Charlie Hebdo Controversy Analysis

There are over 7 Billion people in the world each with their own individual thoughts, ideas, and innovations. Based upon this fact, it is evident that there will be disagreements and conflicts amongst peers. In order to present these problems and arguments within the world in an entertaining, but informative way, satires are used. Satire is the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupiditiy or vices particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Through the use of exaggeration, humor, irony, and a variety of other similar techniques, controversial topics involving things such as politics can easily be presented.

It is very important to be aware that the media is capable of controlling the flow of information that citizens receive. Furthermore, much of the content suppressed in this country is for fear of retribution from others. When governments and other institutions suppress information, citizens are not able to address matters concerning their country, as well as around the globe. In ‘The Decline of American Press Freedom’ by Anne Applebaum, Applebaum explains a recent controversy with Yale University and the publishing of a contentious comic in a scholarly report on the global consequences of political comics. The comics in question were satirical in nature and displayed the Islamic prophet Muhammad in an offensive manner. In an aniconic religion where visual depiction of the prophet is inherently blasphemous, the Islamic response to these comics were violent. When an analysis of the comics and the cultural backlash was written, instead of publishing it, Yale University swept it under the rug for fear of offending Islamic extremists. Applebaum argues that if “Yale University Press refuses to publish [the comics], then that makes it much harder for anybody else to treat the cartoon controversy as a legitimate matter for scholarly and political debate” (Applebaum 640). By not allowing the publishing of this analysis, Yale University is censoring what the American populace have access to in terms of global controversy. The issue becomes trivialized because institutions fear retribution from extremist groups. Without these scholarly points of reference of this issue and others, it is difficult to have a serious conversations about the ramifications of political and religious satire. This leads to people remaining uneducated and ignorant of these serious issues, and liable to repeat these same actions that so sorely offended an extremist

Humorists are present through multiple mediums such as talk shows, blog columns, and political cartoons. The different platforms humorists’ use lends different purposes for their content. For example, political cartoon artists have the creative liberty to create offensive content on certain political issues. The political cartoons

Glenn Beck, a renown conservative with extreme political theories, is included in the cartoon as a book to learn from as well, further emphasizing ideologies like his plot against government and numerical claims that “10 percent of all muslims are terrorists,” . In an analysis of the textbooks passed by the board, reviewers found that the books do not have any negative attitudes towards capitalism, viewed christianity as a harmless takeover of indigenous culture, and racially categorized many diverse african groups as one unity, calling them “negros”. World history textbooks emphasized the violence in Islamic countries, and related it to the terrorism and additional issues western countries have today. The statement, ““Much of the violence you read or hear about in the Middle East is related to a jihad,” is an example of the racism and bias towards Islam. From a developmental age, reading about these ideas will encourage racist attitudes and negativity towards certain ideals in the student’s future. Through political cartoons, artists attempt to persuade readers to their standpoint, and to go against the idea portrayed in the cartoon.

Satire and controversy never really exist without each other, every article that is written, every image that is taken and every cartoon which is drawn, somebody with a slightly different interpretation may take an element of offensive. Charlie Hebdo continually exercised their right to freedom of speech and pushed boundaries that no other publication dared to but they did not single out and or target Islam or the Prophet Muhammad, they targeted pretty much anything that was relevant.

On January 7, 2015 at approximately 12 PM, brothers Saïd and Chérif Kouachi executed a premeditated shooting on the employees of Paris-based satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Within a span of a few minutes, the brothers had shot and killed eleven people as well as having injured eleven others. Once the attack on the cartoonists had been concluded, the brothers fled the facility and killed an officer while escaping to a stolen vehicle. The brothers identified themselves as having been belonged to the Yemen branch of Al-Qaeda. France quickly raised its terror alert and sent soldiers on a massive manhunt for the brothers. Soon after, on January 9, the men were discovered in a printing facility and exchanged bullets with police officers

There is a fine line between prejudice and satire. Sometimes satire goes too far, causing it to be misunderstood as prejudice. But sometimes it doesn’t go far enough, and people do not see the whole candid and honest truth of a matter. There will always be a risk that satire will perpetuate social ills, but do the benefits of dispelling prejudice thoughts outweigh the risks of enhancing it? Specific issues, such as race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, and sexuality will always be particularly touchy subjects, and the way that authors, comedians, and just humans in general go about addressing them must be handled with care and caution, because it is very easy to offend or create a misunderstanding.

Satire is an indispensable part of human life, interaction, and communication. Satire is humor based on fantasy with the intention to attack a social issue. This ludicrous type of amusement gives humorists permission to openly voice their criticisms through their writing. The irony behind this is interesting, however, because the readers, by default, allow writers to share their opinions; but if the readers are offended by the interests and opinions published by the authors, they are quick to take it personally and/or discuss the negative morals that are displayed.

The article, “To Fear Offense or Reprisals Is to Surrender Our Values,” by Amos N. Guiora was the most convincing. It had the strongest impact on me. I think Guiora described Hebdo as courageous because the other outlets were too afraid to take a stance on the Islamic extremist when he says, “Due to their fear of Islamic extremists these outlets engaged in self-imposed restraint. That made a courageous publication like Charlie Hebdo more vulnerable and contributed to the Paris slaughter”? In addition, he suggests that it was the fear of the other outlets actually contributed more to the Paris slaughter than the Hebdo cartoons. The phrase, “Edgy artists perform an invaluable public service. They deserve our fullest support and protection. Their voices must be heard, no matter how offensive an opinion might seem or the discomfort it might cause” means that Hebdo and the alike push the limits and portray what everyone is afraid to think out loud.

Political cartoons are written for sarcastic and satirical purposes; however, most political cartoons actually represent the real thoughts of people and society on a certain issue. A cartoon can represent ideas about a public figure such as a president, a traitor, or a war hero. It can also represent an idea such as slavery or taxation. Political cartoons can represent different movements and acts as well such as the Emancipation Proclamation and the Stamp Act. While sometimes hurtful to the idea or person displayed, political cartoons unite the people with one central idea that most of them agree on. Along with the informative format of the political cartoon, most are usually funny as well and give a good laugh to those who see them. Many political cartoons are addressed throughout this essay: some funny, some serious, and some that helped educate people on what was happening in the world and what they needed to worry about in the present time they were living in.

A large crowd had gathered at the Quetta Civil Hospital in Pakistan on August 8 this year, following the assassination of the president of the Balochistan Bar Association, Bilal Anwar Kasi.

Radical Muslims attacked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo after publishing blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. The Atlantic is debating whether or not to publish the “Je Suis Charlie” cover (see Appendix A) for the publication that followed the attack. The Atlantic requested this report to inform of both sides of the issues. It analyzes the background issues regarding the attack including the ideas of blasphemy, satire, terrorism and freedom of speech. A review of the aftermath and reactions of different communities will also be given. At the end of the report will be a conclusion that compares the costs and benefits of using the cover. The conclusion will also present additional options with solutions to some of

Charlie Hebdo’s act which was given name of ‘freedom of speech’ was in fact a freedom to insult according to Muslim community. They published the cartoons of a highly revered personality in Islam; Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).This act is not only forbidden in Islam but also caused many Muslims to suffer emotional pain and resentment at such an open exhibition of hatred in the name of freedom of expression. Ironically the same magazine, in 2008, fired one of its cartoonists for publishing ‘anti-Semitic’ statements. On the other hand, it is also true that it has the past of issuing cartoons or articles that mock other religions. Prophet (PBUH) is the central figure of Islam and Muslims to love and respect him more than themselves, their parents and their children. Nobody appreciates some person whom mocks

cartoon illustrations of the Prophet Mohamed (Peace be Upon Him), due to the fact that many

However, Sweden criminalized acts of public statements that express disrespect to any religious/ethnic group in Regeringens Proposition 2001/02:59. “This provision constitutes a restriction on the form of government constitutional freedom of expression; the penalty is imprisonment for up to two years. In minor cases, however, the penalty fines (Bodström, 2001).” In accordance with Swedish Press Council has an obligation to restrict offending journalist practice with respect to the public safety. To decide whether the cartoon could be defined as a practice of Free Press, as the newspaper claimed, or had intention to disrespect Islamic group