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 …
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.
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."
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.
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...
> 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.
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"
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.
"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?
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).
> 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.
> 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].
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?
> 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?
" 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.
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....
> 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. :-)
",,,,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
> ",,,,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).
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...)
> 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. :-)
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
> 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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :-(
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
