Charlie Hebdo, a French publication, has made use of freedom of expression to publish cartoons mocking Mohammed and Islam.
The last time they did this, their offices were firebombed.
Who is reponsible for any violence that happens? No, not Charlie Hebdo or those who are behind it.
Nicholas Vinocur writes for Reuters:
The editor of French magazine Charlie Hebdo has said that when his magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by portraying him naked in cartoons, he and his organization were not responsible for fuelling the anger of Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a video depicting him as a lecherous fool. The editor, Stephane Charbonnier, also known as Charb, rejected criticism. "We have the impression that it's officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental Islamists," he said."It shows the climate. Everyone is driven by fear, and that is exactly what this small handful of extremists who do not represent anyone want: to make everyone afraid, to shut us all in a cave," he told Reuters.
"Muhammad isn't sacred to me," he said in an interview at the weekly's offices on the northeast edge of Paris. "I don't blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law; I don't live under Koranic law."
Charbonnier said he had no regrets and felt no responsibility for any violence.
"I'm not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs," he said. "We've had 1,000 issues and only three problems, all after front pages about radical Islam."
Blog item, Google-translated from the French, via Crid, with the cartoons poking fun of Islam and Mohammed at the bottom.
If you blog, do as I've done and share some of these cartoons. Refuse to knuckle under to primitive thuggery meant to make all of us too afraid to avail ourselves of the free expression that is a fundamental part of free, modern, Western societies.
We cannot give into terrorists or the religion of terrorism otherwise known as "the religion of peace," which is really not a religion at all but a totalitarian system driven by a book, to be taken literally as the word of god, that commands the death or conversion of "the infidel," and the installation of The New Caliphate around the globe.
Sound like a good idea to you? Or you think maybe we should hang on to our free speech and other rights and not give in to the demands of terrorists riding planes and clutching iPhones?
I agree that criticizing the prophet or God or founder of any religion is something that needs to remain legal, no matter how tasteless.
Seen the youtube clip? Awful. So awful I want to start a riot. I will never get those 10 minutes of my life back. Worst. Movie. Ever. EVER!!!!!!!!! I want to wash my eyeballs with soap!
On another note, turns out the guy who was arrested in the middle of the night was on probation and not allowed to use the internet without his parole officer's ok, and the movie may have been in violation of that.
NicoleK at September 20, 2012 2:05 AM
My religion is offended by political ads. Can we ban them too, or does this give me an excuse to burn my local TV station down?
DrCos at September 20, 2012 4:18 AM
NicoleK,
a critique of the movie is irrelevant and helps what is wrong with this whole situation. Innocent people were killed, leaders of our country are knuckling under what could be the most glaringly backward logic possible, and throngs of muslims (far too many of whom have beyond "awful" words/signs and actions) are going mindlessly haywire.
But please don't let me get in the way of putting out the word about how bad this movie is and how the maker of it is on parole (and should be in jail! now). It glosses over the truth and awful reality, but it sure helps forward the warped politics behind it.
TW at September 20, 2012 4:27 AM
> not allowed to use the internet without his
> parole officer's ok, and the movie may have
> been in violation of that.
Don't care. Deeply don't care.
And anyway, raises more questions than it could ever answer... "not allowed to use the internet without his parole officer's ok" Dubyoo Tee Eff?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 20, 2012 5:16 AM
He was hardly arrested in the middle of the night, no make that asked to voluntarily come in for questioning in the middle of the night, for violation of his parole.
Don't insult my intelligence. Nobody except a rabid Democrat partisan hack will buy that explanation. At mdnight. With the press conveniently on hand.
No.
MarkD at September 20, 2012 5:37 AM
Golden.
Our president thinks he can revise the design of our flag for his own essentially financial purposes. The result is childlike, egotistical, and composed in a style of art called "distressed".
No finer metaphor.
Anyone notice that no matter how badly Romney campaigns, he's still neck & neck with Obama.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 20, 2012 6:26 AM
Re Nic: I will never understand how people could think these events have anything to do with this movie or the man who made it.
Never.
Never.
Never.
Never.
Never.
I think it's essentially racism. No matter how badly these primitives behave, you want to regard them as robots incapable of decency, as if they have no choice but to riot and murder. Perhaps you imagine that this will make it easier to sleep on the night that you kill them.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 20, 2012 6:29 AM
I don't care if the "movie" this is supposedly all about was a porn send-up of the Koran. It doesn't justify violence. A movie is just a movie. I am really sick of the media making this thing out to be the worst thing ever to be made, as if it justifies the reaction.
And honestly, I don't believe it had much at all to do with these riots. I think the fact that all this started around 9/11 is much more telling than a small film/trailer that no one had ever heard of.
cornerdemon at September 20, 2012 6:30 AM
Paying tribute to terrorists doesn't work. It never has and never will. Of course, it works just fine for the terrorists.
BarSinister at September 20, 2012 6:33 AM
OK, I may have been harsh on Nicole. In this instance. Sorry, I feel bad.
But LORD this pisses me off. It's like the next blog item, where Shannon thinks the problem is that the school has a public relations issue.
In both cases, the foolish people argue that we shouldn't upset people or risk any kind of conflict.
We weren't put on this world to avoid conflict.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 20, 2012 6:44 AM
"And anyway, raises more questions than it could ever answer... "not allowed to use the internet without his parole officer's ok" Dubyoo Tee Eff?"
It's a clause that a lot of states routinely put into the boilerplate of their parole conditions, and it's just as routinely ignored. As far as I know, around here the only parolees who have their Internet usage monitored are sex offenders, and even that isn't done all the time.
"And honestly, I don't believe it had much at all to do with these riots. I think the fact that all this started around 9/11 is much more telling than a small film/trailer that no one had ever heard of. "
The White House is finally admitting today what was obvious to everyone else, which is that it was a planned terrorist attack. The attackers had a lot of intel on the ambassador's schedule for that day, and where safe houses were located. They also had rocket launchers and RPGs. Apparently there is evidence that someone who was relesaed from Gitmo last year was involved in planning it.
Cousin Dave at September 20, 2012 6:44 AM
And BTW: Those Charlie Hebdo staffers have brass balls. Including the women.
Cousin Dave at September 20, 2012 6:47 AM
the guy who was arrested in the middle of the night was on probation and not allowed to use the internet without his parole officer's ok, and the movie may have been in violation of that
So why arrest him in the middle of night? think his parole officer was present during his, ummm, interrogation?
Let me jog your memory:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech
Since when does being on parole limit your freedom of speech?
I R A Darth Aggie at September 20, 2012 7:16 AM
Here are the English translations for the cartoons. As with the movie, they are lame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U56q428amN0
Eric at September 20, 2012 8:41 AM
It's a clause that a lot of states routinely put into the boilerplate of their parole conditions, and it's just as routinely ignored. As far as I know, around here the only parolees who have their Internet usage monitored are sex offenders, and even that isn't done all the time.
In this guy's case, I think it had to do with the fact that his wire fraud conviction used the internet so he needs to stay off. Either way, a midnight "invitation" to come downtown is egregiously abusive of the system and our rights under it.
Astra at September 20, 2012 8:55 AM
Honestly, for me it's a toss up.
There are movies that have been made that people should be arrested for having made.
Anything with pod racing.
jerry at September 20, 2012 9:00 AM
> Anything with pod racing.
Anything with an Evil Twin.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 20, 2012 9:18 AM
But please don't let me get in the way of putting out the word about how bad this movie is and how the maker of it is on parole (and should be in jail! now). It glosses over the truth and awful reality, but it sure helps forward the warped politics behind it.
***
On the contrary, TW, the fact that he is on parole is important because a few posts back we were all (myself included) freaking out that the police went to his home.
Police going to someone's home for posting a film is freaky.
Police going to someone's home to see if they violated parole, less so.
NicoleK at September 20, 2012 9:47 AM
Crid makes up things that I said:
Re Nic: I will never understand how people could think these events have anything to do with this movie or the man who made it.
No matter how badly these primitives behave, you want to regard them as robots incapable of decency, as if they have no choice but to riot and murder. Perhaps you imagine that this will make it easier to sleep on the night that you kill them.
***
Um excuse me? Where did I say that the people had no choice but to riot or murder? Where did I make any comment saying the riots weren't linked to the movies?
Way to totally invent a script for me Crid.
Let me rephrase what I said:
1st paragraph) Tasteless free speech should be legal.
2nd paragraph) The movie was hilariously awful, though.
(Note: the results were not hilarious. The movie was. So don't now say I said the riots were hilarious.)
3rd paragraph) The cops showing up may be less sinister than we originally thought, as the terms of his parole involved limited internet use.
AND I ALSO DIDN'T SAY THE FILMMAKER SHOULD BE IN JAIL.
NicoleK at September 20, 2012 9:53 AM
IRA, a lot of rights get suspended upon convictions. I believe in a lot of places convicts can't vote, for example.
NicoleK at September 20, 2012 9:57 AM
"IRA, a lot of rights get suspended upon convictions. I believe in a lot of places convicts can't vote, for example."
Sadly, they can, and did, in Minnesota. Senator ....., can't even type his name with Senator in front of it. And to think I moved here on purpose.
Dave B at September 20, 2012 10:39 AM
I look at these movies and cartoons as bait and regret that we are not using them to eliminate the vermin (no offense meant to vermin).
Dave B at September 20, 2012 10:43 AM
NicholeK - Rights that get suspended upon convictions are limited when you are on parole, otherwise, they should be in jail.
It's all realitive. A drunk driving charge might mean loss or suspension of license. It might mean you are not allowed to drink. You have to pay to go to drunk driving school...you might even have forced community service detail... maybe random piss tests. But a drunk driving conviction, shouldn't limit your right to - say, walk within 50 yards of an elementary school? Or use the internet?
"I believe in a lot of places convicts can't vote, for example."
Umm. That would be all fifty states....for *felons*.
Feebie at September 20, 2012 10:48 AM
Apparently except Minnesota.
NicoleK at September 20, 2012 11:02 AM
Feebie, I believe it was because he used the internet in his initial crimes. I have a hard time figuring out how internet use would relate directly to the crime of drunk driving.
NicoleK at September 20, 2012 11:03 AM
"Apparently except Minnesota."
NicoleK - Feebie meant legally. If, you are a democrat you can vote in most states even if you are dead or a felon.
Dave B at September 20, 2012 11:11 AM
> Crid makes up things that I said:
Only sometimes, not today.
Y'know, I think of all the shit that's on YouTube, and how a fanatical Muslim would judge all of it, including the clips from children... And I just can't understand why anyone has any interest in the person who made this "movie" whatsoever.
Y'know that clip of your 11-year-old daughter in a tube top at the family re-union in 2009, the one where she's cutting a piece of pie for your Grandad while he's laughing at Delores' joke about American Idol? How do you think primitive Islam would feel about that clip?
I don't understand. I don't understand. I don't understand. I don't understand. I don't understand. I don't understand how people could think this is about the movie maker.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 20, 2012 11:25 AM
Right, I am sickened that I even have to qualify my statement with a "legally".
Minnesota is just a hop, skip and jump from me. I like shopping there. No retail tax on clothes - and gas is generally cheaper. :-)
Feebie at September 20, 2012 11:52 AM
I have been on probation twice for different misdemeanor causes (mostly because I didn't have the money to pay off the fine on the date I pleaded guilty to the conviction). The probation/parole officers (PO) had about ten-fifteen different sheets in their bins that said these are the rule for you and your "crime".
In one of them it said nothing about possession of firearms, but nothing about alcohol. In the other it said nothing about alcohol, but had restrictions on firearms possession.
Apparently this guy did his crime via the internet, so that was the restriction in it.
Now to get to his questioning.
The Khaki shirts showed up at his place very late in the evening to take him in for polite questioning for a non-violent offense. His arrival at the police station was recorded by numerous photographers. They had no evidence that he had purposely violated his probation.
Even when you are on parole/probation you still have at least limited 4th/5th amendment rights. Your PO has a right to search your possessions, but other law enforcement still needs a search warrant unless the PO is with them. You still have a right to due process, a lawyer, and against self-incrimination.
Most times that a probationer is involved in a situation that is not time sensitive, the PO will contact them and say they need to come in within X days, or at a time that is in normal office hours. If they don't respond then a bench warrant will be issued.
To say that this was normal is to say that searching an 80 year old's diapers by the TSA should be normal.
Jim P. at September 20, 2012 7:58 PM
Leave a comment