The whole world showed their support and solidarity during the terrorist attack but rather than feel for fellow human what do we get; a ridicule on African immigrants who died in the mediterranean.

Source: http://www.irise.com.ng/charlie-hebdo-mocks-africans-who-died-in-the-mediterranean/

There is God

Charlie Hebdo again!
Dem and controversy na Ijebu garrium and groundnut

i dont blame u, if ur father didn't steal our resources u wont have mouth to talk to us like this na

What's charles hebdo??

It is their brand of satire and no one is forcing you to read it.

I wish intending adventurers from Africa would see this satire and stop sacrificing their lives to the fishes in the Mediterranean Sea.

That's the message! And its the same message when they depicted Muhammad it was to let muslims understand that bombing people is ungodly and a ridicule on their prophet.

SkyBlue1:
It is their brand of satire and no one is forcing you to read it.

You're incorrect. You probably don't live in a country where you are different and are made to know it.

ezeagu:


You're incorrect. You probably don't live in a country where you are different and are made to know it.

Where I do or don't live should not be your concern, the issue here is freedom of speech. That picture up there is not calling for violence over a particular group of people or any such thing. It is a satirical picture in the style Charlie Hebdo is very well known for, I mean, what were you expecting their take on the issue to look like?

My problem here is people who go about looking for ways they can be offended, then continuing on to express horror at said offence when their expectations have been met. You are not being forced to read the magazine and it is not even under huge circulation, ironically the terrorist incident only made the magazine more popular. My take is, spare us the "righteous anger" please. You can NOT look at the picture if it offends you so deeply.

Pinkiedearie:
What's charles hebdo??

A stupíd French magazine that is famous fpr making fun of important issues, they depicted Prophet Mohammed as a dog, which caused an uproar

SkyBlue1:


Where I do or don't live should not be your concern, the issue here is freedom of speech. That picture up there is not calling for violence over a particular group of people or any such thing. It is a satirical picture in the style Charlie Hebdo is very well known for, I mean, what were you expecting their take on the issue to look like?

My problem here is people who go about looking for ways they can be offended, then continuing on to express horror at said offence when their expectations have been met. You are not being forced to read the magazine and it is not even under huge circulation, ironically the terrorist incident only made the magazine more popular. My take is, spare us the "righteous anger" please. You can NOT look at the picture if it offends you so deeply.

Great, it's freedom of speech. But why is anti Semitic speech not classified as freedom of speech too? It definitely means that certain speech offend some people's sensibilities. The fact that the offended people are in the minority does not make racial or religious abuse right.

SkyBlue1:


Where I do or don't live should not be your concern, the issue here is freedom of speech. That picture up there is not calling for violence over a particular group of people or any such thing. It is a satirical picture in the style Charlie Hebdo is very well known for, I mean, what were you expecting their take on the issue to look like?

My problem here is people who go about looking for ways they can be offended, then continuing on to express horror at said offence when their expectations have been met. You are not being forced to read the magazine and it is not even under huge circulation, ironically the terrorist incident only made the magazine more popular. My take is, spare us the "righteous anger" please. You can NOT look at the picture if it offends you so deeply.

You obviously don't know what violence is then. This is what is known as a microagression. If you think there are no repercussions to satirising the deaths of hundreds of people including children (they even drew a baby on the mothers back) while employing racist stereotypes and imagery then you must not be well versed with Europe's history. France is a very hostile country to black people in general. The country regularly harasses and locks up African immigrants and to add insult to injury a major publication like that is making fun of a major tragedy.

Pictures such as these magnify France's general attitudes to black people, they are not people who are to be valued and they are dehumanised. They can be used as jokes, even at times of great suffering. Stop making this seem like this is an unconnected isolated issue. Jokes like these are embedded in the countries wider ideological and moral framework. It reveals what a very large percentage of France thinks of Africans and it leads to people being killed and beaten up on the streets. The FN gaining momentum in France isn't a shock then.

It makes me wonder how people like you would probably see no wrong in the 'Je Suis Charlie' march or have any comment on how such marches are underlied with racism and make a hostile environment even more hostile for immigrants in a country where they are pushed to the margins, but you can defend this as freedom of speech because you want to seem "progressive". This is how I know you do not have experience with direct racism, or if you do, you're an apologists, because if you did you wouldn't be trying to play a 'liberal post-racial negro' card with me.

How insensitive.

I guess if I type may they all rot in hell...is a freedom of speech

Jamieb:
The whole world showed their support and solidarity during the terrorist attack but rather than feel for fellow human what do we get; a ridicule on African immigrants who died in the mediterranean.

Source: http://www.irise.com.ng/charlie-hebdo-mocks-africans-who-died-in-the-mediterranean/

What is charlie hebdo

pheliciti:


Great, it's freedom of speech. But why is anti Semitic speech not classified as freedom of speech too? It definitely means that certain speech offend some people's sensibilities. The fact that the offended people are in the minority does not make racial or religious abuse right.

Speech that directly incites violence is seen as illegal, and this doesn't. The particular anti-semitic law in France is understood in the context of European history but that does not ban the use of satire or satirical approaches to frame discussions about Jews or Israel. Just so you are clear on that.

Secondly I think we are throwing the word abuse too flippantly, offence may capture it better and that is the price you pay for freedom of speech, the right to be offended. This unicorns and rainbow idea of a world where you go through life without being able to be offended by anything is what I don't get. People have different views and different ways of expressing it. Or would you rather have a police state where free speech is heavily censored and big brother up there goes through everything you consume and takes away the naughty parts that might cause you to feel sad? Then the issue becomes, what line do you use to measure the boundary of decency. And another problem presents itself, everyone has a different line. I think the line on inciting violence is a good one to stick with.

BTW, Jews are a minority in France as well, heck I might be wrong but you might even have more minorities from the Magreb than those who are Jewish.

ezeagu:


You obviously don't know what violence is then. This is what is known as a microagression. If you think there are no repercussions to satirising the deaths of hundreds of people including children (they even drew a baby on the mothers back) while employing racist stereotypes and imagery then you must not be well versed with Europe's history. France is a very hostile country to black people in general. The country regularly harasses and locks up African immigrants and to add insult to injury a major publication like that is making fun of a major tragedy.

Pictures such as these magnify France's general attitudes to black people, they are not people who are to be valued and they are dehumanised. They can be used as jokes, even at times of great suffering. Stop making this seem like this is an unconnected isolated issue. Jokes like these are embedded in the countries wider ideological and moral framework. It reveals what a very large percentage of France thinks of Africans and it leads to people being killed and beaten up on the streets. The FN gaining momentum in France isn't a shock then.

It makes me wonder how people like you would probably see no wrong in the 'Je Suis Charlie' march or have any comment on how such marches are underlied with racism and make a hostile environment even more hostile for immigrants in a country where they are pushed to the margins, but you can defend this as freedom of speech because you want to seem "progressive". This is how I know you do not have experience with direct racism, or if you do, you're an apologists, because if you did you wouldn't be trying to play a 'liberal post-racial negro' card with me.

Certain sections of French society have issues with Africans sure, just like pretty much every european country. And you think clamping down on satirical magazines solves the issue? I see all you wrote there and it is moving an all, but it is misplaced because it doesn't answer the question. Where would you legally draw the line, and what makes your line more legitimate than the lines of others? You want to claim this causes "micro aggression"? How far do you want to extrapolate? Because there are a whole list of other things I can claim cause that as well, does that mean we scrap those all too? Seriously . . . are people only just realising we live in an imperfect world? I don't get these attitudes especially coming from someone who I assume has lived in Nigeria where people say almost anything. Soon you will claim using the word "fat" causes micro agression towards rotund people and should be banned.

Once again, this is Charlie Hebdo and not Le Monde.

The Africans should have themselves to blame for any form of ridicule. Each time when the opportunity is given to Africans to make enlightened political statement, they either elect crooks or persons who were groomed through corruptive endeavors. Nigerians have just elected a product of such nepotistic endeavor.

KingTom:
A stupíd French magazine that is famous fpr making fun of important issues, they depicted Prophet Mohammed as a dog, which caused an uproar

Pinkiedearie:

Pinkiedearie:

IOC WANT TO ISLAMIZE ITALY BY ALL MEANS. IF ONLY ITALIAN PM COULD PERCEIVE WHAT ISIS IS COOKING FOR EM

we all know the state of the black family.

lord have mercy.

mike404:
IOC WANT TO ISLAMIZE ITALY BY ALL MEANS. IF ONLY ITALIAN PM COULD PERCEIVE WHAT ISIS IS COOKING FOR EM

Are u sure it is Italy, because I heard it was Siberia, after that Okokomaiko, then Greenland, then Odogbolu etc etc.

Those who know, know that charliee hebdo is a lawless group of people with no regard for any religion or leadership. Yet some fools in Niger republic were burning churches over an offensive cartoon published by a company who have mocked Jesus Christ more than any other character in history.

Shey because na French mean say na Christian abi? Oya now see...

Yasher:
Those who know, know that charliee hebdo is a lawless group of people with no regard for any religion or leadership. Yet some fools in Niger republic were burning churches over an offensive cartoon published by a company who have mocked Jesus Christ more than any other character in history.
Shey because na French mean say na Christian abi? Oya now see...

They are not lawless. They have been dragged to a French court before and were deemed to have done no wrong in the eyes of the law.

SkyBlue1:


They are not lawless. They have been dragged to a French court before and were deemed to have done no wrong in the eyes of the law.

what do you call a newspaper that was banned for mocking the dead president of its country of origin?

Seeing this picture just made me change my mind ...I had pity for them concerning the attacks by gun men but now am happy the modafvckers were killed like rats...

Yasher:
what do you call a newspaper that was banned for mocking the dead president of its country of origin?

"Charlie Hebdo" is NOT banned in France.

SkyBlue1:


"Charlie Hebdo" is NOT banned in France.

it was in the 70s

SkyBlue1:


Certain sections of French society have issues with Africans sure, just like pretty much every european country. And you think clamping down on satirical magazines solves the issue? I see all you wrote there and it is moving an all, but it is misplaced because it doesn't answer the question. Where would you legally draw the line, and what makes your line more legitimate than the lines of others? You want to claim this causes "micro aggression"? How far do you want to extrapolate? Because there are a whole list of other things I can claim cause that as well, does that mean we scrap those all too? Seriously . . . are people only just realising we live in an imperfect world? I don't get these attitudes especially coming from someone who I assume has lived in Nigeria where people say almost anything. Soon you will claim using the word "fat" causes micro agression towards rotund people and should be banned.

Once again, this is Charlie Hebdo and not Le Monde.

This was a satirical piece about the deaths of hundred of people. Hundreds of people who did nothing, and to take that and add a satirical spin like a 'family reunion at the bottom of the ocean' while depicting the victims in racist caricatures is just not amusing. It's not attacking a particular ideology, it's simply a cynical view from a group of people who do not identify with the suffering of black people. To argue against that is to support racists.

Now your point about 'fat' becoming micro-aggressive is ahistorical, Europeans lock up and kill African immigrants till this day, in the olden days the Nazi party used the same racist caricatures to recruit Germans ("Negermusik" ).

[img]http://sitemaker.umich.edu/artunderfascism/files/entartmu.jpg[/img]

That is how this is aggressive. These things are never harmless jokes. They always end up with people being attacked because their image has been slandered and dehumanised. How about you don't humiliate people who are already a minority.

ezeagu:

This was a satirical piece about the deaths of hundred of people. Hundreds of people who did nothing, and to take that and add a satirical spin like a 'family reunion at the bottom of the ocean' while depicting the victims in racist caricatures is just not amusing. It's not attacking a particular ideology, it's simply a cynical view from a group of people who do not identify with the suffering of black people. To argue against that is to support racists.
Now your point about 'fat' becoming micro-aggressive is ahistorical, Europeans lock up and kill African immigrants till this day, in the olden days the Nazi party used the same racist caricatures to recruit Germans ("Negermusik" ).
[img]http://sitemaker.umich.edu/artunderfascism/files/entartmu.jpg[/img]
That is how this is aggressive. These things are never harmless jokes. They always end up with people being attacked because their image has been slandered and dehumanised. How about you don't humiliate people who are already a minority.

Satire is inherently facetious . . . . . . . that is why it is satire. You make it sound as if Charlie Hebdo is out to get black people and I find that laughable, Charlie Hebdo make fun of everything and everyone. Again, nice little moving speech you wrote up there, but it is not relevant. You still fail to explain where the line should be drawn on decency and what makes your line more legitimate than others. You can extrapolate "micro agressiveness" to almost anything and at the end of the day it seems you are claiming we legislate on decency. And that is extremely unworkable, unnecessary, and counterproductive to the whole idea of free speech.

Again, nobody is being forced to read Charlie Hebdo. You don't go to read a well known controversial magazine you are likely to take offence at and whine about being offended, it is just irritating. This is a small magazine, not le monde or le figaro. You make it sound as if they espouse main stream views. If you don't like Charlie Hebdo, don't read Charlie Hebdo; majority of people in France dont.

could also be referring to the island of reunion i guess.

How about Nigerian and Ghanaian Xtians in that vessel that WERE drowned by Muslim immigrants aboard because of their faith?