The say anything, what's on your mind thread

[Bosco]

It wouldn't cross their minds to make a comedy of a terrorist attack that killed 52 people in London yet a genocide that killed millions of people and decimated our country's population is ripe for parody.

I don't think genocide or "famine" is funny whether it's a genocide of Armenians or the famine of Africans.

Cross whose mind?The topic was chosen by an Irish man.

[peadar1987]

It wouldn't cross their minds to make a comedy of a terrorist attack that killed 52 people in London yet a genocide that killed millions of people and decimated our country's population is ripe for parody.

I don't think genocide or "famine" is funny whether it's a genocide of Armenians or the famine of Africans.

The famine wasn't genocide. It was callousness and utterly criminal, but it wasn't an attempt at exterminating the Irish people.

On the programme itself, people have mentioned Blackadder a lot. It's a perfect example. My own opinion is that this series will be poorly-done and play on Irish stereotypes, or try and get cheap laughs by putting anachronistic modern references into the setting. However, if it was done well, think a General Melchett analogue as a landowner who is blissfully ignorant of what is going on, it could be alright.

[DannyInvincible]

It wouldn't cross their minds to make a comedy of a terrorist attack that killed 52 people in London yet a genocide that killed millions of people and decimated our country's population is ripe for parody.

Eh? But it did cross their minds. That comedy's already been made by Chris Morris and produced by Film4; it's called 'Four Lions' and is very funny.

I don't think genocide or "famine" is funny whether it's a genocide of Armenians or the famine of Africans.

We'll see how it is approached. It is possible to approach contentious and sensitive subject-matters tastefully, respectfully and in good humour. It might even be quite subversive.

[nigel-harps1954]

Walking into an exam only to be realise you're doing a completely different exam to the one you thought you were doing, with absolutely no study done for said class.

[Spudulika]

I tend to regard virtually anything as a legitimate topic for humour.

Tell that to Charlie Hebdo and France. Was on holiday when I saw, in Hungarian, a news report from Paris. Not surprised by anything which happens "in the name of allah". Very pointed when the marches in Germany were taking place there were solidarity events in France. Beginning to wonder what is going to happen in Europe.

[Mr A]

I think the Charlie Hebdo guys agree with me completely. No one has a right not to be offended.

[DannyInvincible]

Of course, having the right to offend doesn't equate to having a duty to offend and with rights come responsibilities. I thought this piece on the whole tragic episode and its aftermath by Jonathan Cook was very insightful: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/20...-is-offensive/

...

What does [the conflict of opinion between the West and Muslim world over Charlie Hebdo's "Je suis Charlie" cover] show? A battle to the death between secularism and religious belief, enlightenment and barbarism? That we have a civilised West that cherishes free speech pitted against a regressive East that enforces religious orthodoxy at the cost of individual liberty?

We certainly have a very polarised debate. But we should remember that we in the West are the ones framing the debate – and in a way that inevitably makes us look good, makes us the victims.

What we have instead, I suggest, is an entrenchment of prejudice and extremism on both sides, exacerbated by the confrontation itself. What appears to be an ideological conflict is more precisely a battle for control of the narrative. There is a context and a history that inflame these passions, one that concerns control of global resources in which the West does not look half as good as it thinks it does.

For me the Charlie Hebdo cover precisely embodies the very problem it thinks it exposes: not a clash of civilisations, but our desperation to control the narrative to our advantage. It is telling in my view that the cartoonist says he cried at the moment he came up with the idea. The cartoon is not cheeky or subversive, as Western critics would have us believe; it is hugely sentimental while being at the same time presumptuous and racist in the deepest sense of the word. What it does is to strip the Prophet, and by implication all Muslims, of any agency or voice. A white cartoonist gets not only to speak for them, but to impose on them – as Muslims – an apology. To implicate them all – through those three words – in a crime committed by two gunmen.

Yes, the cartoon is offensive, but not in the clash of civilisations sense – one that leaves us in the west feeling vindicated and self-righteous. It is offensive because it offends against history, offends against the self-determination of peoples long colonised by us, offends against the values we claim for ourselves as enlightened beings.

...

Even the Pope happened to make a decent point earlier. Does anyone actually believe in absolute free speech? It's a myth and a smoke-screen. In fact, the hypocrisy of the whole Western response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo was best demonstrated by the completely over-the-top arrest of that anti-Semitic clown Dieudonné the other day by the French authorities along with 54 others (possibly more since I last read that piece by the ever-essential Glenn Greenwald) over the past few days for "apology of terrorism" (various tweets and online comments considered just not the right kind of speech for our civilised Western sensibilities).

This was another piece on the episode, by Mehdi Hasan, that I found worthwhile, despite one disingenuous blip; that being his mentioning of Christiane Taubira being depicted as a monkey by Charlie Hebdo without much further explanation, as if to suggest the depiction itself was racist, rather than ridiculing racism, which is what it was actually doing (or, at least, what it was intending to do): http://www.newstatesman.com/mehdi-ha...undamentalists

None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn.

Has your publication, for example, run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No? How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers? I didn’t think so (and I am glad it hasn’t). Consider also the “thought experiment” offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the “unity rally” in Paris on 11 January “wearing a badge that said ‘Je suis Chérif’” – the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. “How would the crowd have reacted? . . . Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?” Do you disagree with Klug’s conclusion that the man “would have been lucky to get away with his life”?

Let’s be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists. I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.

I think Charlie Hebdo have actually mocked Holocaust victimhood, although I feel Hasan's overall point about lines of decency there still stands.

Hasan was on the BBC's 'Question Time' earlier tonight, although I've not had the chance to watch it yet.

Personally, I feel good satire should punch up rather than down - what's so admirable about offending (the already down-trodden, especially) simply for the sake of offending? - and, whilst Charlie Hebdo claim to be firmly leftist/anti-racist and, indeed, many of their seemingly-insulting-at-first-glance cartoons aren't to be read as literally and one-dimensionally as many cultural outsiders/non-Francophone commentators have been doing over the past few days out of either innocent ignorance, laziness or perhaps even ideological agenda, I'm still not really sure what to make of the magazine and some of their content I've seen (admittedly, that is as a cultural outsider not very well versed in domestic French politics, satire and the language); the re-publishing (they were the first to do so) of the infamous Danish 'Muhammad' cartoons (originally from Jyllands-Posten, a pro-conservative/right-wing/explicitly pro-Israel newspaper) simply for crude provocation's sake, however, was a particular low-point, I thought.

I came across the following cartoon response (by the Guardian's Joe Sacco) elsewhere thanks to SvD, but I considered it a thoughtful one worth posting here:

[DannyInvincible]

There was a bit of discussion on Channel 4's possible Famine-based comedy above; just on that, Tim Pat Coogan and Blind Boy from the Rubber Bandits were discussing it on RTÉ Radio 1 last Sunday. You can listen get it here if interested: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/the-history-show/podcasts/

Coogan asks rhetorically, "Would they make a comedy series about the Holocaust?", assuming that "they" wouldn't. The Holocaust has inspired comedy, however. 'Life is Beautiful' is a beautifully funny, sad and uplifting film all in one centred wholly around the tragedy of the Holocaust and made by an Italian gentile, Roberto Benigni. It was on the receiving end of an emotional standing ovation when it premiered at the 1998 Jerusalem Film Festival with Benigni, its director and lead-actor, being awarded the Jewish Experience Award by the mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/137217.stm

[Spudulika]

Danny, thank you for both posts. It is something that has been on my mind for a while, how to fit into one anothers worlds. It's been on my mind since I spent 2 years in Saudi Arabia and travelled through the Middle East. The only answer I can come up with is - we cannot. The one common thing that has popped up by apologists for the attack on the journalists and murders of civilians and police officers in Paris is - "Would they do this about the Holocaust?", answer- yes! And they did far, far worse about Marine LePen, about Sarkozy, about European militarism (especially against the Middle East) and many other topics, yet Marine LePen did not order hitmen to avenge her honour.

The majority of media outlets across the world did not re-publish the material not for any honourable reason, they didn't do so because they are afraid. Who wants to be on a youtube video being beheaded in a basement by a masked coward? These snuff videos have been doing the rounds amongst Arab and muslim youth for over a decade and many were shot in Chechnya where captured Russian soldiers or civilians were beheaded for propaganda purposes. Yet I, I can only speak for myself, believe that the basic tenets of Islam are positive and embracing, but the hadith are the work of a very strange group of individuals. I believe that Mohammed was a clever man and a bit of a chancer who, on his travels, picked up lots of interesting bits and pieces and melted them together and convinced his sugar Mamma wife that he was communing with the almighty, though the basics of his new faith are a step forward from the religions at the time. This is what i believe and even nuanced in academic language, I would still wind up in a basement having my head hacked off.

It's not about sense of humour, I saw some of the most brilliant comedy in the Middle East (a Lebanese show - I think Tash Matash - destroys the hypocrisy of the uber religious and is loved by Saudis), nor about intelligent discussion, nor about culture or even the basics of religion. It is a mix of lack of understanding (from the "west"), big business (Gulf oil sheikhs keeping power) and media games. Most telling was the absolutely puerile and amateur Prime Time I've ever seen. Miriam O'Callaghan came across as an absolute imbecile and I could not follow, hard as I tried, her line of questioning or reason. Worst, when lies and fallacies were being spouted, she reverted to standard Irish meeja journo speak of playing the offended card.

Nothing is going to improve in the near future and it is not effects of colonialism, it is not Israel, it is not wars in the Middle East, it is not freedom of speech, it is not one thing. Because if it was, big business and the media would make sure we'd never find any of them.

[DannyInvincible]

The one common thing that has popped up by apologists for the attack on the journalists and murders of civilians and police officers in Paris is - "Would they do this about the Holocaust?", answer- yes! And they did far, far worse about Marine LePen, about Sarkozy, about European militarism (especially against the Middle East) and many other topics, yet Marine LePen did not order hitmen to avenge her honour.

Are such figures or groups as voiceless, disenfranchised and economically-marginalised in modern France as the Muslim minority though? Those you mention - Le Pen, Sarkozy, European militaries - are in positions of privilege and significant influence. They have a stake in the maintenance of the status quo and find comfort in it; why would they ever feel compelled or motivated to lash out against the circumstances in which they find themselves?

The majority of media outlets across the world did not re-publish the material not for any honourable reason, they didn't do so because they are afraid.

Don't publications make these types of decisions on whether or not to publish particular potentially-contentious material all the time in fear of possibly offending sensibilities? Whatever those sensibilities causing worry may be, they're not not always Muslim sensibilities. Perhaps the fear won't quite be as extreme as "I might get my head chopped off!", but publications are nevertheless fearful of committing social and legal faux-pas and acts of impolitic, even when the subject and audience is non-Muslim, lest they suffer financial loss and marginalisation from the mainstream.

I believe that Mohammed was a clever man and a bit of a chancer who, on his travels, picked up lots of interesting bits and pieces and melted them together and convinced his sugar Mamma wife that he was communing with the almighty, though the basics of his new faith are a step forward from the religions at the time.

A bit like that Jesus fella and his patriarchy-challenging wife Mary who was latterly tarnished as a prostitute?

This is what i believe and even nuanced in academic language, I would still wind up in a basement having my head hacked off.

I feel such violent responses primarily result from social, geopolitical and ideological conflict, with religion - and professed Islamic faith is not unique in this - often covering other interests as a legitimate cause around which involved and interested parties can rally their troops. Religion alone is not ordinarily violent; almost all faiths advocate as fundamental tenets notions of love and peace. When a particular set of conditions fuse with religious belief or feelings of collective oppression and victimhood, however, history has shown the response may well often be a violent one, but that can equally apply and has equally applied to Christianity, Judaism and even Buddhism. Prosperity and economic security, on the other hand, are great pacifiers.

Most telling was the absolutely puerile and amateur Prime Time I've ever seen. Miriam O'Callaghan came across as an absolute imbecile and I could not follow, hard as I tried, her line of questioning or reason. Worst, when lies and fallacies were being spouted, she reverted to standard Irish meeja journo speak of playing the offended card.

Is this the 'Prime Time' from the 8th of January? Must give it a watch. She can get a bit precious and sanctimonious at times.

[Spudulika]

Are such figures or groups as voiceless, disenfranchised and economically-marginalised in modern France as the Muslim minority though? Those you mention - Le Pen, Sarkozy, European militaries - are in positions of privilege and significant influence. They have a stake in the maintenance of the status quo and find comfort in it; why would they ever feel compelled or motivated to lash out against the circumstances in which they find themselves?

Not always, though they have gone after the more hypocritical elements of the pro-Israel blok. But it does not excuse the reaction or behaviour. (Explain below).


Don't publications make these types of decisions on whether or not to publish particular potentially-contentious material all the time in fear of possibly offending sensibilities? Whatever those sensibilities causing worry may be, they're not not always Muslim sensibilities. Perhaps the fear won't quite be as extreme as "I might get my head chopped off!", but publications are nevertheless fearful of committing social and legal faux-pas and acts of impolitic, even when the subject and audience is non-Muslim, lest they suffer financial loss and marginalisation from the mainstream.

Tee threat of lawyers is scary, but the fact remains that even light slagging could end up with violence. Our own media outlets have a history of spinning and committing terrible attacks on our people, but they will still think twice about doing something that could end up with getting a journo or editor murdered.

A bit like that Jesus fella and his patriarchy-challenging wife Mary who was latterly tarnished as a prostitute?

Well, if you go along with the alternative (Monty Python) view, sure! The whole bible is just that, a collection of books decided upon by a bunch of men in dresses. But we can do this and openly slag off the "prophets" and god etc related to christianity without worrying about getting murdered.

I feel such violent responses primarily result from social, geopolitical and ideological conflict, with religion - and professed Islamic faith is not unique in this - often covering other interests as a legitimate cause around which involved and interested parties can rally their troops. Religion alone is not ordinarily violent; almost all faiths advocate as fundamental tenets notions of love and peace. When a particular set of conditions fuse with religious belief or feelings of collective oppression and victimhood, however, history has shown the response may well often be a violent one, but that can equally apply and has equally applied to Christianity, Judaism and even Buddhism. Prosperity and economic security, on the other hand, are great pacifiers.

I don't know about prosperity and economic security being pacifiers (as a solution), it isn't possible. I do feel that there is a way to fight ideas with other ideas, this sounds mad I know. There needs to be a lead taken within the world political community for a big love-in with all leaders of Islam brought in and hug and make up, or just chat. It happened in Ireland and it could work. And the excusers/apologists for islamic/religious based violence are fooling themselves and us with one excuse or another. Explained below.


Is this the 'Prime Time' from the 8th of January? Must give it a watch. She can get a bit precious and sanctimonious at times.

I think this is it. I like her at times as an interviewer, but she believes her own hype, I think. She was terrible in this show, I still don't understand what she wanted to get at. 2 small things she could have made (as a complete shut down of excuses made as to why all is great under islam and why all the usual excuses need to be kicked out.

1. Under Islam, other religions were not treated equal and were subject to higher taxes. Also you were prevented from holding many offices, however convert and you were in.
2. The Islamic "Empire" was not the font of all knowledge. We believe this thanks to numpties from the early modern period who delivered us the "Dark Ages" and circle jerk fest that was the renaissance. Like the wonderful Roman Empire much of the technology was taken from existing societies and copied (see China now) and the laws were borrowed from local societies and adapted. Greek, Babylonian and other earlier civilizations had their works utilised as there was a centralised force to do so.
3. The "but look at here where they're oppressed/kept poor" etc, most of this takes place under religiously controlled Muslim rule (Saudi, Iran, Egypt etc). Those who are living in Europe/USA/Australia etc have come to better their conditions and like many other newly arrived 2nd generation groups are living on the backs of their parents and wanting to get respect.
4. The "if they didn't go after Islam so often...." - sexy kids = paedos, short skirts = inviting rape, etc etc. Murder is murder, whether it's by a meth head in LA, a US drone, a shahida stepping onto a bus in Volgograd, scumbags shooting up a school in Pakistan, there is no excuse.

In the end, we can count ourselves lucky that we can take the mick out of religion and each other without fear of being done in for it.

[Mr A]

Man Pretends To Be Derek O'Brien, Steals €478,052.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/f...ud-658367.html

They probably caught on to him when he stayed on his feet throughout the visit to the unemployment office.

[DannyInvincible]

Certainly, such violent responses/murder can't be excused, but knee-jerk moralising without understanding (attempting to find explanations and solutions through dialogue) won't get anyone very far. Not that I'm accusing you of this remotely, by the way; you promote dialogue. Just speaking generally and re-emphasising Joe Sacco's point in his cartoon above.

I just watched the latter half of the 'Prime Time' there where she spoke with the two Islamic representatives. Embarrassing lines of questioning and attack; she even declared rather smugly that unlimited free speech exists in Ireland, whilst having a discussion about the anti-blasphemy legislation! What planet is she on?

As for the possible love-in, I don't see it happening any time soon. Very broadly, I feel the roots of this so-called clash of civilisations are geopolitical-economic in nature and are ultimately to be found in the quest and conflict for control of resources in the Middle East. Unless the West radically shifts its interest in that region, not much will change. A radical shift is hard to envisage insofar as the sustainability of the present Western way of life is dependent upon Western control of the resources of that region well into the future.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I'm pretty positive that Life is Beautiful didn't mock Jewish people and mock what they went through. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Father Ted style sitcom. I am pretty sure it was a beautifully made movie, with reviews that reflected the fact. Then there is the fact that the English were complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Irish people in the 1800's by doing things like preventing other nations from sending aid. It isn't merely the fact that a f***ing joke is being made of it. It would be a little easier to swallow if it was an American, Australian or French production but the fact that it's been greenlighted and collaborated on by a high profile English channel shows a lot of cheek, a blatant lack of self-awareness and a shocking lack of guilt or culpability as a nation for their part in it.

This from a nation that had the cheek to erroneously portray a whole country as Nazi sympathizers in the 1940's and 1950's and helped spread antipathy towards Irish people as far as America that only turned a corner in the 1960's and 1970's.

If I had any faith that this production would be tastefully done and not feed into stereotypes that are still very common in places like America & Australia I would be less annoyed but this is a channel that brings us productions like Undateables, My Granny The Escort, Sex Party Secrets, My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and Dogging Tales.

[Mr A]

So just to be clear- you're offended by a programme that hasn't even been made yet?

[DannyInvincible]

Of course, before we could even think about getting into a serious relationship, I had to first insist, as any self-respecting Irish person engaging with one of these common English types should for anything beyond idle pleasantries or what is simply necessary to maintain smooth relations, that my girlfriend (who is English) apologised for the Famine. And Bloody Sunday. And collusion. And...

Edit: I should have added that she would only agree to apologise on the condition that I first apologised for the raids on Britain of Niall of the Nine Hostages, which was, all things considered, a fair enough request I suppose.

[Spudulika]

Certainly, such violent responses/murder can't be excused, but knee-jerk moralising without understanding (attempting to find explanations and solutions through dialogue) won't get anyone very far. Not that I'm accusing you of this remotely, by the way; you promote dialogue. Just speaking generally and re-emphasising Joe Sacco's point in his cartoon above.

I just watched the latter half of the 'Prime Time' there where she spoke with the two Islamic representatives. Embarrassing lines of questioning and attack; she even declared rather smugly that unlimited free speech exists in Ireland, whilst having a discussion about the anti-blasphemy legislation! What planet is she on?

As for the possible love-in, I don't see it happening any time soon. Very broadly, I feel the roots of this so-called clash of civilisations are geopolitical-economic in nature and are ultimately to be found in the quest and conflict for control of resources in the Middle East. Unless the West radically shifts its interest in that region, not much will change. A radical shift is hard to envisage insofar as the sustainability of the present Western way of life is dependent upon Western control of the resources of that region well into the future.

Agree about the love-in, it will not happen as it is not good for business, for all sides. Right now the situation is perfect for business and politics, we all stay scared and those with teh power to change the situation won't. I look at one simple linear connection that speaks volumes: Raytheon manufacture missile guidance systems in Saudi (near Jeddah) which are for missiles sold to the Israeli army, for use against Palestinians. The house of saud (and their lackeys) privately raise funds for "education" of the refugees and small trickles of funding for arms for those who wish to fight. And on it goes. The saudi's take their cut from raytheon and have schoolkids donate to Palestine. Lovely!

Prime Time...really, I am glad it wasn't just me. I concentrated hard, figured it was my failing english, and then realised, she didn't ask any proper questions nor did she want to. I know it's a bit dumb, but I think she was a bit unwilling to go after either of them. If she got a simple - "Do you agree violence solves nothing? Yes or No" then the answer would lead to something constructive, not a panicked, poorly scripted piece of stupidity.

[DannyInvincible]

I look at one simple linear connection that speaks volumes: Raytheon manufacture missile guidance systems in Saudi (near Jeddah) which are for missiles sold to the Israeli army, for use against Palestinians. The house of saud (and their lackeys) privately raise funds for "education" of the refugees and small trickles of funding for arms for those who wish to fight. And on it goes. The saudi's take their cut from raytheon and have schoolkids donate to Palestine. Lovely!

Coincidentally, Raytheon, the "defence" company, once had a base (well, a small office in a business park where I think they made missile-guidance chips) 200 meters down the road from where I went to school in Derry. They eventually moved out in 2010. There was a lot of pressure from the local anti-war movement to do so, although I'm not sure whether or not that was a crucial factor in their decision to depart.

[BonnieShels]

Jaysus, good to be back. What have I missed?

[Spudulika]

Jaysus, good to be back. What have I missed?

(Being an Irish Mammy now) - Where were you, somewhere nice?