I've already posted this in the other c*ntona thread, but wanted to get it to a wider audience already (have also posted a thread on HOL).
I just saw this on the Philosophy Football site: To view the link you have to Register or Login
Does anyone else find this horribly inappropriate and offensive - to us, the family of Paul Nixon, and the Charlie Hebdo victims - equating c*ntona's deranged attack on a gobby no-mark in a family stand with people murdered by terrorists for publishing cartoons?
I have emailed Mark Perryman and told him the site has lost me as a customer and this was his response:
"Cantona is a renowned opponent of racism, he made some powerful interventions on the need to distinguish between condemning the murderous actions of fanatics and demonising an entire faith. We don't 'idolise' him but we do celebrate his actions of 25.01.95 as an act against the kind of racism too often excused as 'banter'.
Using 'Je Suis' was certainly sharp, it was intended to provoke however not offend. We wanted to puncture the banality of the Saudi Arabian government lining up behind the 'Je Suis' banner in defence of free speech arm in arm with Marie Le Pen marching against discrimination."
This is just bollocks, as I said in my reply:
The more I think about this the more I realise you've got it all the wrong way round. The Charlie Hebdo people were targeted because they used their freedom of speech to offend Muslims. Freedom to offend. Isn't that what Simmonds did? Cantona is like the terrorists - using violence to stop freedom of speech. Was what Simmonds said more offensive than cartoons of Muslims with bombs and hook noses? I'd say not., Why doesn't he have freedom to offend? Why is Cantona feted for his violent reaction to freedom of expression? You should have "Je Suis Simmonds" shirts, not "Je Suis Cantona". Cantona is the violent terrorist in this scenario and Simmonds is the victim who had violence brought on him because he caused offence through using his freedom of speech.
Please explain why you celebrate the actions of a violent opponent of freedom of speech and offensively equate him with people who died to defend their right to offend others.
Anyone else who wants to let him know why he's wrong to sell these shirts and in his justification of their sale, feel free to email Perryman at: philosophyfootball@mac1.net
I just saw this on the Philosophy Football site: To view the link you have to Register or Login
Does anyone else find this horribly inappropriate and offensive - to us, the family of Paul Nixon, and the Charlie Hebdo victims - equating c*ntona's deranged attack on a gobby no-mark in a family stand with people murdered by terrorists for publishing cartoons?
I have emailed Mark Perryman and told him the site has lost me as a customer and this was his response:
"Cantona is a renowned opponent of racism, he made some powerful interventions on the need to distinguish between condemning the murderous actions of fanatics and demonising an entire faith. We don't 'idolise' him but we do celebrate his actions of 25.01.95 as an act against the kind of racism too often excused as 'banter'.
Using 'Je Suis' was certainly sharp, it was intended to provoke however not offend. We wanted to puncture the banality of the Saudi Arabian government lining up behind the 'Je Suis' banner in defence of free speech arm in arm with Marie Le Pen marching against discrimination."
This is just bollocks, as I said in my reply:
The more I think about this the more I realise you've got it all the wrong way round. The Charlie Hebdo people were targeted because they used their freedom of speech to offend Muslims. Freedom to offend. Isn't that what Simmonds did? Cantona is like the terrorists - using violence to stop freedom of speech. Was what Simmonds said more offensive than cartoons of Muslims with bombs and hook noses? I'd say not., Why doesn't he have freedom to offend? Why is Cantona feted for his violent reaction to freedom of expression? You should have "Je Suis Simmonds" shirts, not "Je Suis Cantona". Cantona is the violent terrorist in this scenario and Simmonds is the victim who had violence brought on him because he caused offence through using his freedom of speech.
Please explain why you celebrate the actions of a violent opponent of freedom of speech and offensively equate him with people who died to defend their right to offend others.
Anyone else who wants to let him know why he's wrong to sell these shirts and in his justification of their sale, feel free to email Perryman at: philosophyfootball@mac1.net
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire