Satire or hatred?

I have been in a most interesting conversation this morning regarding the awful goings on in France over the past few day, the focus quite naturally being the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

One of the thing that has brought me us short were two questions, 'As a Christian:

Do you think that the magazine's cartoons and comments could be regarded as a 'hate crime?

If they are does this diminish the acts against the magazine and its staff?'

Two pretty difficult questions to answer indeed especially as I'd have to say that from my erratic reading of the magazine the front cover cartoon hits out at things to do with religion around probably no more than ten covers a year. Hebdo has published the Pope with a condom where the host should have been (and that's pretty offensive if you're a Catholic), presented us with a Cartoon Mary and Jesus (their Christmas special gift to Christians I guess) and portrayed religions and toilet paper (and a reference to them all belonging down the toilet!) and the done a bit of Israel vs Palestine stuff before hitting out at, and depicting, things Islamic.

Had the nation in which the words which were written and the images displayed been ours I think the possibility of them having been labelled as 'hate crime' is great (and would probably called into action the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) as there is a case to claim that hatred against people on the basis of their religious views has been enacted.

The problem is that Hebdo is not the finely polished satirical magazine that we in the UK are used to thanks to the likes of Private Eye (of which I am an avid reader and great fan). No way can they be compared for Hebdo is something more akin to the scandal sheets, complete with the vitriol, that has been the French model of the satirical (and often spiteful) genre. It not only pokes fun but wounds and then pokes fingers in the wounds too!

But regardless of the way it writes we can say nothing other than to denounce the response from the Kouachi brothers as being something totally unacceptable and absolutely wrong!
Which has to be the answer to the second question methinks.

There is however an interesting consequence of this tragic episode in that I am hearing people affirm the view that regardless of what Hebdo says there is an important principle at stake here: the inalienable right of people to say what they think regardless of the views, or response, of others. This will undoubtedly be put to the test when the next edition appears for the consensus is that it will undoubtedly have a cartoon along the lines of that which lit the fuse in the first place.

Not only that but we are also seeing people, and nations, proclaim the defence of this right as being without question a key element of civilised and free society - another positive to emerge from this sorry tale.

I wonder whether this means that those who choose to differ or disagree with others will now find themselves free from attack (generally verbal, sometimes legal, and usually including character assassination)?

As much as I despise the positions and opinions of some, I have always maintained the view that to oppress or suppress freedom of speech is to drive people underground and remove ourselves from a place of dialogue or influence with them. I wonder if the Hebdo incident will herald a more tolerant world?

I guess time will tell :-)

Green? You need to be with some Political Parties!!

Seems that being a member of the Green party and having a personal integrity are not the equal bedfellows some have claimed in the past as I listen to an interview with a former Green party Councillor from Brighton, Christina Summers. Ms Summers has been expelled from the party because she dared to vote against a motion supporting the Government's plans to introduce same-sex marriage.

Summers apparently had the audacity to think that touching marriage meant touching family and this would hit at the very heart of God and this was something she had 'an enormous problem' with.

Seems to me that anyone who thinks the Green Party is a party that supports equality and diversity needs to think again, for you'd have to be green to believe that this party is in any way moderate, balanced or tolerant (well they are tolerant of what they believe I guess). Still the prize has to go to the Greens own spokesman (shouldn't that be spokesperson?) with the witterance:

“Councillor Summers has a long standing position of conscience about religious marriage based on her faith. Greens believe she is entitled to hold her view but this does not reflect the position, spirit and track record of the Green Party in extending human and civil rights for all social groups irrespective of sexual orientation or on other grounds."

So they've thrown her out because Greens obviously do not believe that she is entitled to hold her views!

Perhaps Ms Summers would do better if she decided to join another party. Perhaps she could join the LibDems, after all they stand for equality and diversity and the right of the individual to have different viewpoints. Surely they'd support her right to have her views?

What's that Sooty, what's the BBC saying?

"Nick Clegg has withdrawn comments about opponents of gay marriage in which he called them "bigots". The deputy PM was expected to launch an attack on those against the policy - which include some Tory MPs - in a speech at a reception later. But the wording of extracts released to the media has been changed. Sources close to Mr Clegg said the "bigot" claim was "a mistake" in an early draft of the speech which should not have been released to the press."

Of course it shouldn't, Clegg and his bunch of Muppets are like so many others who value diversity and personal integrity - it's OK as long as it's the same brand of opinion as theirs.

Seems the fascist thought-police are running the show and those who seek to maintain their personal integrity by standing for what they believe are to be hounded out, pilloried and sorely treated. Of course they are - it's the way of the liberal. Bigots? They certainly are!

As for Clegg - here's the front cover of that most essential of reading matter, 'Private Eye', which sums it up nicely: