FranceBleuLoireOcéan @bleuloireocean · 15 hours ago
5h20 ce mercredi : plus aucun #CharlieHebdo au kiosque de la gare de #Nantes. Les 106 exemplaires sont partis en 5′5:20 a.m. this Wednesday: not a single #CharlieHebdo left at the newsagent’s at Nantes station. The 106 copies were gone in 5 minutes.
I like that photo because you can see how CH is still all over all the papers. I especially like the cover of Libération.
Encouraging, but will the current support for Hebdo stand the test of time, or will many people revert to their usual Dhimmi position under the camouflage of ‘anti-Islamophobia’ or ‘anti-racism’?
Here’s a scan of the issue if, like me, you can’t get a copy:
http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2015/01/14/charlie_hebdo.pdf
*reading*
My french is scratchy at best, but the editorial is worth reading. I’m sure my translation isn’t great, but I think accurate enough….
(Pardon my lack of accents in typing this out)
Secularism full stop (period for yanks)…It alone permits, ironically, believers and others, to live in peace. All that try to defend muslims by accepting the totalitarian religious discourse defend in fact their executioners. The first victims of islamic fascism, are muslims.
That made me smile too Ophelia.
too, not to. Do’h. I shouldn’t have watched the lastest Dumb and dumber…
No one should ever watch that.
A cartoon on page 10 – two scowling gunmen next to a smoking ruin – “That’s 2000 subscribers Charlie Hebdo won’t have.”
Another cartoon says “Je suis Charlie, mais…”
A bit off topic, last night I was watching a Beeb commedy chat show, hosted by an Aussie, in which he said he wouldn’t show Charlie Hebdo cartoons because he wasn’t going to show things that were culturally upsetting to anybody. He has made a career taking the piss (in a gentle manner) from christians/bigots and assorted sacred cows, but suddenly would never show anything that wouldn’t cause offense. It might have been because it was on the beeb, but was pissweak. I think less of Adam Hills now. He could have been honest….
Ugh. What is “culturally upsetting” even supposed to mean?
Ophelia, I’m trying out a simple algorithm to help people with the issue of taking offense. No doubt it will offend some.
http://pictoraltheology.blogspot.com/2015/01/f-vous-extremists.html
I’m just amazed that there doesn’t generally seem to be an indication that there might be a reasoned and legitimate basis for some upset or offense, while other upset or offense can’t be defended, and that a serious evaluation could be done. These people regularly show images of nonhuman animals being killed, hacked up, cooked, and consumed.* I can provide a reasoned explanation of how offensive that is on the basis of fundamental humanist principles. But those images aren’t even questioned, while people’s claims that some images offend them for silly and oppressive reasons are taken seriously.
* Not, in our culture, dogs and cats. Those images wouldn’t be shown or would be proceeded by a warning. For reasons.
I got an idea, Benson.
Both of us are seeing Charlie Hebdo through the filter of other people, in small snippets they found notable for whatever reason. The best way to assess the racism/sexism/etc. of Charlie Hebdo is to read it, in the raw. And while I haven’t been paying much attention to your recent articles, I think you know how to read French.
So: how about I chip in some funds towards a Charlie Hebdo subscription for you? If the paper truly is X-ist, you’ll certainly pick up on it by the end of 52 issues and you’ll have learned it on your own from an unbiased source. If the paper is not, then I’ve handed you a peace offering to smooth over any bad feelings between us.
You’re under no obligation to report back on your reading, as that would put pressure on you to decide one way or the other, and the same thinking applies both to when you get the subscription and when it runs out. There’s exactly one condition for my donation, and it’s that it goes to a Charlie Hebdo subscription. No more, no less.
Deal?
[meta]
Hj Hornbeck to Ophelia:
You having made this offer on the comments here (a public site) rather than by email or similar private means already puts such pressure on her whatever her response (or lack of it).
The best way to assess the racism/sexism/etc. of Charlie Hebdo is to read it, in the raw.
You’re right.
I qualify for the “people of colour” label, I’m French and I have been either a regular or a casual (depending) reader of Charlie Hebdo for several years since its rebirth in 1992. I stopped reading it when Philippe Val got his feet in the outlet management because of the resulting change in the gross editorial line (which did not change the general philosophy of the journal collaborators by the way). I did not read back as a regular when he left, and that is purely coincidental to a growing indifference to general politics from my side.
This stands as a declaration of interests and is an honest assessment of my potential biases.
You asked Ophelia for something I am not ashame to declare direct and historical expertise to.
From my own experience, Charlie Hebdo is not guilty of the charges you or other claimed.
It’s not guilty of racism.
It’s not guilty of homophobia.
It’s not guilty of sexism, but see further below.
In the same lines, based of my own authoritative expertise, Charlie Hebdo is guilty of publishing lame cartoons from times to times, but to its defense Charlie Hebdo is more than a comic book, it is also a journal proposing to litterate readers very interesting, deep and outstanding analyses of French political news that are aimed at furthering debates on issues that are traditionally overlooked if not dismissed by the French society at large, among which in no specific order –issues about basic rights and individual freedoms, state control and law enforcement practices (with special emphasis on immigrants harassment), social justice and equal opportunities, racism, press freedom and censorship, secularism and humanism, and much more…
In the same lines, based of my own authoritative expertise, Charlie Hebdo is guilty of usual obscenity, which was probably one of the pillar of its original fundation during the 60’s and further 70’s. Given that propensity for publishing raw and detailed sexual organs and sexual tools and people in non-traditional sexual positions including same sex performances, and given the internal bias toward maleness in the permanent collaborating staff, it is possible and probable that sexist cartoons have bypassed editorial control and have been published in the decades of its existence, despite the general anti-sexist base position of the journal. In my opinion, anti-sexism is the weakest political activity the journal was committed to, but it still regularly and strongly mocked traditional gender roles in society.
As a conclusive remark, Charlie Hebdo always despised thought police, censors of any kinds. Oh yeah, and the usual jerks.
Based on my quite uncomplete record of your own interests, my personal opinion is that you should stop obcessing with Charlie Hebdo and accept that this outlet is not and probably will never be for you.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/920658947952567/?type=1&theater
stewart, well done.
Meanwhile, in France:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/14/377201227/controversial-french-comedian-arrested-over-facebook-post-on-paris-attacks
Ugghh – Dieudonné is horrible.
Thanks, SC. I didn’t feel that she’d said everything she really meant, so I tried to flesh out her remarks a little.
Hj @ 13 – that whole comment is so bizarre I don’t even know how to answer it.