Charlie Hebdo

DeanoVilla

DeanoVilla

One Bloody Number
Wow. Just wow.

Now I'm not one to take offense easily, and I actually constantly mock people who are easily offended, but this just seems plain wrong to me.

it's one thing mocking religion (most acceptable in my book) but to use that poor kids image in this way, wow even i think that's a tad wrong.

Wonder how many of the 'Je Suis Charlie' gang who loved them after the Paris shootings, are now re-thinking their position?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/14/charlie-hebdo-reopens-freedom-speech-debate-cartoons-depicting-death-aylan-kurdi-_n_8133118.html


Charlie Hebdo Reopens Freedom Of Speech Debate With Cartoons Depicting Death Of Aylan Kurdi
Click to expand...



:23:
 
I guess so, but it's one thing mocking religious groups, or corporations, or paedophiles... basically people who make choices.

But mocking a drowned 3 year old kid?

I dunno. Maybe there's no difference, but it doesn't sit right with me.
 
I've never read it. It's not my kind of thing.

After the terrorist attack I read that they felt that everything was fair game for them. I think I agree with them in theory. I don't think jokes about drowned children are funny but I agree with their right to make the joke. I don't want some Herbert in an office deciding what's appropriate to joke about and what isn't.

Jokes in French suck too.
 
The only way they can sell the magazine is to be controversial. They will stoop to any depth to do so. I think we have lost our freedom of speech here and the authorities can always find ways to stop you saying what you think. But I think there are limits myself in what you should be allowed to get away with and I dont like what CH do. They go out of their way to offend.
 
I don't ever mind if its funny and a byproduct of the humor is that its offensive. That's fine.

I'm just really struggling to see the humour in the latest pictures. Could well be lost in translation.
 
I'll tell you what will be funny, if people who were buying Je Sui Charlie t-shirts and copies of Charlie Hebdo they couldn't understand a few months ago start campaigning against it because they were offended by a joke (well, 2 jokes).
 
Wow... I understand pushing the boundaries in humour but that?

That is beyond any line as far as I can see. I realise they are trying to make a political statement saying the refugees are seemingly trying to get to the 'promised land' but to use a poor child who drowned to make that point?

Nope, not for me!
 
I'm not sure what to think of it but my first take on the image was one that was against their Government. Given what Charlie Hebdo do that seems unlikely, maybe I am just projecting what that should stand for.

I see a kid who fled from terror and prosecution hoping to reach the freedom of the western world only for a corrupt and corporate Government to deny them entry and/or offer no help.

The second picture again only seems to reinforce that idea that Europe views itself as 'Christian' (I am not any denomination). The criticism to me is that it is again a religious view and not people seeing the kid for what he is, he is a human being the same as anyone else.

It depends on the context of the article are they criticising the religion again or are they actually criticising the handling of the refugee crisis? Images are not 'tasteful' but if it is the latter then it is a clear attempt to shed further light on the problem.
 
Utterly revolting. Made me feel sick! That's not satire or dark humour. That is pure vileness at it's worse :21: :21: :21: I don't see how anyone can find that funny, because it isn't
 
BBJ - 15/9/2015 02:53

Utterly and totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...

The terrorists who attacked their office felt the same way.

It's nothing new for Charlie Hebdo. The funny thing is, if their office hadn't been attacked, Charlie Hebdo would have published the same thing and nobody would have noticed.

Only a few months ago we were applauding their bravery and defending their right to make jokes about whoever they like. Now it's unacceptable?
 
presume it's more a dig at the view of aslyumseekers /economic migrants in france than anything else.
(but no idea on what their material is usually like)

seems a bit odd being outraged etc which doesn't seem overly distant from being outraged at the cartoon depiction of a fictious religious character.

Not to my taste but it's acceptable. Probably the cartoonist won't get shot at least this time .


 
It's a bit shocking at first, but it is a statement of some kind on the refugee crisis.

I don't think it's trying to mock or disrespect the dead child

 
Stephen Jay Hawkings - 14/9/2015 22:40

It's a bit shocking at first, but it is a statement of some kind on the refugee crisis.

I don't think it's trying to mock or disrespect the dead child
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see your point. I suppose if it gets people talking... It is a shock when you first see it
 
I think the people who are defending this are only doing so, as to not look hypocritical coz they jumped on the Je Suis Charlie bandwagon and defended their freedom of speech back at the time of the shootings.

Personally I'm quite happy to be hypocritical. I defend their right to mock religion, politics, business, but not the death of a 3 year old child.

Imagine if this was a cartoon in The Sun. I thnk 99% would be in uproar. It's only coz its in Charlie Hebdo and people are scared of looking like hypocrites that people are finding excuses to defend it.
 
BodyButter - 14/9/2015 18:50

BBJ - 15/9/2015 02:53

Utterly and totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...

The terrorists who attacked their office felt the same way.

It's nothing new for Charlie Hebdo. The funny thing is, if their office hadn't been attacked, Charlie Hebdo would have published the same thing and nobody would have noticed.

Only a few months ago we were applauding their bravery and defending their right to make jokes about whoever they like. Now it's unacceptable?
Click to expand...

I was not one of those clambering onto the "Je suis Charlie" bandwagon. This is not to say that those who attacked them had any right whatsoever to do so.
Some of these so-called "humorists" are anything but. I believe in freedom of speech so they can of course publish what they like and I'm also entitled to call them out on their crass tastelessness.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.