back to article Bloke in Belgium tries to trademark Je Suis Charlie slogan

An, er, enterprising individual has attempted to register the phrase “Je Suis Charlie” as a trademark in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The Benelux Trademarks Office told El Reg on Tuesday that it had received an application in Dutch to register the slogan just one day after the staff of Charlie Hebdo were murdered …

  1. badger31

    Unclear motives

    I've heard arguments for similar situations whereby someone has tried to trademark/patent something in order to STOP people cashing in on it - by giving it away for free afterwards. I doubt this applies here, though. I also wonder if the t-shirts were being sold at a profit or not.

    1. Ol'Peculier
      Pint

      Re: Unclear motives

      I, know a company tried to trademark "Northern Soul", which was successfully contested and was refused, so there is a sort of precedent for this kind of stuff.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Unclear motives

      How exactly do they intend to enforce such a 'trademark' tho.

      It's quite clear it is not their original work, and was in common public parlance before the attempt to trademark it was made - so how can that stand up in court?

      It's like attempting to trademark Wednesday.

      1. TitterYeNot
        Coat

        Re: Unclear motives

        "It's like attempting to trademark Wednesday."

        Erm, I've got a big chap here called Woden who'd like a word about that...

      2. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: Unclear motives

        .....which you can indeed trademark.

        http://www.knijff.com/markmatters/wednesday-the-trademark/

        did you know that 3M plc. own the colour Yellow?

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          Re: Unclear motives

          ...and Royal Mail have a trademark on the colour red.

        2. macjules

          Re: Unclear motives

          Did you know that Last Minute.com claim to 'own' the colour magenta? Look at www.lastminute.com and scroll down to the bottom.

          "lastminute.com", "lastminute", "Top Secret Hotels", and "Top Secret" and the colour magenta are all trade marks owned by Last Minute Network Limited and/or its group companies."

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ironic

    The article forgot to mention that Yanick Uytterhaegen is actually a CIA paid operative, disguised as an imam for the local mosque who does satirical cartooning articles for a small Iraqi journal. Yanick has a personal hobby of studying the history of the Kalishnikov familly whilst helping his father run his mixed Kosher/Halal butcher shop.

    Yanick studied political science in the Hague, his professor at the time was a certain Reverend Ian Paisley. After his studies Yanick spent a year on a Kibbutz Nirim during which time he learned to speak a little Hebrew and a little Arabic.

    Finally Yanick was offered his first career opportunity working for the Washington Post, a position which he thouroughly enjoyed and excelled at. His editor in chief ( handler) was a pleasant chap who actually gave Yanick a copy of "Capitilist Adventures" for christmas ( or was it Hannuka or Eid al-Fitr .....)

    The rest is history.

    1. dogged

      Pills.

      Keep taking them, AC.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pills.

        I see that Dogged's sense of humor today is on a lull instead of a lol.

      2. Primus Secundus Tertius
        Pint

        Re: Pills.

        I am a bit of a Pilsner myself.

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Gimp

      Re: Ironic

      The article forgot to mention

      You pretty much had me there. But then you made a little mistake:

      "Capitilist Adventures"

      You seem to be posting from North Korea. What is your REAL agenda?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ironic

        "You seem to be posting from North Korea. What is your REAL agenda?"

        Ssssshhhhh, Sony might be reading these comments...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ironic

      You forgot to add: As reported on Faux News according to their Islamic terrorist expert.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ironic

      > run his mixed Kosher/Halal butcher shop.

      Errm... Kosher meat is also Halal, which is why sometimes you see Muslims buying their meat at the shochet's (e.g., Brooklyn back in the 90's when there weren't many Halal shops around).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ironic

        Kosher and Halal why similar in some respects should not be compared. Kosher expectations go a lot further than just how an animal is slain/bloodied. If you had ever been in a Kosher Jewish kitchen you would know what I am talking about.

        I also get the impression that several people did not understand the satire of the original comment...

        1. Mark 85

          Re: Ironic

          I was thinking the same thing.... you beat me to it. One of the big differences is the cleanliness of everything.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: several people did not understand the satire of the original comment...

          Oh, they understood it. They thought it was shit, but they understood....

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Ironic

          > Kosher and Halal why similar in some respects should not be compared.

          I think you will find the comment above yours reads "Kosher meat is also Halal". It does not say the two are the same thing or that the reciprocal is also true (it isn't), or anything else that you seem to have read between the lines while managing to miss the actual text.

          > If you had ever been in a Kosher Jewish kitchen

          Such as my grandma's?

          > I also get the impression that several people did not understand the satire of the original comment

          As someone else says below, I get the impression they did. If it was yours, in your place I would hold back on sending that CV to Saturday Night Live for the time being.

  3. Simon Harris

    An appropriate purchase.

    A potter's field might be the most appropriate thing to buy with any profits made from this.

    </Biblical reference>

  4. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Brave, or stupid?

    Has he really thought this through? That's one big target he's painting on his chest...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Brave, or stupid?

      Are you trying to be a British Newspaper Retailer or something?

      There will be NOBODY out of the "proper" newspaper agents stocking the English language version of the issue on this side of the channel tomorrow. NOF***BODY. You cannot get the French, Spanish version either. There is some laughable stock with a couple of specialized retailers, but it is like 100+ times less than the demand is likely to be.

      Cowardly fecking c**ts... All of the main retailers and distributors.

      Says everything there is to be said about them really being "Je suis Charlie". More like "Je suis une merde". Or "Je suis Ahmed C***ry goon"

      1. TheProf

        Re: Brave, or stupid?

        So you're worried you won't be able to pick-up your copy as usual? Perhaps now is the time to subscribe.

      2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: Brave, or stupid?

        Cowardly fecking c**ts... All of the main retailers and distributors.

        Well, there is a certain practical problem, in that only a few thousand copies are going to be available to the UK. You can't really expect WH Smiths to try and work out which shops will get a copy to sell, it's better to leave it to the smaller newsagents.

        Better yet would be to wait a week or so after publication, and then have Charlie Hebdo give up the copyright, or maybe freely licence it, so that anyone who wanted to could reprint copies.

      3. Dom 3

        English language version?

        WTF are you talking about?

    2. Terry 6 Silver badge

      Re: Brave, or stupid?

      Not as big as the target on the guy who tried to claim "Allah".

      Even if well intentioned, (and not just stupidly greedy), If a Shi'ite he'd be dodging Sunni bullets and if a Sunni , Shi'ite. At the very least.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interesting graphic

    Who's the bod in the turban meant to be? Ayatollah Khomeini?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Interesting graphic

      Ayatollah Khomeini is Shia Muslim, you ignorant oink.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Interesting graphic

        "Ayatollah Khomeini is Shia Muslim, you ignorant oink."

        If you're playing Grand Pedant, you might want to get the spelling right, it's "oik". Not to mention you need "was", rather than "is".

        Unless Ayatollah Khomeini is a post, a bit like Dalai Lama. Or a clone. Are clones allowed under Sharia law?

      2. Amorous Cowherder
        Headmaster

        Re: Interesting graphic

        "...you ignorant oink."?

        It's OIK, not OINK you ignorant oik!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Interesting graphic

          "It's OIK, not OINK you ignorant oik!"

          ah, he's just a bit of a damp squid.

      3. chivo243 Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: Interesting graphic

        @Destroy All Monsters

        Where I'm from pigs say oink, so are you trying to mix pork and muslims in your joke? That would be Charlie funny!

        I actually thought it was a Ray Stevens album cover.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Interesting graphic

          Oik is 'not' a word relative to the noise that a pig makes.

          The Collins definition :

          noun

          (Brit, derogatory, slang) a person regarded as inferior because ignorant, ill-educated, or lower-class

          1. Hans 1

            Re: Interesting graphic

            >The Collins definition :

            >noun

            >(Brit, derogatory, slang) a person regarded as inferior because ignorant, ill-educated, or upper-class

            Fixed that.

      4. Robert Baker
        Pint

        Re: Interesting graphic

        Ayatollah Khomeini is Shia Muslim, you ignorant oink.

        I always did think he was talking Shi'ite.

    2. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: Interesting graphic

      The Ayatollah Khomeini has been dead since 1989, I am not sure that Charlie Hebdo ever covered the subject. Salman Rushdie might have been a little bit more appropriate.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Interesting graphic

        I'm sure Cabu did him, possibly even during his exile in France.

      2. Simon Harris
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interesting graphic

      They have done him quite a few times too in his time, but it is not him. It is the style they usually use to depict the prophet.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interesting graphic

      If the prophet's face isn't ever depicted then how can we assume that these cartoons are of him if we don't know what he looks like?

      1. The First Dave

        Re: Interesting graphic

        "If the prophet's face isn't ever depicted then how can we assume that these cartoons are of him if we don't know what he looks like?"

        Simple, he looks just like Jesus, but with a headscarf...

  6. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Belgian resident Yanick Uytterhaegen’s trademark application covers multiple products including laundry and cleaning products, printed matter, clothing, footwear, toys, decorations for Christmas trees, fruit juices, and even beer.

    What, no bullets? FAIL.

    Meanwhile, did you know Birmingham is 100% mooslim? (this news brought to you by the Hillary propeller though).

    1. auburnman

      I think you'll find Birmingham is in fact 100% Klingon.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Neah...

      You are looking at the wrong news source.

      According to verified sources it is 100% Klingon.

      http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/birmingham-now-100-percent-klingon-2015011394318

  7. druck Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    WELL DONE

    Well done for having the guts to show the cartoon, unlike other spineless extremist appeasing news outlets such as the BBC, ITN, ...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: WELL DONE

      "Well done for having the guts to show the cartoon,"

      Just a pity that it isn't funny.

      1. Yugguy

        Re: WELL DONE

        It shows how hugely the terrorists have failed here - they've raised the visibility of a tiny magazine read by about three people to a global level.

        But their mindset would have prevented them from ever realising this.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: WELL DONE

          > they've raised the visibility of a tiny magazine read by about three people to a global level.

          It isn't really a *tiny* magazine. Although it is well behind Fluide Glacial and Le Canard Enchaîné in terms of circulation it does have national distribution in France.

          All three are just as shit though, as they seem to think, in a typically French[*] sort of way, that satire somehow requires large doses of arrogance and jingoism. You will not see anything like the self-deprecation often found in Private Eye or even in Spanish satirist magazine El Jueves[**], crude as some of their gags are.

          [*] There are exceptions, such as Pétillon, whose "enquête corse" was a best-seller both on the mainland and in Corsica.

          [**] Famously, even though it was seized once or twice for insulting the Spanish Royal household, the former King is said to be a big fan of it and has met the editors a number of times.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: WELL DONE

            satire somehow requires large doses of arrogance and jingoism. You will not see anything like the self-deprecation often found in Private Eye or even in Spanish satirist magazine El Jueves[**], crude as some of their gags are.

            so to summarize, it's French

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: WELL DONE

              > so to summarize, it's French

              Exactly. :-/

        2. Hans 1

          Re: WELL DONE

          > they've raised the visibility of a tiny magazine read by about three people to a global level.

          Actually, the magazine is a must-read for students - not a dorm in France where you do not have at least 5 or 6 students who have a subscription.

          They make fun of anything/everyone; HRH Queen Elisabeth 2, for example... one cover depicts the Queen bending over showing here bald arse to the Irish, to calm down the IRA (iirc, back in the day, of course) - hilarious. The French presidents have been depicted in the most obscene way, which is of course not as far away from the truth than one would think ... One cover depicts a gay pope Benedict doing stuff with a Swiss guard ... [for the upper-class, ignorant, or ill-educated numpties on 'ere the fancy guards of the Vatican are actually Swiss, yes from Switzerland, and no, Switzerland is not another name for Sweden].

      2. Simon Harris

        Re: WELL DONE

        "Just a pity that it isn't funny."

        I don't think all satire is supposed to be funny.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: WELL DONE

        Quote: Just a pity that it isn't funny. This is just the cover, it is supposed to set the topic but is not by any means required to be funny. For that you have the punchlines (or the concluding picture in a cartoon or comics).

    2. beanbasher

      Re: WELL DONE

      I don't get it. Not the cartoon but the attitude to images of the prophet. My understanding is that the prophet said that there were to be no images of himself as he was just the messenger and that it was the message that was important not him. The fact that he has been elevated to to such a lofty status is surely going against the prophets own wishes. Can anyone explain?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: WELL DONE

        > My understanding is that the prophet said that there were to be no images of himself as he was just the messenger

        > Can anyone explain?

        I cannot explain as I am neither Muslim, nor sufficiently knowledgeable of Islamic faith and traditions (not wholly ignorant either, mind), but I can speculate.

        I would say that

        a) As happens everywhere, a lot of people will not understand the reason why they do / do not do something. How many times in your professional career you've asked "why" and were told "it's just the way we've been doing it"?

        b) Images of sacred figures are a bit of a taboo in Middle Eastern culture and monotheistic religions. I do not know if Mohammed explicitly said what you mention but in any case, from a liturgical point of view, there is the prohibition against idolatry in the ten commandments, from which stems the general avoidance of representation of sacred figures (there are no images of God in Judaism either, and for some people even images of notable Rabbis are problematic. Western Christianity is a different story as it is essentially a Greco-Roman, and latter Germanic, development).

        c) Regardless of all the above, the depictions could be interpreted as a deliberate provocation and an attempt to antagonise a certain group. Of course the two problems with this are that on one hand it is hardly a good idea to taunt an organised group or armed and dangerous people (be it terrorists, the mafia, football hooligans, or for that matter the army, as anyone who's ever tried to take the piss out of a bunch of squaddies at the pub would know). On the other hand there is the problem that in the case at hand one is not only alienating that one particular group, but also a bunch of "normal" people (they will just think that you're a sad idiot and ignore you).

        As regards point c) above, there is a sort of behaviour that I personally find disturbing here on the continent, which is that members of the majority seem unable to appreciate that minorities may have different values, which are just as worthy of respect as your own no matter how silly you may think those are. For example I caught people trying to sneak pork onto kashrut meals, or go taunting fasting Muslims with food during Ramadan. [[ RANT: My own particular pet peeve is when close friends and even the in-laws insist that I celebrate Christmas with them. Well, I am an atheist of Jewish descent, with occasional Marxist tendencies. I do not care how much you insist that "it's not really about religion"; it may not be, but it's still outside my cultural parameters, which are just as good as anyone else's, so how about you celebrate your feast, I go about my own business, and everyone has a good time? ]]

        While I haven't answered your question, I hope the above provides some food for thought at least. :-) Anyone else care to comment?

        1. Toastan Buttar

          Re: WELL DONE

          You used the word "parameters" when you should have used "perimeters". That is an unforgivable insult to me. You should die for this, you unholy infidel!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: WELL DONE

            > You used the word "parameters" when you should have used "perimeters"

            Err... no. "Parameters", as in a measurable characteristic of a system, is the right word there. I do apologise however if I have insulted your ignorance.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: WELL DONE

          " Images of sacred figures are a bit of a taboo in Middle Eastern culture and monotheistic religions."

          It appears that the Islamic ban is on portraying living things - although that is not necessarily a prohibition in all the different branches of Islam. That is why most Arabic artistic design is geometric patterns.

          It probably stems from the Abrahamic religions' Ten Commandments ban on the idolatry of worshipping graven images. The Protestant Reformation and also Cromwell's Puritans took much the same stance - at least in regard to Church decorations and practices. The Roman Catholic Church comes very close to treating figures and paintings of saints, and especially the Virgin Mary, as idols - as does the Eastern Orthodox Church with its icons. In both cases they have a theological explanation as to why they aren't actually breaking the commandment.

          There is an Islamic geometric design that included lots of birds. Looking closer the artist had side-stepped the ban by showing each one with a clearly cut throat - viz they were dead.

          The Sufi branch of Islam would be the most likely - at least in history - to have figurative art. They also appreciated wine, music, dance - and apparently romanticised same sex male relationships. Needless to say they are often considered heretics nowadays.

          1. Malmesbury

            Re: WELL DONE

            er... If you go to Iran, they have lots of picture of Mo about. Quite alot of reproductions of medieval icon style in the shops. Shops which are the gift shops (pretty much) of the mosques at major Islamic centers.

            One of the weird thing about the Sunni vs Shia thing is that both sides often pretend the other doesn't exists, nor do their religious practices. Imagine Catholics saying that Protestants aren't Christians - no, heretic doesn't mean that....

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: WELL DONE

            > The Roman Catholic Church comes very close to treating figures and paintings of saints, and especially the Virgin Mary, as idols - as does the Eastern Orthodox Church with its icons. In both cases they have a theological explanation as to why they aren't actually breaking the commandment.

            Hello AC, very nice comment there. :-) Concerning the above, indeed I even asked my art history tutor about it (particularly as regards the virgin, which is mentioned about once in the new testament, and raised to such a notable role in the high middle ages). I do not recall his explanation, but what I took out of it (not that he actually said it) was that neither the Greeks nor the Romans nor the Germans and Dutch (latter on) saw a problem with depicting holy stuff--which is in line with European pagan culture. Pre-monotheism, depictions of deities were permissible and common in the ancient Near East, so I've always assumed that this was one of the monotheists' ways of rejecting the previous theologies.

            Fascinating stuff in any case. :-)

        3. Terry 6 Silver badge

          Re: WELL DONE

          ",,,,or some people even images of notable Rabbis are problematic."

          That surprised me as a comment.

          Haridi ( the megafanatical, black-coat wearing types) are forever showing pictures of their particular favourite "Rebbe". I've even watched their kids swapping "Rebbe cards".

          I've never even heard of any complaints about images of Moses. And here is one of him used in a synagogue.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moses_bush.jpg

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: WELL DONE

            > ",,,,or some people even images of notable Rabbis are problematic."

            > That surprised me as a comment

            Yup. What you must keep in mind is that Judaism is not an organised religion in the way let's say Catholicism is. Each congregation (and ultimately each individual) will do what they believe is correct.

            The other thing to keep in mind is that Ashkenazi Judaism (i.e., the major European currents: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Liberal, and whoever else I forget) are very European in character, in some ways having more in common with Protestantism (this is not a coincidence, but let's not digress) than with the customs and practice of the Mizrahim ("Oriental" Jews) or the Spharadim ("Spaniards"), although nowadays one can see increasing homogenisation probably as a result of American influence.

            The Haredim (I do not fully concur with your characterisation of them as "megafanatical", btw) are very mystical in a Baltic sort of way as you can imagine. In spite of their "strict" image, it is a relatively young current and not representative at all of historical Judaism, neither European, Spanish, or Oriental (which is not to say their way is "wrong"--as long as that's how they believe they should do it, it is not wrong).

      2. The First Dave

        Re: WELL DONE

        I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it is generally accepted that _any_ image of a natural object (flowers, animals) counts as "copying God's work" and is therefore unacceptable. This is why mosques can easily be identified by the somewhat abstract decorations, and complete lack of anything recognisable.

        (Not quite sure where TV fits in...)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: WELL DONE

          > my understanding is that it is generally accepted that _any_ image of a natural object (flowers, animals) counts as "copying God's work" and is therefore unacceptable.

          Middle Eastern cultures (i.e., in a wider sense than purely religious) tend to eschew figurative art.

      3. gratou

        Re: WELL DONE

        Furthermore, the fact that prophet is not to be represented is quite recent. There are many muslim paintings showing him. You can easily google them.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: WELL DONE

      > unlike other spineless extremist appeasing news outlets

      Why "extremist appeasing"? Frankly, I am not really that much of an extremist, but I find that cartoon pretty stupid if not passive-aggressive or even arrogant. Maybe I am misinterpreting it though; anybody care to explain it?

      PS: Explain, not translate, please. I am fluent in French. :-)

      1. Message From A Self-Destructing Turnip
        Holmes

        Re: WELL DONE

        "It shows how hugely the terrorists have failed here - they've raised the visibility of a tiny magazine read by about three people to a global level."

        This may earn me this weeks twig of fail, but what the hell. It really all depends on what the masterminds behind the attack have set out to achieve. For example, if the plan was to promote a perception (that word is important read it again) of mockery of Muslim values by western culture, as a means of recruitment to their cause, then I am afraid its all been going terribly well so far. Believing your enemy to be stupid is never a good strategy. By no means do I wish to belittle the tragedy of what happened or congratulate the extremists, just preserve an open mind.

        1. Yugguy

          Re: WELL DONE

          I don't think the terrorists are stupid, just that their fundamentalist mindset simply stops them from being able to consider certain outcomes.

        2. N2

          Re: WELL DONE

          Spot on,

          But when they dont agree, their only solution is to kill people.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: WELL DONE

            > But when they dont agree, their only solution is to kill people.

            Hey! Leave the Americans out of this.

      2. Mike Smith

        Re: WELL DONE

        I think what's it's saying is that Mohammed himself would have been pretty disgusted by the actions of those retards.

        If it's aggressive in any way, I'd see it as a well-deserved extended middle finger to people who think that wanton murder is an acceptable way to respond to satire and criticism.

    4. Oliver P

      Re: WELL DONE

      "Well done for having the guts to show the cartoon, unlike other spineless extremist appeasing news outlets such as the BBC, ITN, ..."

      If you are referring to the cover of the new issue of the magazine, you may be interested to know that they showed it on the BBC News last night.

  8. Tom 7

    Where is the original likeness that we're not meant to copy?

    It would be nice if they would let us have link so cowards like me could draw someone else.

  9. Smiles
    Meh

    I'm 50/50 here

    Obviously I condemn the attacks, and any form of violence. I also believe in freedom of speech as a basic human right but try to reconcile that with using it responsibly and avoiding causing offence where I can. Not because I have to, but because I want to.

    In the wake of the attacks I totally support CH publishing the image it did. Even if they had decided they didn't want to because they thought of something better, they had to. It's a statement about not being censored by a minority of crazy people (terrorists, not Muslims).

    However, I'm also in support of other media outlets deciding not to replicate the image. Not because they were scared of repurcussions (which let's face it is most of them if not all), but because while it's important to stand up to the extreme and violent it's also worth keeping in mind the huge numbers of non-violent Muslims who find the publication of this image incredibly offensive.

    The world would be a much happier place if we could all stop doing things we know will upset somebody unless there's a good reason to do it. And more importantly if we could respond to the things which upset us by calmly explaining the reasons why it caused offense and discussing the possible alternatives for the future.

    1. Stern Fenster

      Re: I'm 50/50 here

      <The world would be a much happier place if we could all stop doing things we know will upset somebody unless there's a good reason to do it.>

      Don't hold your breath.

      I see things which "upset" me every day. I don't reserve the right to kill people over it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm 50/50 here

        > I see things which "upset" me every day. I don't reserve the right to kill people over it.

        That's a massive straw man argument there. :-/ You're putting yourself in the place of the object, not the actor.

        Do you or do you not agree with this:

        > The world would be a much happier place if we could all stop doing things we know will upset somebody unless there's a good reason to do it.

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          Re: I'm 50/50 here

          Do you or do you not agree with this:

          > The world would be a much happier place if we could all stop doing things we know will upset somebody unless there's a good reason to do it.

          Quite simply put, I do not agree with this. There are plenty of things which I am fine with, but which others find offensive. The offense lies solely with the person being offended.

          Here are a few examples of things which are fine*, but which, by your argument, you would rather not happen, because they offend some groups of people, and this is common knowledge:

          - Two gay men kissing.

          - A woman breastfeeding in public.

          - Bacon sandwiches.

          - Sex outside marriage.

          - Singing.

          - Dancing.

          These are just a very few of the virtually inexhaustible list of things that can provide adequate counterexamples to your argument.

          *Okay, technically, these are things that I think are fine. I also think you're a bigot if you don't agree. I hope this offends you.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I'm 50/50 here

            > The offense lies solely with the person being offended.

            It doesn't quite work like that, though. Let me give you an example: let us say you, like I, do not have a problem with using vulgar language. However, would you punctuate your speech with expletives when you are conversing with a nun, for example?

            By your reasoning, if she feels offended, that's her problem, isn't it? However, part of living in a society means that we have to consider other people's feelings (as well as societal pressure) so we tend to adapt.

            What someone else was pointing out above, was that usually there is no reason to deliberately (and gratuitously) cause offence to other people. They may be the ones taking offence, but you are the one being inconsiderate if you know that you are going to offend, and particularly for no good reason. This is all the more important when the offence is directed to someone whom we see as "weaker" than ourselves.

            > *Okay, technically, these are things that I think are fine. I also think you're a bigot if you don't agree. I hope this offends you.

            Here are some examples of things that generally speaking *I* think are fine, for the record:

            * Two heterosexual men kissing.

            * Being naked in public (a position which contemporary British society does not seem to share)

            * Being fully covered in public.

            * Incest.

            * Drug use (preferably in moderation, but hey it's up to you)

            * Tax evasion (and avoidance too)

            * Violent protests

            * Riding a bicycle at full speed on the pavement

            * Public sex

            * Pornography

            * Stealing, in some cases.

            I hope you are not offended by any of those, but if you are please let me know and I'll sincerely do my best to accommodate you.

            1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

              Re: I'm 50/50 here

              Ok, I'll rise to the bait.

              First of all, when using 'vulgar' language in someone's presence, whether or not that person is a nun falls pretty far down the list of considerations, if on it at all. Whether language is offensive lies entirely with context. For example some people are offended by certain words, whether or not they are used in an offensive context (i.e. as an insult). Being offended by the word itself is nonsense, and it matters not one jot whether the person being offended is a nun, the Dalai Lama, the Queen, or anybody else. A person's religious sensibilities are their own and they should not be imposing them on me, or anyone else.

              Secondly, I wouldn't normally gratuitously go out of my way to offend other, because I have some modicum of self restraint. I also don't think it is right to impose that restraint on others. Like everyone else, I don't have the right to not be offended either.

              Of your list f things that you think are fine, I wouldn't say I am offended by them, but I do think some of these are just plain wrong:

              I wouldn't recommend incest, on the grounds that it is fairly shaky ground on both a legal, and biological basis.

              Tax evasion is also not legal, and avoidance, some would argue, is immoral.

              Violent protests depend on context, but in general are not a good thing on the grounds that causing harm to others, or their property is generally frowned upon in both a legal and ethical sense.

              Riding a bicycle on full speed on the pavement is illegal, dangerous, and idiotic. According to the ONS, in 2013, three pedestrians were killed in the UK as a result of collisions with cyclists. I wouldn't advocate it, and neither should you. If you do genuinely think this is a good idea, then you are a moron.

              Finally, theft, on the whole is not something I approve of. There may be some very specific cases where it could be justified, for example where it could be deemed necessary to save a life, but I think most people would agree that such cases are pretty contrived.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I'm 50/50 here

                > Whether language is offensive lies entirely with context.

                Exactly, just like most forms of expression. Cf. the distinction made between artistic nudes and pornography, which is heavily context dependent, apart from highly arbitrary, with the former being considered fine by some people who would on the other hand condemn the latter.

                > A person's religious sensibilities are their own and they should not be imposing them on me, or anyone else.

                So if my religious sensibilities involve me not having a taboo against certain things, I should not go imposing them on those who I think may have such a taboo?

                > Secondly, I wouldn't normally gratuitously go out of my way to offend other, because I have some modicum of self restraint.

                Would you argue that you behave like most sane people in that respect?

                > I also don't think it is right to impose that restraint on others.

                Let us say that such restraint is not imposed (neither by legal but especially not by moral means), and let us further concede that gratuitous offence often bears foreseeable consequences (whether commensurate and justified or not) to the person causing the offence or to third parties, with the outcome being that we fail to protect a) the person causing the offence from those potential consequences, b) the person responding to the offence from the consequences of their own acts, and c) society at large from the disruptive actions of both. In this scenario, could some form of restraint (preferably moral rather than legal, and not absolute in nature) not be beneficial?

                Thank you for the discussion.

    2. Flugal

      Re: I'm 50/50 here

      I am in favour of going out of our way to point fun at adults who still believe in medieval fairy stories. If that causes such people offence, that is fine.

      Nobody has the right to not be offended, but sky-fairy worshippers particularly so.

    3. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

      Re: I'm 50/50 here

      <The world would be a much happier place if we could all stop doing things we know will upset somebody>

      Then I request that you stop eating spaghetti as it severely upsets my Pastafarian faith.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Devil

        Re: I'm 50/50 here / Spaghetti and Meatballs

        Next time you're faced with the 'I don't support murder but they should have expected it' lunacy, simply ask the agitant if they drink coffee? Because to do so offends the prophet - Joeseph Smith, of the Mormon church. According to him, God forbids the taking of narcotics and stimulants. So, how are they going to change their behaviour now knowing that they offend the prophet several times a day? Are they going to stop doing it?

        Because this insidious notion that everyone else has to conform to any one religion's blasphemy laws, so as not to cause offence, is not just offensive and hypocritical in itself, but is exactly the sort of 'religious law by-the-back-door' that the white supremacist loons are railing against.

    4. skeptical i

      How then should one depict Mohammed? [was: I'm 50/50 here]

      As a turban floating in space (a la Garry Trudeau's depiction of G.W. Bush as an empty cowboy hat, helmet, &c? -- http://ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/DoonesburyInOtherWords2.gif --) with a large Madonna-style 'M' on it?

      As long as there are whackjobs claiming to act in the name of $DEITY, cartoonists will be making comments -- that is simply the way the world works -- and these comments will, duh, involve pictures. Were I a gambling man, I'd wager that Mohammed himself would likely not care one way or the other about being depicted, per se (although he might question how he is depicted, as would anyone), but those who use religion as a cudgel have found a great way to quash or discourage questions and dissent.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm 50/50 here

      Smiles, I do not agree with your second paragraph, but I share your view that these antics¹ manage to disrespect a huge number of people for no good reason, and I absolutely subscribe your last paragraph.

      ¹ Call them acts of ethnocentric ignorance if you want to sound like a pedant. :-)

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a...

    ...cunt

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Who a...

      ...cunt?

      ...oh I see ... he a cunt.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Personally I'd have gone for a cartoon of the prophet beheading the leader of IS as a heretic

    ( in fact you wouldn't even need to depict the prophet, just an arm holding a sword ).

  12. Mark 85

    Whack jobs? Crazies? Nutters?

    I don't think so. If you look at the religion's extremists, they have raised a whole generation to believe this is "real". And each successive generation will be raised with the same beliefs and attitudes. It's a Pandora's Box and it is too late to close the lid. I believe that they honestly feel and believe what they are doing is "right". This is going to be a tough fight to win... freedom is such an antipathy to them as is any thoughts other than theirs.

    They are in every sense of the word zealots and fully prepared to die for what they believe. Appeasement is not in their game plan as it's an all or nothing thing for them.

    So "crazies"? "Whack jobs"? "Nutters"? From our perspective yes, but from theirs, it's a way of life. These "incidents" are not isolated and there will be more...many, many more as their numbers increase.

    I don't have any answers to this but to write them off as "one of's" like some of the press and many of the commentards here have, those names only trivialize the problem. At some point, it will need to be addressed on a world-wide scale and whatever solutions occur won't be pretty and they may not be the way any of us not of their belief will want.

    Nous sommes tous Charlie.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Whack jobs? Crazies? Nutters?

      Agree entirely.

      Western tolerance is being abused and is already under threat by political correctness prevents our leaders saying what needs to be said and following up by with action. Muslims weren't around in Europe much when the terrible wars that forced us settle our differences were fought. They should bear that in mind.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Whack jobs? Crazies? Nutters?

        > Western tolerance

        Beg pardon? :-(

        Have you read the rest of your own post? :-( :-(

    2. Joseph Eoff

      Re: Whack jobs? Crazies? Nutters?

      Yes, whack jobs and nutters. The guys who attacked the Charlie Hebdo offices were NOT raised as extremists. They screwed around and went off the deep end by themselves, not because they were raised that way.

      Same with the ones that hit the jewish supermarket. There are available pictures of the woman before she converted to Islam - wearing a bikini and I don't know what all else.

      The real extremists (who stay in the background and emphatically DO NOT go on suicide missions) recruit vulnerable people to use. The solution is to give these vulnerable people a more productive path to follow. Instead of pushing outsiders, loners, poor people, immigrants, etc. further to the edges of society, we need to engage them in society in a positive way - keep them from going off the deep end, in other words.

      How? Well, I don't know. Unfortunately, our politicians don't know either. The solution for sure isn't pouring money down the rat hole of surveillance. You'd be better off using the same money on social programs - get people to feel needed and useful and happy and they'll be less likely to fall for the extremists. That's how the extremists work, after all. Find some one who feels alone, ignored, and useless then tell that person they have an important part to play in the world - make them feel good and you own their souls. Might be good for society, but definitely bad when it's the extremists who do the owning.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Whack jobs? Crazies? Nutters?

        > The real extremists (who stay in the background and emphatically DO NOT go on suicide missions) recruit vulnerable people to use

        Yup, that's exactly how it works. May I ask how did you know?

        > The solution is to give these vulnerable people a more productive path to follow [....] How? Well, I don't know. Unfortunately, our politicians don't know either.

        I think you assume that politicians have your best interests in mind. :-)

        1. Joseph Eoff
          Joke

          Re: Whack jobs? Crazies? Nutters?

          >Yup, that's exactly how it works. May I ask how did you know?

          The same way you did.

          How goes the recruiting?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Whack jobs? Crazies? Nutters?

            > How goes the recruiting?

            Just lost a couple guys to a competitor.

  13. akeane
    Coat

    He's just trying to increase his...

    prophets...

  14. Stevie

    Bah!

    Well, for one thing I think you'll find the phrase was trademarked several years ago in connection with an abandoned iPad commercial campaign with the working title "Oo Eeze Zis Charlie?"

    At least, I'm sure that's what internal e-mails being written and back-dated even as I type will prove.

  15. imanidiot Silver badge

    Getting a trademark is one thing

    Defending it is going to cost him every single penny he has. And it still won't be enough.

    Seriously, how does he intend to defend a trademark that is already in common usage.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Getting a trademark is one thing

      How much do you know about trademark law in Benelux?

      If it's anything like German law then there's the option of being a very selective trademark troll. Read about the career of Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth if you don't remember him. I think they have trademark trolls in other countries, too.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm happy to see that El Reg isn't scared to show a prophet mohammad graphic. Out of interest, does El Reg hsve an office, and does it have security present?

    The BBC is notably avoiding showing that same graphic.

    it is time thst the religious world got over these sensibilities.

    1. Terry 6 Silver badge

      Denigor

      Yes!

      I notice that the BBC report this morning warned that they would be showing the image: Then didn't.

      Hypocritical bastards.

      As to the other point. Everyone has the right to feel offended. Even the right to sue in some circumstances, such as slander/libel/pornography etc. that are outside legal permissibility.

      But that's as far as it goes.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Blasphemy

        I was going to suggest that there was still a little-used law against blasphemy in England ... but apparently it was abolished in 2008.

        I'm glad there's no law against it, but I still disapprove of deliberately offending religious minorities.

      2. Oliver P

        They showed it on the BBC News last night.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          BBC

          They showed it on the BBC News last night.

          Oh good, so they're back to supporting free speech, edgy and offensive comedy, yes? When do Frankie Boyle and Jonathon Ross come back then?

  17. mix
    Mushroom

    Religion is the cause of most of the problems that make people turn to religion.

    It's an infinite loop of stupid.

  18. Oliver P

    Originality?

    Surely there should be requirement that the image or text that you want to use as a trademark is your own work and is not already in use by others? Is it just me, or does that seem a sensible requirement to you?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    People are entitled to their own beliefs

    But not to their own facts.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: People are entitled to their own beliefs

      Facts not opinions

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Apocaylpse

    I fear that one day one of these unplesant regilgious persons will get hold of a bio or A bomb then use it - while they are clebrating the response would take out all the major cities of their 'world' and probably the religious sites - with major unpleasentness following

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Apocaylpse

      That was the trigger of the plot in the TV series "The Old Men at the Zoo".

      IMDB confusingly says it was a 1983 satirical comedy from a novel by Angus Wilson. My memory is of a drama about how Britain is triggered into a right wing coup in the aftermath of a rogue state's single nuclear strike on London. The IMDB episode titles do have the right feel to them for that scenario.

  21. Sir Barry

    T-Shirt

    Yanick should wear a t-shirt with the slogan - Je suis une twat.

    I hate seeing people cashing in on others tragedies.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: T-Shirt

      Yannick is a male name (it's the Breton version of "Johnny"), therefore it would require the masculine indefinite "un", not "une".

      > I hate seeing people cashing in on others tragedies.

      So do I, and I cringe to think what the French and British governments' reactions are going to be. :-(

  22. Bucky 2

    Justice would imply

    ...that only the applicant would have to pay whenever he used the term "Je Suis Charlie."

  23. Daniel von Asmuth
    Facepalm

    Ik ben Kareltje

    It doesn't sound cool if you translate it into Dutch. Better say "I am the Stig".

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon