原文影片請看此
《查理週刊》（Charlie Hebdo）最新漫畫引發了不少爭議：這則漫畫到底是種族主義宣傳，還是諷刺性的評論？
漫畫引用了去年九月，屍體被衝上岸，引起大眾關切移民議題的敘利亞男孩Aylan Kurdi。
漫畫標題定為「移民」，其下寫道：「不知道Aylan長大的話，他會做什麼？」底下寫著：「在德國偷摸人屁股。」
你認為這是種族歧視嗎？不只你這麼想。推特用戶Dr. Craig Considine說：「這就是種族歧視，簡單明瞭。」
Sunny Hundal認為這很噁心。
Chris Taylor認為，這本質上是種族主義，但躲在諷刺和言論自由的旗幟後面。
但是從另一個角度看，最近在德國的抗議活動，都是有關難民的性騷擾。
而這位推特用戶特別找出「諷刺」的定義：「運用幽默、說反話、誇張、或調侃的手法，揭露且批評人們的愚蠢和惡習，特別是在當代政治等議題的脈絡下。」
若像這位用戶說的，這是「諷刺人們普遍對移民的刻板印象」，那就不是種族主義了。真的是這樣嗎？
你覺得呢？你覺得《查理週刊》這則漫畫是種族主義宣傳，還是諷刺的評論？
英文原文：
Racist propaganda or satirical commentary: That’s the debate that’s being stirred up by Charlie Hebdo’s latest cartoon.
The cartoon references Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian boy whose body washed ashore last September.
When translated to English, the cartoon under the “Migrants” headline reads, “What would little Aylan have grown up to be? An ass groper in Germany.”
If you think that’s a bit racist, you’re not the only one. Dr. Craig Considine says, “This is racist. Plain and simple.”
Sunny Hundal called it disgusting.
Not Chris Taylor suggests that the cartoon is racist in nature but hides behind a satirical label and freedom of speech.
But let’s look at this from another angle. Consider the recent protests in Germany regarding the string of sexual assaults attributed to refugees.
And thanks to Djvigrrl, we have a definition of satire: The use of humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
So if this is, as Chris Thompson suggests, “satirizing sweeping stereotypes about migrants,” then it wouldn’t be racist at all. Right? Or wrong.
What do you say? Do you think Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon is racist propaganda or satirical commentary.
