Charb’s last cartoon

charb

Saying, I think, Everyone in France should wait, for at the end of January I will deliver your present.

Those who actually have some facility with the French language are invited to improve that.

 

38 comments on “Charb’s last cartoon

  1. The Islamic terrorists are only doing a faster and bloodier version of what Western governments are trying to do by gradually, by stealth.

  2. Headline: Still no attacks in France
    Speech: Wait! We* have until the end of January to present our wishes.

    *Using “one” for “we”, which is common in French.

  3. Ritchie:

    “I have never read a copy of Charlie Hebdo but I do write for a living, and am considered controversial by some. That gives me a small insight into what it feels like to be vilified for holding honest opinion”

    Twat.

  4. Noel Scoper – “Twat.”

    Go on. You made that up. He can’t be such a nuclear waste grade c*nt.

  5. I think this is a good example of what troubles me about reproducing the Hebdo cartoons.

    I can understand news organisations reproducing them to explain the story; and many of them have not, some I expect out of cowardice.

    But individuals doing it is more complicated. If you don’t know what they’re saying, it’s a bit like being the converse of the mobs in the Middle East who got irate and violent when they were first published without even knowing what was in them.

    From what I can understand of the ones I’ve seen, they’re not funny, nor do they make any particularly deft point the way so many British cartoonists can do. (I haven’t done a wide survey, nor can I follow all the idiomatic French. Perhaps the French have the same response to New Yorker cartoons.) Some of them I find shockingly vulgar and stupidly adolescent.

    If you find them funny, or they make a point that you think pithily encapsulates what you think, then I can understand why you might want to reproduce them.

    What happened yesterday was vile and barbarous. I’m not sure the best response to that is merely to reproduce any of the cartoons. That may show a lack of fear, or seek to make a point about not being cowed, but it doesn’t seem to me the best way of conveying the principles at stake.

    Perhaps a better way to make the point is to reproduce something that you personally find deeply offensive or vile, and say that you do but that you do not think anyone should suffer any threat of violence or threat to their liberty for creating it or disseminating it.

  6. Ritchie really said that? Drawing an equivalence between his anti-freedom sprays and the pro-freedom Charlie? That is twattery of the fractal kind.

    What next? Richard Madeley telling anyone who’ll listen that he understands the courage of the Charlie cartoonists as he has suffered exactly the same vilification?

  7. Always amused to see the Tox Dadger, so many of whose writers are firm opponents of free speech, pretending to be horrified by an attack of free speech. And no doubt Cameron, Merkel, Obama, and all other such twats.

    Meantime, our police will harass you for making feeble jokes or flying the St George’s cross. Fuckers.

  8. Will H
    The political cartoon in Aujourd’hui isn’t bad. The rest are too feeble to be worth a groan.
    As I said yesterday, Charlie’s humour is so juvenile the murderers should be done for infanticide.
    As for the comic strip (BD), if that is one of the glories of French culture, France is fucked.

  9. dearieme – “And no doubt Cameron, Merkel, Obama, and all other such twats.”

    Cameron, it should be remembered, wants to make robust discussion of these issues illegal on blogs like this. And we have more than a few commentators here who agree with him.

    “Meantime, our police will harass you for making feeble jokes or flying the St George’s cross.”

    People have been jailed for saying that homosexuality is a sin in public. Jailed for tweets.

    But in fairness it is not the fault of the police. In the old days they even defended the Fascists right to free speech – the Battle of Cable Street was for the right of the BUF to march where they liked, and Blair Peach was killed trying to stop the National Front holding a peaceful meeting. But the police have been bullied into compliance with the Metropolitan elites.

    bloke in france – “As for the comic strip (BD), if that is one of the glories of French culture, France is fucked.”

    BHL is one of France’s leading intellectuals. It is beyond f**ked. On the other hand Michel Houellebecq has just published another novel – a gloomy bugger but someone who is willing to say more than any British author is.

  10. they’re not funny, nor do they make any particularly deft point the way so many British cartoonists can do.

    This one is superb IMO.

    Headline: If Mohammed returned.
    Mohammed (kneeling): I’m the prophet, idiot!
    Guy with knife: Shut up, infidel!

  11. SMFS

    Yes, and DSK is a respected economist…
    And his hedge fund recently went down the tubes as his partner went out the window.

  12. SMFS,

    “Cameron, it should be remembered, wants to make robust discussion of these issues illegal on blogs like this. And we have more than a few commentators here who agree with him.”

    Hollande was talking about free speech being a principle of the republic, but France has laws about even questioning the size of the crimes carried out by those convicted in the Nuremberg trials. Hypothetically, if you found a piece of evidence suggesting that someone wasn’t as guilty as was thought at the time, if you wrote about it, you’d be breaking the law.

  13. The Stigler
    Loi Gayssot named after a the communist minister. One is still free to deny soviet mass murder.
    Recently a commentator was convicted for stating on French media an undisputed fact: that a certain defined group commits a certain percentage of certain crimes.
    This authoritarian movement is endemic in the political class everywhere.

  14. @The Stigler

    One of the interesting responses I found online from muslims yesterday was a cartoon of their own which showed ‘The West’ dropping the hammer on Man X for daring the question the holocaust, with a caption saying ‘That’s a terrible crime!’ (or similar), and a second panel showing them restraining someone who looked a bit muslim from getting angry about some insult or other with a caption saying ‘That’s free speech!’ (or similar).

    I do think the hypocrisy of it would irritate me if I were of that religious disposition. Not enough to kill people, but still.

    Free speech should be absolute to the point where you encourage actual acts of violence.

    I expect any holocaust denial laws to be repealed fairly soon.

  15. “they’re not funny, nor do they make any particularly deft point the way so many British cartoonists can do.”

    Frankly, that is completely irrelevant to the issue and doesn’t matter in the slightest. They were killed for some fucking drawings. Let’s not start on their “artist merits”.

  16. Interested,

    > One of the interesting responses I found online from muslims yesterday was a cartoon of their own which showed ‘The West’ dropping the hammer on Man X for daring the question the holocaust, with a caption saying ‘That’s a terrible crime!’ (or similar), and a second panel showing them restraining someone who looked a bit muslim from getting angry about some insult or other with a caption saying ‘That’s free speech!’ (or similar).

    That is a very good point, because those jurisdictions that criminalise Holocaust denial always punish transgressors by killing them without trial.

    Telling, too, that, although we have loads of stupid restrictions on free speech, it’s always Holocaust denial they pick as an example. Wonder why that is.

  17. Will H,

    You have a point, until the killing occurs. At that moment, the cartoon ceases merely to mean what it explicitly and literally means and takes on the extra implicit meanings of support for freedom of speech and solidarity with those who exercise it.

    Obviously. Seriously, this stuff needs to be explained?

  18. Squander Two

    That’s my point. I think a better way of showing support for freedom of speech and solidarity with those who were barbarically slaughtered is to tweet, publish or publicise something you yourself find vilely offensive.

    It’s much easier to defend the right to offend if you’re not offended. I think a better way is to defend some expression of free speech you find utterly obnoxious.

    I’ve done that on Twitter with a Hebdo cartoon that I think is vile and adolescent. I wouldn’t do that ordinarily to defend free speech- I’d much rather the cartoon I retweeted didn’t exist. But this is an extraordinary moment, and the importance of the ability to be offensive without the threat of violence needs to be addressed.

  19. Will H

    You’re being obtuse. Islam’s devout followers need to understand that we will not be murdered into venerating their religion’s nauseating founder. The CH cartoons fit that bill perfectly.

  20. Interested,

    No, I was always obnoxious. However, in this case, my sarcasm was directed at whoever drew and distributed the cartoon. You just said it was interesting. No argument from me.

  21. Will,

    Jeremy’s right. Unless you’re in the habit of killing people who offend you, what exactly are you achieving by posting something that offends you?

    “We will kill anyone who insults our religion!”
    “Well, I’m going to publicise something that has nothing whatsoever to with your religion. Take that!”

  22. The Stigler – “France has laws about even questioning the size of the crimes carried out by those convicted in the Nuremberg trials. Hypothetically, if you found a piece of evidence suggesting that someone wasn’t as guilty as was thought at the time, if you wrote about it, you’d be breaking the law.”

    We have racial and religious vilification laws too. I think France will ban you from doubting other genocides too.

    Bizarre.

    twidilidee@gmail.com – “Recently a commentator was convicted for stating on French media an undisputed fact: that a certain defined group commits a certain percentage of certain crimes.”

    People have been fired for saying Africans have lower IQs than non-Africans, Tenured academics like Frank Ellis. It looks like the Dutch are going to try to prosecute someone for simply asking if they wanted more Moroccans or fewer immigrating to the Netherlands.

    “This authoritarian movement is endemic in the political class everywhere.”

    Indeed. They hate and fear us and the truth.

    JeremyT – “Islam’s devout followers need to understand that we will not be murdered into venerating their religion’s nauseating founder. The CH cartoons fit that bill perfectly.”

    The Guardian and the BBC always report Muslim claims about Muhammed at face value – they always call him a prophet for instance. We can be, and are being, murdered into venerating their nauseating founder. Anything, child molesting, murder, slavery, whatever, is acceptable if Muslims do it because they are afraid.

  23. SMFS: Ah, the BBC. I wonder if any here listened to as much of the Today programme on R4 as I did this morning?

    Not only did they rush over to Paris that palpitating mound of smug, James Naughtie, to make the whole thing ‘immediate’ but they interspersed their coverage with endless vox pops.

    As the hours passed, I marvelled how there were only two themes to emerge from all these French mouths, namely that we must all defend free speech and we must at all costs prevent an anti-muslim backlash.

    Where were all Marine Le Pen’s supporters, I wonder, or has the miraculous happened and the Charlie Hébdo massacre washed a tsunami of right-on tolerance over Paris?

    Could it simply be that the BBC is persuaded that it has its corporate finger on the pulse of events when in fact it has plunged it up its own fine-feeling fundament?

    Free speech – pah!

  24. @ JeremyT: ‘Islam’s devout followers need to understand that we will not be murdered into venerating their religion’s nauseating founder.’

    You know what would help with that? The MSM ceasing to refer to ‘the prophet Mohammed’.

  25. Attentats also means ‘outrages’ (in a criminal sense). So the cartoon was unfortunately prophetic.

  26. If you though R4 was bad, you should have encountered Jeremy Vine in R2 today. Did a huge piece basically asking “shouldn’t we stop lampooning mohammad, so we all get a quiet life”. (Well that was what I got from the bits I heard over the sounds of various metal bashing machinery in the workshop)

    I presume next up was a feature on why giving your lunch to the school bully stops him hitting you, but I’d gone to lunch before that one started…

  27. The Meissen Bison – “Where were all Marine Le Pen’s supporters, I wonder, or has the miraculous happened and the Charlie Hébdo massacre washed a tsunami of right-on tolerance over Paris?”

    It is the Pauline Kael phenomenon. No doubt when Ms Le Pen becomes the first French women ever to lead France, the BBC will express utter surprise. After all, no one they know voted for her.

    “Free speech – pah!”

    It wasn’t that long ago they were calling people who objected to Rotherham racists.

    The BBC is still doing what all the mainstream media I can find is doing – what did CH do to deserve this and won’t someone think of the poor Muslims who might be victims of the backlash from tomorrow’s terrorist attack!

    theProle – “If you though R4 was bad, you should have encountered Jeremy Vine in R2 today. Did a huge piece basically asking “shouldn’t we stop lampooning mohammad, so we all get a quiet life”.”

    It is hard to imagine what the Nazis would have made of this. Instead of invading Czechoslovakia, they could have got all they wanted by beheading the occasional journalist.

  28. Andrew K

    “In fairness to Ritchie, he does live in fear of the wet ops division of Manx intelligence . . .”

    And now I can’t get that image out of my head..:)

  29. Andrew K,

    Jesus wept, what an insufferably pompous arse of a man. I’d say he was thoroughly slappable, except he’d report me to the police for my entirely serious and obviously in no way flippant actual real threat of actual violence.

  30. The freedom to say what other people like isn’t freedom. Saying what people don’t like is where freedom applies.

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 1906, characterizing Voltaire.

  31. This from the comments under Ritchie’s blog post:

    Geoff says:
    January 8 2015 at 11:16 am
    “That is why we must all say “Je suis Charlie”.”

    You should publsih a copy of the cartoons to show the strength of your support.

    Richard Murphy says:
    January 8 2015 at 7:35 pm
    That is an absurd argument

    First I would have had no reason to publish them before this attack, so I do not now. In other words I would be responding to terrorism and I see no reason to do that: indeed I do not think we should

    Second, the cartoons do give offence. I respect the right to give offence, but I chose when to do so. I would not do so in this issue. A terrorist will not change my view on this.

    Third, defending free speech is within this blog’s remit. I do not promote my own faith here. I have no intention of changing the remit to offend other’s faith.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.