Im not going to wade through 48 pages of back and forth on this so apologies if its been posted already. Where do we draw the line?
I can't believe you wrote this. Surely "laying down" is a hideous Americanism? To "lay down" is transitive in English and only intransitive in American. That's just ugly and vile. Maybe you are American although I hadn't noticed it from your spelling. Tell me that this was just a gross oversight on your part and that you'd never allow it into a UK paper. I'm shocked (but can't find the relevant emoticon on this iPhone).
It's been drawn by the fanatics long ago. We just have to decide whether we want to keep crossing it or find a way to erase it permanently.
They say that Charlie Hebdo sells about 60k copies an issue. The name implies it's a weekly. In comparison, Viz sells about 65k copies but it is surely a monthly? I suspect that many people find Viz offensive, through its use of language, stereotyping, obsession with sex etc. You'd be unlikely to give it away to churchgoers to liven up their Sundays. So that is where we are with this. Viz might not lampoon Islam (and you sort of wonder why not, as it lampoons everything else?) but it can easily be thought of as offensive. The fact that Viz hasn't done any mad mullah characters (to my knowledge) is surely pure self censorship as they'd be hilarious; it's a rich comic vein. So you end up thinking that everyone has to put up with poor taste jokes at their expense except Muslims. Proof that terrorism works. I'd be interested to know, among the Viz fans on here (of which I am one) whether you think a Mad Mullah strip would be funny or just gratuitously offensive to the Muslim community?
Or maybe understand and respect that others take great offence to something that we don't fully understand?
I think, but don't know for certain, that generic mad mullah figures have been lampooned in Viz. I think the problem only occurs if you represent the PM (the Mecca one) or name in any criticism the mullah concerned. My view is that it's all about victim status, as was explored on Panorama last night. Perhaps radical Islam reacts as it does because, despite the religion's latter-day success in spreading across the globe, it was late coming to the table - arriving some 600 years after Christianity, I believe - and needs to sweep away other religions such as Judaism and Christianity to survive and continue to proliferate. Judaism predates Islam by 4,000 years. Just a thought. And as to whether we should care whether Muslims would be offended by mad mullahs in Viz I have only two words to say to you: Father Ted. Christianity and Judaism have an honourable history of accepting robust criticism and being the butt of comedy, even mocking themselves at times. Why should the youngest member of the family get special treatment?
Interesting! I've not seen Father Ted but I can imagine the comic potential. So basically, we have to stop being so precious about upsetting religions. For me, Viz is quintessentially British to the point that I can't imagine any other countries with the possible exception of Australia finding it funny. We surely have a right to defend our native sense of humour, even if it is childish on occasion. I think it's obvious that Islam is censoring us through the threat of violence and it's working for them.
This is Father Ted. It might amuse you. And it represents how I think all religions should be treated: not necessarily contemptuously but as a potentially rich vein of humour from a bygone era when humanity did not have science to turn to for answers to the big questions.
I think the difficulty we have is understanding that offence can be taken to greater or lesser degrees. Its not black and white (offended or not offended). Lets take the example of a Jimmy Saville joke...theres a few about. You're at a dinner party with friends you know really well. You all have the same sense of humour and you know that borderline tastless jokes will go down OK...you'll all have a laugh at the wordplay or the irony, then it'll be forgotten and the evening will continue. Take the same joke but imagine the dinner party with people you didnt know so well. You would be less confident telling the joke as you don't know if someone would be offended. It could ruin the evening. Now take the same joke at a third dinner party. You know one couple very well....old mates from the first party. The second couple you've met a few times but the only thing you really know is that years ago, one of their children went missing and it was later found that they had been the victim of a paedophile. You wouldnt trot that joke out would you. Would you? Or would that be you exercising your right to offend?
I don't think any of us have a problem understanding that some material will offend some people but not others. But the subject here is not private dinner parties, it is public media. Surely you don't think that, out of respect for victims, nobody should be allowed to present Jimmy Savile jokes in newspapers, or on radio, TV, or the web? If we take the example of the Charlie Hebdo magazine, it's perfectly simple - people who are offended by it do not have to buy it or read it! I think that Frankie Boyle is a bit of a cnut, and whilst I'd hesitate to go so far as to say that I feel personally offended by him, if I see him on the TV, I change channel. He's exercising his right to offend, and I have no problem with that.
I've only got a few old Vizes. But I always liked this one. Now, if you were a park keeper, you might not find it funny. Nor would you find it funny if you'd had a chemical accident or been attacked by a polar bear. I imagine that the parents of the poor young man who was killed by polar bear on an arctic trek a year or two ago wouldn't find it amusing at all. But for the rest of us...
Offence is subjective. There's no yardstick by which it can be judged. As I've said, I could believe that the moon is made of green cheese and be offended by anyone who says it's made of rock ...
Obviously not. But that's about offending individuals' sensibilities about something horrendous that has definitely happened I'm their life. Totally different to offending a religion based on tenets that may or may not be valid and presumes to tell millions how to live their lives.
I disagree. It doesnt attempt to justify anything its simply turning this around to raise the question of where do we draw the line...what is acceptable and whats not. Incidentally, just so everyones clear, in no way am I posting here to justify the actions of those in Paris. Im simply trying to see this discussion from all sides
