Free speech vs hate speech ( or politically incorrect views )

[Rhiannon]

Well either the women were attacked by men that fitted the description they gave, or they weren't.

Because if the CH cartoon implies what you say it does, it implies that the women claiming this,  are part of some hypocritical attitude towards immigrants, and it's all a big attitude problem.

Ultimately then......
That by the women sympathising with the death of the little boy while claiming to be abused by immigrants, they are being hypocritical.

Can you not see that?

It implies any criticism of immigrants or group of immigrants ( even in the wrong) shouldn't be criticised.

It reminds me of the U.K. When social workers refused to tackle child abuse and  Asian men in case they were accused of racism.


Sometimes, it happens.

Groups of individuals doing wrong get protected because they are perceived of being in a protected group.

CH by using that cartoon, and implying that anyone linking immigrants with a situation....... Is creating protection for criminals within a protected group.

To me, that's despicable

Just like the social workers not looking into child abuse properly, because of the ethnic group of the perpetrators.

Don't be ridiculous. The cartoon says nothing of the kind. It's what you want to see as a way of justifying your own fears and prejudices.

[Rhiannon]

I just wrote a reply but the site won't let me post it.

Basically it's the " some "people glossing over it. Making aspects Taboo rather than dealing with it. Bit about it here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35241808

It might be a good idea to split some of this thread  and put the relevant posts on the other thread, about the attacks.

We are drifting ..... 

I'd read the same article. It appears that the reason the authorities tried to cover this up was to stop racial violence. It's a huge breach of trust of the women of Cologne.

But that has nothing to do with the CH cartoon.

[Bubbles]

Don't be ridiculous. The cartoon says nothing of the kind. It's what you want to see as a way of justifying your own fears and prejudices.

I think it's a hurtful, horrible thing to post about a dead child.

I don't care if some people think it's satire!

I think it's tactless and ignorant.

(the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.)

I think it's bad satire.

To use something like the death of a vunerable child to make a point, hurting the family in the process.

[Rhiannon]

Thinking it hurtful and vile is one thing. Going a step further and saying that CH are accusing the Cologne victims of lying is quite another.

[Bubbles]

I'd read the same article. It appears that the reason the authorities tried to cover this up was to stop racial violence. It's a huge breach of trust of the women of Cologne.

But that has nothing to do with the CH cartoon.

Well it has.

You said

The purpose of the Hebdo cartoon was to expose Europe's hypocrisy over the refugee crisis - one minute weeping over dead children and the next treating them all like potential sex offenders. It was a very unpleasant cartoon but the sickness of human nature can also be highly unpleasant, and the work of satire is to expose that to ourselves. No wonder we prefer not to see it.

They have taken the micky out of the victims of the assault for a start, they are in the cartoon.

That devalues their statements about it, makes them out to be hysterical, they have even been portrayed in that light.

Have another look at it.

Is that how you would want to be portrayed if you had been groped by 20 men or raped or both?

I would be annoyed if I was a victim.

Both the cartoon and the authorities are letting the victims down.

It's trivialising what happened to them.

[Bubbles]

Thinking it hurtful and vile is one thing. Going a step further and saying that CH are accusing the Cologne victims of lying is quite another.

Not really, it's just in the implications.

[Brownie]

Rose: "I think jokes made at the expense of a drowned child and stereotyping refugees causes harm."

Yes!

We may have supported Charlie Hebdo over one issue but that doesn't mean they are forever beyond reproach.   Some of these people think they can walk on water but can easily and quickly fall out of favour.

Imo, MUCH should be made of public condemnation in this instance.

[Rhiannon]

Well it has.

You said

They have taken the micky out of the victims of the assault for a start, they are in the cartoon.

That devalues their statements about it, makes them out to be hysterical, they have even been portrayed in that light.

Have another look at it.

Is that how you would want to be portrayed if you had been groped by 20 men or raped or both?

I would be annoyed if I was a victim.

Both the cartoon and the authorities are letting the victims down.

It's trivialising what happened to them.

No, it doesn't 'take the mickey' out of the victims. Not does it question anywhere their integrity. And it doesn't trivialise anything,

But it does highlight the sorry mess and hypocrisy around the refugee issue.

[Bubbles]

No, it doesn't 'take the mickey' out of the victims. Not does it question anywhere their integrity. And it doesn't trivialise anything,

But it does highlight the sorry mess and hypocrisy around the refugee issue.

It's not hypocrisy to feel sadness at the death of a refugee child, and be angry because of crimes perceived to be committed by adult men who have come into your country from somewhere else.

As far as I can see, only CH has drawn the link between the drowned boy and the attackers.

Now either the hundred women reported their attackers accurately, or they didn't.

I think CH has distanced people who did support it, because it hasn't taken into account the subtlies and why you can support one with a caring attitude ( the child) and not the other. ( the attackers).

It lumps everyone together in its judgements.

[Shaker]

I think CH has distanced people who did support it, because it hasn't taken into account the subtlies and why you can support one with a caring attitude ( the child) and not the other. ( the attackers).

It lumps everyone together in its judgements.

On the contrary; the fact that some people think Alan Kurdi was being mocked rather than a xenophobic attitude toward refugees suggests they've been too subtle.

And lumping everyone together is precisely and exactly the attitude being satirised.

I've just remembered that on a different thread not so long ago  (will find a link when I'm on the computer and not on my phone) wigginhall used satirical irony to mock xenophobic attitudes to refugees and there also some people didn't get it and didn't pick up on the irony, taking the sarcastic for the literal. Some people as I've said before just don't seem to get irony and what's behind it and where the real target is. Irony is a very sophisticated mental process between one person and another; it's easy to misjudge.

[Rhiannon]

On the contrary; the fact that some people think Alan Kurdi was being mocked rather than a xenophobic attitude toward refugees suggests they've been too subtle.

And lumping everyone together is precisely and exactly the attitude being satirised.

Couldn't agree with this more.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't and didn't support CH because I agreed with them. I support then because just being thought of as offensive isn't enough for them to be stopped. If I liked everything they did, they wouldn't be doing what they are supposed to correctly.

[Bubbles]

Don't be ridiculous. The cartoon says nothing of the kind. It's what you want to see as a way of justifying your own fears and prejudices.

Which would those be, then?

You are stereotyping me, it seems.

I took the cartoon at your own interpretation up in the thread.

[Rhiannon]

Rose, you've been quite open about your fears around migration. It's not a stereotype, it's what you've said.

[Shaker]

There's a rule about really good, effective satire; it should punch upward, at the establishment and those in positions of power and influence - the royal family; the church; politicians; celebrities - to mock their pretensions, prick their pomposity and question their authority. It should never punch downwards at the powerless, the weak, the vulnerable, the helpless, the voiceless.

Some people think that the CH cartoon was doing the latter, mocking a dead toddler. I don't get this; it's clear to me what was being satirised and it wasn't a dead kid on a beach.

[ad_orientem]

Rose, you've been quite open about your fears around migration. It's not a stereotype, it's what you've said.

And those fears have been shown to be justified time and time again.

[Rhiannon]

There's a rule about really good, effective satire; it should punch upward, at the establishment and those in positions of power and influence - the royal family; the church; politicians; celebrities - to mock their pretensions, prick their pomposity and question their authority. It should never punch downwards at the powerless, the weak, the vulnerable, the helpless, the voiceless.

Some people think that the CH cartoon was doing the latter, mocking a dead toddler. I don't get this; it's clear to me what was being satirised and it wasn't a dead kid on a beach.

Yes, this is what I don't understand - it's clear what the target is.

[Shaker]

And those fears have been shown to be justified time and time again.

Where and when? With so many alleged examples to choose from it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a link or several.

[Bubbles]

Rose, you've been quite open about your fears around migration. It's not a stereotype, it's what you've said.

I have concerns about it, yes.

However I wouldn't describe it as a prejudice or a fear.


Yours is a stereotype because of the way you phrase it, like a person can't have concerns, without it being either a prejudice or fear.

Actually you can.

It just that like your irony, not everyone sees the difference, but it is there.

My concerns tend to be the effect of large numbers of people coming in and the sort of thing that is happening now.

Its the whole situation that concerns me, and that it also has a bad effect on the immigrants/refugees coming in too.

[Rhiannon]

Go you - clearly being shot/tortured/raped/starved/blown up would be safer for them.

[Bubbles]

Go you - clearly being shot/tortured/raped/starved/blown up would be safer for them.

That depends how bad it gets here, in Europe.

[Rhiannon]

That depends how bad it gets here, in Europe.

So that isn't a fear-driven statement in any way?

[Aruntraveller]

That depends how bad it gets here, in Europe.

What because a European country is going to descend into the state that Syria is in?

Stark raving, swivel eyed, fear-mongering nonsense.

You need to get a grip on yourself.

[Bubbles]

The news that around 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have vanished in the heart of Europe is mind-blowing. Children have suffered unspeakable anguish as a result of child se x expl oitation.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/children-are-suffering-in-this-catastrophic-refugee-crisis-3

(had to space the letters as this site wont post certain phrases)

that's an awful lot of children to "lose"

I wonder if they feel any safer, having come all the way to Europe to escape home.

some of them might not have been bombed, starved and raped at home.

Depends where they are.

I hear the UK is taking some unaccompanied children which I think is a good thing.

[Bubbles]

So that isn't a fear-driven statement in any way?

no its a concern