The reaction from the majority if not 100% of the members would have been outrage and you would have been unequivocally condemned, and quite rightly so Mark...
So we should all bury our heads in the sand? Those attacks are made anyway, we have been forewarned they intend to and whilst they may throw in something about the cartoons in fact wouldn't that be ironic? Think again, neither is critical of Islam, indeed the walking on water one simply points out the contradictory nature of the Christian 'love' message which history has shown umpteen times over. They are a dig at western society. So perhaps if a terrorist does use them as an excuse it is going to be an extreme Christian group member. As yet they are not attacking anybody but historically they are nearly always there in the background, in which case I would be proven wrong about use of them as justifications.
I wonder what your reaction would have been if I had dared "to raise questions by taking satire that far"? I would probably have been removed from the site!
Just what message is this satirical, small circulation magazine trying to send? And to whom? What is thought provoking about using the image of a dead child to mock someone's religious beliefs? Did CH learn nothing?
One can be very generous & say that they are sending a message but there is a tendancy for some to look for deeper meanings in things where none ever existed. I remember the rubbish we were told at school about Shakespear's plays, spending a year reading "Romeo & Juliet" & interpeting every word differently in order to get different slants on the play. These plays were entertainment for the masses, meant to amuse at the moment of vision, not to be dissected & studied by academics. I passed my English Lit O level with flying colours because I put the most implausible interpretations to the scenes.
The big problem I have is that most people will not analyse these cartoons as deeply as Brian & will only see the message that, going on past CH publications, the magazine is anti muslim. Each time they have done this extremists have reacted. Maybe, as all these migrants are "educated & professional" they will take time to interpret these cartoons the way Brian has. Good luck with that!
Sorry but to a non-intellectual like me, it's vulgar and a poor excuse for a cheap dig. Problem is, innocent folk like me will suffer the backlash of such comments when the next terrorist decides to make his or her statement.
Talk about shootng onself in the foot !
DM 'STYLE' headline! Since when has the DM bothered about style? ;-)
Very well put Brian.
Interesting that many of the comments on the link Mark posted were more insightful and understanding of the CH aim than those of the DM readers.
There must be a DM style headline in that surely?!!
I very much agree Catharine. The comment at the top when I looked seems to be a very insightful statement:
'Perhaps more time should be taken to understand satire rather than jumping on the outrage bandwagon...
"these cartoons are a damning indictment on european anti-refugee sentiment.
The McDonald’s image is a searing critique of heartless European consumerism in the face of one of the worst human tragedies of our times.
The image about Christians walking on water while Muslims drown is (so obviously) critiquing hypocritical European Christian “love”.’
Whilst it is very easy to look at the cartoons face on and see something 'distasteful', perhaps reflection on the fact that Charlie Hebdo dares to raise questions by taking satire that far does not arise in many peoples minds, thus making it only the worst taste. That is single dimensional and perhaps saves people really thinking deeper about the message. I saw that cartoon, and now also the walking on water one, as what those of us who work in the environment of children's human rights specifically see every day in effect and wish such hard critique could be expressed everywhere and every day to emphasise the very different extremes of reality versus emotions, turning a blind eye versus reactive emotion, people not wishing to be part of the herd and do things right because they are the mass and so on. Provocation of thought by using very hard messages is perhaps not the easiest pill to swallow but once I had got over the initial anger and thought further, seriously analysed the sentiments and now feel I understand why they dared use those images have no further qualms with them.
So yes, they are hard, they are vulgar but then when is expressing outrage a silky soft, cuddly bunny type of thing? Whoever wishes to be shocked and not think further is welcome, but for those of us in the human rights world that is accepted as the norm. Human tragedy in all forms is hard to take in but to draw attention to the human qualities that allow them to happen is rarely taken in because it is easier for people to turn their heads and not see because truth and reality are too shocking.
I interpret it as bad taste.
I think how it depends entirely how you interpret it!
Yep, just lost respect for them...
Je ne suis plus Charlie..
In January of this year millions of people declared "Je suis Charlie".
I was not one of them.
Those of you who did proclaim to be might want to re-think your stand...
http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/09/167835/charlie-hebdo-mocks-...
The petition has been done of change.org in several countries last year. The real problem is that many countries are actually running deficits so that the panic three weeks ago was actually a real sign of the fear that an enormous economic crisis that is inevitable has hit us. Basically, despite a percentage of of a country's income being agreed as a proportion of Gross National Income (GNI), I believe Norway gives the highest percentage worldwide and Cuba is most pro-active disproportionation to their resources, no single country seems to be able to give 100% of the agreed share of their economic resources. In fact, both the Department for International Development (DfID) and Overseas Development Agency (ODA) that are government departments in the UK have had budgets, personnel, programmes and research (I had part of my funding from ODA for 15 years) severely cut. The UK gives 0.7% of GNI to overseas programmes including aid, the annual report in April showed that the 0.7 per cent target had not been met for 2014. The actual amount, whatever that is, looks impressive but as somebody said, it would just about buy all houses in a short street in Chelsea although there are individuals who can afford much more.
I am not sure about France, they give a slightly higher percentage of GNI but I don't know how their aid and development systems work. Back in the UK, shake Cameron with a demand which he will shrug off and allow Osborne to argue out of the world by making a pronouncement like the one about the UK should throw a billion at the situation. That seems a lot to we mere mortals but in real terms it is pin money. Sadly, no government anywhere can afford to do better. We are stuck in a dead end street with politicians saying one thing and then doing another, often nothing. Change party in power wherever and it is easy to predict change: negligibly near nothing or actually nothing.
Thanks Brian, for this detailed update.
To be sure, it's a nightmare to deal with....but if people (governments,) aren't funding things they said they would then this should be being challenged in a public forum, such as Parliament at the earliest opportunity...
If you don't mind, (it doesn't take long),...perhaps you could to start a 38 degrees petition to highlight this, quoting ...
'Countries across the board are failing to pay their commited contributions to UN agencies, so UNHCR are at their limit, WFP staggering, UNICEF not coping, etc....The UK, for example has paid 37 percent less than the contributions in total that were committed to UN agencies in 2012-13 and we suspect lower in 2013-14.'
If this so, then this needs to reach a wider audience.....this is one way of putting some direct pressure on government to 'pull their finger out'.....
Take things like clothes to yor nearest Secours Catholique, they will get them to the migrants.
The international standard is from the 1951 Refugee Convention which indeed says asylum should be sought and granted by the first 'safe' country. However, just about every country has flouted that since 1951 at some point in time. There are also article that spell out keeping families together as a priority, reuniting them and special standards for legal minors. The UK, for instance but nothing like uniquely, has regularly deported minors back to home countries. The snag is that somebody who is a legal minor cannot claim asylum but requires representation to do so and family reunification is used as justification for the deportation back to the family, irrespective of any consequences.
The camps around Syria are vast, overflowing and with UNHCR close to financially unable to cope, reducing personnel and what they can offer, the situation is out of hand. You too may have recently read that people have started to return to Syria because the situation in the camps offers no hope. Statistics I saw at the weekend show that 92% of people who have fled Syria go no further than a neighbouring country.
It would be the ideal if it could be dealt with where they are. Teachers for schools that don't exist would need 16 languages (yes, really), the ability to deal with different ethnic and religious groups which include several sects of Islam, several of Christianity, Druze, Yazidi, Dom Romani and all the rest of it, vast amounts of food, unbelievable amounts of water and, and, and... Countries across the board are failing to pay their committed contributions to UN agencies so UNHCR are at their limit, WFP staggering, UNICEF not coping, etc... The UK, for example, has paid 37% less than the contributions in total that were committed to UN agencies in 2012-13 and we suspect lower in 2013-14.
Then there are the 30 odd other countries with war, emergencies and environmental disasters to cope with. Plus a few undesirable regimes people are escaping from. A lot of people are displaced in one sense or another. So, fine words from politicians whoever they are, whatever their cloth are not enough. There are a couple of million 'most vulnerable people' around the globe, then some who need simpler provision but nonetheless need help. There is no right thing, but unfortunately an awful lot of wrong ones.
Robert, I am with you on this.....
I think Cameron is 'doing the right thing here, by focussing on getting the most vulnerable people out of the camps and improving conditions there.....
I think that their could be an initiative to open 'new towns'...creating 'safe havens' over the borders in places like Turkey, where the things I mention in the next paragraph, could be set up and planned prior to the arrival or movement of existing refugees from other camps. Turkey, or other host countries should not have to pay a penny for this as they are providing the territory......and armed protection on the borders. This way people are close to home and will repatriate easily, once hostilities have ceased in their home countries and some rebuilding has taken place.
There needs to be a dedicated task force to try and normalise , make better, day to day life there and this should include prefabricatd buildings (not tents), firstly for medical needs (and accomodation for thhe people who staff them. Educational facilities, not just for children, but for sharing skills amongst the adults. A workshop for making/repairing things. A community centre, so that people can leave their tent/homes for a few hours and 'go somewhere' , with access to books and a large tv screen to show films etc...and a canteen/coffee shop etc....
There are I believe, rules about asylum which means staying in the first safe country that you reach ?.....
Ankela Merkel's open door policy may be one Germany comes t o regret in years to come if amongst the refugees they have imported Isis 'cells.'.....Germany does, I believe, have an ageing population and it needs more young people, is a much larger country than the UK and is less populated....
UK has a pop. density of 256 people per sq. km ...........Germany's is 233...
Uk has area of 243,610 sq kms...............................Germany's is 357,021 sq kms.
UK has population of 62,262000...............................Germany's is
However, very recent moves to secure the borders and try to stem the flow of migrants/refugees have been taken by the German govenment in the last few hours.
Immigration of any kind needs to be carefully managed, otherwise one risks a degree of resentment from the existing population and because of that an upsurge in the popularity of the far right (as has happened in the Netherlands, I believe) ...
Well said. It would seem that internationally all the governments are inept and totally out of their depth on how to deal with this. The public however are now shining through and showing these poor people some compassion. Hence a big demo in Hungary today. I am not sure what I can offer other than money, but I feel that is better than nothing.
Hi Everyone,
I have been in contact with contact@association-revivre.fr. who are the organizer for the refugees, the lady explained to me that it take a little time because there is a lot of paperwork as you can imagine with the French system, it is not just a matter of putting refugees in our homes just like that willy nilly.
She has my contact and is very grateful that we have been in touch, and have offered accommodation ,and she has promised to contact me as soon as she has things in place. So we just have to be patient. There will be a list of things that I will have to ask her, so if you have anything that you would like to know regarding housing refugees, please let me know, and I can put it to the lady dealing with it.
I read in the "local" paper that the local "MPs" have called for citizens to open their homes etc.
I am ready. I understand many of the views on this thread, but I would gladly take refugees, and like many ex-pats I could house hundreds in my huge garden, and a couple of families in the house.
I saw on Facebook that some of my UK friends have joined together, even those in small villages, and are helping in many ways.
I spoke to the mayor here to learn that in fact we are not concerned by all this, and not to worry about it.
He tells me that the MPs in the city are taking their own measures, and that my department will gladly be welcoming up to 20 families - and that they will be based only in the city, and we would never be asked to open our homes.
Do they call that apathy? I have another word for it!
We were at the rubbish tip this morning, and I almost expected there to be a "bin" for useable stuff to aid the country or help the refugees... of course not. And when I tried to put a bag of old clothes in the bin for La Relais, the man at the tip asked if I was sure it was useable and perhaps I should just put it with all the other landfill rubbish.
Difficult times, but no matter how willing some people are, they cannot help...
They've all migrated to Germany.....
Anyway, some of us have to work Barabara !