Charlie Hebo, the Queen and Markle

jaffusmax

The outrage is amazing considering, in my own opinion, many of those screaming from the rafters wanted to defend free speech when the image of Muhammad was printed!

biko

Whatever people say, the paper should be able to print it.

If you don't believe in the freedom to print tasteless and offensive stuff that you'd rather see banned - then you don't believe in free speech.

The aforementioned piece.

Harry Palmr

jaffusmax wrote: »

The outrage is amazing considering, in my own opinion, many of those screaming from the rafters wanted to defend free speech when the image of Muhammad was printed!

This is the sort of thing easily typed on the internet without a shred of evidence to back it up. Some quote please.

duffman13

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The aforementioned piece.

Jaysis, a bit OTT but Charlie Hebdo always is, its literally their business to be controversial. They have had pops at Islam, Judaism, Catholicism etc. No one is above satire despite what some people would like to think.

chosen1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The aforementioned piece.

They're fairly exaggerating her skin tone in that cartoon. Would that be considered racist these days?

I didn't realise that she was mixed race until the wedding and I saw her mother.

TheValeyard

You cannot be for drawing the prophet Muhammad and not be for this. It's the same thing about using art / freedom of expression, etc.


Although, it's a bit of nonsense. No way the queen would do that. She has servants for that kind of thing

frag420

chosen1 wrote: »

They're fairly exaggerating her skin tone in that cartoon. Would that be considered racist these days?

Yeah, there is no way the Queen is THAT white, I think they
have made her look whiter...;)

dxhound2005

biko wrote: »

Whatever people say, the paper should be able to print it.

If you don't believe in the freedom to print tasteless and offensive stuff that you'd rather see banned - then you don't believe in free speech.

Using those rules, I don't believe in free speech. Because I do not think that publishers should be free to publish everything that people say. An example would be publishers publishing revenge porn material. I am against them being allowed to do that.

jam_mac_jam

chosen1 wrote: »

They're fairly exaggerating her skin tone in that cartoon. Would that be considered racist these days?

I didn't realise that she was mixed race until the wedding and I saw her mother.

I don't think they mind getting called racist.

NIMAN

TheValeyard wrote: »

You cannot be for drawing the prophet Muhammad and not be for this. It's the same thing about using art / freedom of expression, etc.


Although, it's a bit of nonsense. No way the queen would do that. She has servants for that kind of thing

Make me chuckle as I remembered the woman on Live Live who said "they will probably murder Meghan now like they murdered Diana".

Poor Joe nearly choked trying to tell her to catch herself on.:D

fergiesfolly

Outside of their headline grabbing front page cartoons, I've never seen or read anything inside the cover.
What is their style and content of journalism?
Is there an article or editorial to explain the cartoon?
I believe in their right to print whatever they want, but is there substance behind the grotesque.

OneEightSeven

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Using those rules, I don't believe in free speech. Because I do not think that publishers should be free to publish everything that people say. An example would be publishers publishing revenge porn material. I am against them being allowed to do that.

Freedom of speech is about expressing yourself. Free speech is giving someone a platform to debate the benefits and negatives of revenge porn. Posting revenge porn violates a person's privacy.

Rodin

chosen1 wrote: »

They're fairly exaggerating her skin tone in that cartoon. Would that be considered racist these days?

I didn't realise that she was mixed race until the wedding and I saw her mother.

Of course she's mixed race. A large number of "black" people outside of Africa are.

Did you not think her skin tone was a bit light to be "black" ?

Though nowadays black means anyone with any black race in them. Harry and yer one's children are 3/4 white but will be considered black.

McGinniesta

Can someone explain how the Royals expected the kid to be "dark skinned".

Eskimos dont have kids that white.

It's either a complete lie or whoever said it is on drugs.

Manach

Whilst I think the cartoon is in poor taste, it is still better than it not being printed for fear of either action by the state (re: Scotland's "Hate Speech" laws) creating a chilling effect on speech or for fear of the twitter mob ( pressuring service providers such as banks or ISPs to remove services).

chosen1

Rodin wrote: »

Of course she's mixed race. A large number of "black" people outside of Africa are.

Did you not think her skin tone was a bit light to be "black" ?

Though nowadays black means anyone with any black race in them. Harry and yer one's children are 3/4 white but will be considered black.

What I meant was that I didn't think she was anything other than fully white before the wedding.

I'd never guess she had black ancestry by looking at her and never looked into her biography as I would have little interest in the royals.

Rodin

chosen1 wrote: »

What I meant was that I didn't think she was anything other than fully white before the wedding.

I'd never guess she had black ancestry by looking at her and never looked into her biography as I would have little interest in the royals.

I don't agree
In no way does she look white.

dxhound2005

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Freedom of speech is about expressing yourself. Free speech is giving someone a platform to debate the benefits and negatives of revenge porn. Posting revenge porn violates a person's privacy.

There was no qualification in the post I replied to about having debates. They simply want papers to be able to publish everything. And they categorise anyone who is against that as being against free speech.

Sir Oxman

I'd be surprised if the BLMists (for want of a better description and for avoidance of doubt, I refer to the organisation) etc don't embrace that cover.
It validates everything they themselves say is the everyday truth.

jaffusmax

Harry Palmr wrote: »

This is the sort of thing easily typed on the internet without a shred of evidence to back it up. Some quote please.

Lol I said “in my opinion”

the purple tin

There will be some blowback from the English for that one.
The majority of them love her Maj and won't hear a bad word said against her.

Stihl waters

Rodin wrote: »

I don't agree
In no way does she look white.

She looks like she has a good tan likes she's had a gap year handing out promos in ibiza

frozenfrozen

I think if there was an internal discussion about the colour of the child it was probably planning the pr campaign about how they'd prove paternity to royal fella to stop the red tops going on about an affair

And I wouldnt be in the habit if standing up for royals

kowloon

biko wrote: »

Whatever people say, the paper should be able to print it.

If you don't believe in the freedom to print tasteless and offensive stuff that you'd rather see banned - then you don't believe in free speech.

+1 People are free to vote with their wallets and not buy it.

Jim2007

biko wrote: »

Whatever people say, the paper should be able to print it.

If you don't believe in the freedom to print tasteless and offensive stuff that you'd rather see banned - then you don't believe in free speech.

I do believe in free speech, I just don't believe that your right to free speech also comes with a right to trample all over the other rights people have. You don't have a right to go around inciting racial hatred or religious hatred for that matter just because you can.



I doubt very much that society has much space for citizens who thing their rights are superior to everyone else's.

Jim2007

kowloon wrote: »

+1 People are free to vote with their wallets and not buy it.

Seriously! It this kind of nonsense impacts far more people that just the subscribers. It becomes very dangerous when people start think that their rights are somehow superior to everyone else's.


I get very tired of people using free speech as shield for bad behavior in trampling over everyone else's rights.

I see sheep

What does it say?

the purple tin

I see sheep wrote: »

What does it say?

The queen is asking her why she left the palace. Megan says 'because I couldn't breathe'.

kowloon

Jim2007 wrote: »

I do believe in free speech, I just don't believe that your right to free speech also comes with a right to trample all over the other rights people have. You don't have a right to go around inciting racial hatred or religious hatred for that matter just because you can.

I don't think that cover is inciting violence which would be my red line for freedom of speech. I don't think it's libellous either. I see no reason it should be censored.

Purple Mountain

I'm a liberal thinker and admire France's secular culture but that characture is disgusting.
It's making humour of a man who died.
If the "gag" was based on one of your family member's renowned death, how would you feel to have it made into satire?

gozunda

Rodin wrote: »

Of course she's mixed race. A large number of "black" people outside of Africa are.

Did you not think her skin tone was a bit light to be "black" ?

Though nowadays black means anyone with any black race in them. Harry and yer one's children are 3/4 white but will be considered black.

Eh? So even where someone is actually 'white' they are still 'black. Nope don't get that all.

Megan is certainly as much white as she is black according to her parentage.

I certainly accept that people may be of mixed race. Whether/ European / African / Chinese or whatever.

Augme

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I'm a liberal thinker and admire France's secular culture but that characture is disgusting.
It's making humour of a man who died.
If the "gag" was based on one of your family member's renowned death, how would you feel to have it made into satire?

Who's death?

kowloon

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I'm a liberal thinker and admire France's secular culture but that characture is disgusting.
It's making humour of a man who died.
If the "gag" was based on one of your family member's renowned death, how would you feel to have it made into satire?

They're famous for this stuff, they thrive on shock value. Although I don't think anyone will get shot over this cover.

Augme wrote: »

Who's death?

George Floyd.

Nekarsulm

Augme wrote: »

Who's death?

George Floyd.

Augme

Nekarsulm wrote: »

George Floyd.

Woops, didn't even twig that reference with the picture. Very obvious now though as you've mentioned it.

amandstu

I was outraged at first (demeaning to our shared experience of the murder of George FLoyd) but on reflection I think this cartoon punctures MM's pretentions of importance.

She "couldn't breathe"?Was she ignorant ,or perhaps too aware of that connotation?

Purple Mountain

amandstu wrote: »

I was outraged at first (demeaning to our shared experience of the murder of George FLoyd) but on reflection I think this cartoon punctures MM's pretentions of importance.

She "couldn't breathe"?Was she ignorant ,or perhaps too aware of that connotation?

Yes, I agree with you about MM and pretentious as you put it but not at the cost at taking a pot shot at someone's death.

amandstu

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Yes, I agree with you about MM and pretentious as you put it but not at the cost at taking a pot shot at someone's death.

Yes ,it is a balance, but those who saw his public execution might feel that she was exploiting it for her own benefit.

I would like to hear from them and how they feel (maybe his family)

That would be far more important than any Windsor family troubles.

peasant

kowloon wrote: »

They're famous for this stuff, they thrive on shock value.

Aunty Lizzie not shaving her legs is very shocking though

Your Face

There is an idiosyncrasy of French humour that doesn't translate well into the anglo-sphere.
Basically Charlie Hebdo is telling everyone to go f--k themselves - you're not that special.

Mrcaramelchoc

Charlie hebdo is a rag just like the sun or the national enquirer. All its good for is wiping your ass with it.
And they wonder why they got shot to bits.

kowloon

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Charlie hebdo is a rag just like the sun or the national enquirer. All its good for is wiping your ass with it.
And they wonder why they got shot to bits.

Is it a glossy finish? Because that might throw its usefulness into doubt.

Mrcaramelchoc

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Charlie hebdo is a rag just like the sun or the national enquirer. All its good for is wiping your ass with it.
And they wonder why they got shot to bits.

Good man with the “shooting of journalists is good”ideology.

Why is the outrage happening? It looks like it’s accusing the queen of being racist.

amandstu

kowloon wrote: »

Is it a glossy finish? Because that might throw its usefulness into doubt.

Can't even use them on the compost heap as they contain some kind of metal (mercury)
😏

-unless that was sorted out.

amandstu

Deleted User wrote: »

Good man with the “shooting of journalists is good”ideology.

Why is the outrage happening? It looks like it’s accusing the queen of being racist.

Maybe just picking up on the claim by MM that racism was directed at her?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

chosen1 wrote: »

They're fairly exaggerating her skin tone in that cartoon. Would that be considered racist these days?

I didn't realise that she was mixed race until the wedding and I saw her mother.

I don’t think they are. Looks similar to her skin colour in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQicq60aJaw

Nekarsulm

amandstu wrote: »

Yes ,it is a balance, but those who saw his public execution might feel that she was exploiting it for her own benefit.

I would like to hear from them and how they feel (maybe his family)

That would be far more important than any Windsor family troubles.

His family just got a settlement of 27 million dollars.
I doubt they are one bit worried about a UK based soap opera family..

amandstu

Nekarsulm wrote: »

His family just got a settlement of 27 million dollars.
I doubt they are one bit worried about a UK based soap opera family..

Well if that is the case then I would feel less outrage (I doubt their settlement would be much of a factor though)

Jim2007

kowloon wrote: »

I don't think that cover is inciting violence which would be my red line for freedom of speech. I don't think it's libellous either. I see no reason it should be censored.

I did not say it should.....

Jim2007

SoiLent1987 wrote: »

Ok Mohammad.

Really? that's all you got to contribute...