It's interesting that the commentators I've read here seem to feel that the murders were justified because the publication mocked or insulted Muslims. There's a "you should have known" or "you asked for it" tone in many of the comments. From what I have learned through the broadcast media, the publication mocked a multitude of religions, including Christianity. They may have become irrelevant, as this article states, but I haven't see any evidence so far that they only targeted Muslims with their cartoons and writing.
9
Let's not overthink this. Expressing one's opinion is not a capital crime in any civilized country. It doesn't matter if the opinion takes the form of spoken words, written words, pictures, symbols, music or theater. If someone doesn't like that opinion, he or she is free to 1) disregard it; 2) get annoyed; or 3) offer his/her opinion as a counterargument. The notion that we need to "be careful" in expressing our views because some under-educated religious zealot might be offended is backwards. It's the zealot who better watch his step. There are many more of us, and we're not going anywhere.
16
Uh huh. Yeah right. This is yet another among a plethora of columns in less than 2 days glorifying the supposed "ridicule all" philosophy of Charlie Hebdo.
In fact, the magazine (like western culture in general) displayed staggering hypocrisy in its supposed embrace of ridiculing everyone when it fired a staffmember for writing something deemed anti-semitic. The staffmember's crime was in making a joke lending credence to the anti-semitic notion of Jews forever grasping for wealth.
There would be NO tributes to this magazine if it had consistently published insulting anti-semitic cartoons. There would be NO "I am Charlie" campaign. Very much to the contrary. But go ahead and publish insults against Muslims and Arabs and Africans and Pakistanis and women...well, that's perfectly acceptable.
Charlie Hebdo published covers of black people and women and Muslims that were like racist and sexist cartoons and ads from decades or even centuries past-they were that retrograde. But it's perfectly fine to publish insults against Muslims and black people and women. No one need be fired if they do that.
In fact, the magazine (like western culture in general) displayed staggering hypocrisy in its supposed embrace of ridiculing everyone when it fired a staffmember for writing something deemed anti-semitic. The staffmember's crime was in making a joke lending credence to the anti-semitic notion of Jews forever grasping for wealth.
There would be NO tributes to this magazine if it had consistently published insulting anti-semitic cartoons. There would be NO "I am Charlie" campaign. Very much to the contrary. But go ahead and publish insults against Muslims and Arabs and Africans and Pakistanis and women...well, that's perfectly acceptable.
Charlie Hebdo published covers of black people and women and Muslims that were like racist and sexist cartoons and ads from decades or even centuries past-they were that retrograde. But it's perfectly fine to publish insults against Muslims and black people and women. No one need be fired if they do that.
14
We are the inventors of BULLYING in the 21st century and we are preparing them as a way of life... destroy us, by Raymond Ghiutz Murdock
Well, the provocateurs at Charlie Hebdo certainly need to keep right on doing what they are doing, satirizing and getting everybody's nose out of joint, BUT: they had better accept reality and do their job in a much safer work environment. Heck, I work at a public college where we keep doors locked all over the place and have lockdown/lights-out drills because of the threat of lunatic snipers (the secular, homegrown, slobbering psycho variety). Charlie Hebdo needs to go a lot furhter than that, I'm afraid.
2
These deaths are cause for sorrow, but not a reason to embrace the sophomoric insolence that offended the murderers. For the cartoonists to have believed in their heroism is unfortunate: I see their offenses as needless and childish, food for anti-Islamic sentiment and disrespect for differences. In my view, the cartoons did not intend to amuse, but to incite. And they were successful at inciting. The gunmen must have thought of themselves as heroes as well. To be clear, murderers are murderers and no cartoonish offense or political protest in a free society justifies their acts. But the freedom to speak in any democracy calls for something more than taunting for no reason other than ... to taunt.
5
This is not about jokes.
This is about democracy and people who like to live in democracy because it tolerates their dissent, but they really want to kill democracy.
This is about democracy and people who like to live in democracy because it tolerates their dissent, but they really want to kill democracy.
5
In post- 9/11 America we have never had a realistic, prolonged national dialog on why certain parts of the Muslim world feel and act as they do. Apparently Europe follows that same ill-informed path.
These people who are attacking the western world are fighting back against the Crusades of Christian Europe in the Middle Ages, they are fighting back against the wrongs that were done to them in WWI with the lies, broken agreements and false dissection of their lands by members of the Entente, they are fighting back against the oppression and humiliation of their people by the "free world" after WWII, they are fighting back against corporatism and its ills so prevalent in our own society in the 21st century. They of course are not without their own poor, oppressive history against others. Will we ever learn?
These people who are attacking the western world are fighting back against the Crusades of Christian Europe in the Middle Ages, they are fighting back against the wrongs that were done to them in WWI with the lies, broken agreements and false dissection of their lands by members of the Entente, they are fighting back against the oppression and humiliation of their people by the "free world" after WWII, they are fighting back against corporatism and its ills so prevalent in our own society in the 21st century. They of course are not without their own poor, oppressive history against others. Will we ever learn?
1
I would not be too upset if a Cartoonist attacked Pope Francis or Jesus. I might find it in bad taste but Jesus has made it pretty clear that he needs no one to kill or hurt another on his behalf.
Forget what the leaders of the world religions say, it's time for France and the rest of the world to poll "the followers" and find out if they think their God is so weak that he needs them to kill on his behalf. Or perhaps ask them if he simply enjoys seeing humans slaughter humans.
When we better understand the percentages of these thought processes, maybe then we can deal with it in a more effective way.
Forget what the leaders of the world religions say, it's time for France and the rest of the world to poll "the followers" and find out if they think their God is so weak that he needs them to kill on his behalf. Or perhaps ask them if he simply enjoys seeing humans slaughter humans.
When we better understand the percentages of these thought processes, maybe then we can deal with it in a more effective way.
6
So many comments here suggest that the cartoonists should have "edited" themselves so as not to offend. Or that their cartoons were themselves "intolerant." What rubbish! Free speech and free press means just that. If you don't like what's being said, then don't listen, or better, just engage in open debate.
7
Mr Hussey's article leaves me a little baffled. Can what happened yesterday at Charlie Hebdo boil down to a mere humor clash between the soixant huitards and today's generation, not only Muslims but also Christians, for Mr. Hussey has shrugged off one of CH front covers satirizing Virgin Mary and Christ. It is Mr Hussey's right not to like humor or satire, to shrug it off. It is also his right to "curse" Charlie for the hard time it gave him in Tunis among bigoted crowds, as well as the right to fear for his life. That day I experienced fear too, but for a different reason. I feared that the freedom for which hundreds of Tunisians had given their lives would be sapped by those fanatics. I might have found the cartoons of mauvais goût, but never will this give me the right to kill those who made them. Democracy is first and foremost ackowleding the rights of those with whom I do not agrees. It operates in difference. The opposite falls into the rhetoric of tribalism, chauvenism and fascism. What happened in Paris yesterday is a most despicable crime not only against the right to life, not only against freedom of expression but against the right to be different. Acknowledging this right in their works through satire, mockery, derision, and irony is these cartoonists' fight against totalitarian ideologies. And for this they did not fear for their lives. One can only stand and say to them: chapeau bas! Messieurs, carry on your laughter wherever you are!
23
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees", Stéphane Charbonnier, alias Charb, Director of publication at Charlie Hebdo.
Sadly, Mr. Hussey's article seems to blame the 12 victims here as he missrepresents free sppeech for "Parisian wit". Mr. Hussey seems to say that Charlie Hebdo's team of writers and caricaturists deserved what they got and I feel deeply sad for his lack of understanding and respect viv-à-vis free speech and free expression. However, that is his opinion and as Voltère once said, "I disagree with what you're saying Sir, but I will fight so that you can freely express it".
For it is not the "Parisian mind" that was killed yesterday, it was free speech that was attacked, but not killed. This year was the most murderous year for journalists around the world and Mr. Hussey's lack of solidarity and sympathy with Charlie Hebdo's families and friends of the victims is appalling and dispicable to say the least. Free speech is not the "Parisian mind" Mister Hussey and it is not French either. It is a human right even when it offends, for it is always possible for the ones who are offended to not buy Chalie Hebdo and to not read it. Otherwise, the people who died fighting for free speech will have died in vain. Je suis Charlie. I am Charlie.
Sadly, Mr. Hussey's article seems to blame the 12 victims here as he missrepresents free sppeech for "Parisian wit". Mr. Hussey seems to say that Charlie Hebdo's team of writers and caricaturists deserved what they got and I feel deeply sad for his lack of understanding and respect viv-à-vis free speech and free expression. However, that is his opinion and as Voltère once said, "I disagree with what you're saying Sir, but I will fight so that you can freely express it".
For it is not the "Parisian mind" that was killed yesterday, it was free speech that was attacked, but not killed. This year was the most murderous year for journalists around the world and Mr. Hussey's lack of solidarity and sympathy with Charlie Hebdo's families and friends of the victims is appalling and dispicable to say the least. Free speech is not the "Parisian mind" Mister Hussey and it is not French either. It is a human right even when it offends, for it is always possible for the ones who are offended to not buy Chalie Hebdo and to not read it. Otherwise, the people who died fighting for free speech will have died in vain. Je suis Charlie. I am Charlie.
6
It may be a mistake to believe that the Muslims will see in desecrating of Mary and Jesus as a sign of progress. Some may not be willing to see that happen to their Prophet.
Though it was difficult to do for such an unfunny film, steadfast principles compelled me to support the freedom of expression of Sony to release the stupid and provocative movie, The Interview.
In the case of some Muslims taking murderous exception to presenting visual images of Mohammed of any kind, it is doubtful that position comes down from either their founder or the Koran itself. We neither have a clear picture just how many Muslims take offense to the point of supporting killing the messengers.
While many of us prefer to avoid needless and dangerous provocations for those holding strict religious beliefs, I'm afraid the only long term solution is for those so offended to ignore them and get over it.
In the case of some Muslims taking murderous exception to presenting visual images of Mohammed of any kind, it is doubtful that position comes down from either their founder or the Koran itself. We neither have a clear picture just how many Muslims take offense to the point of supporting killing the messengers.
While many of us prefer to avoid needless and dangerous provocations for those holding strict religious beliefs, I'm afraid the only long term solution is for those so offended to ignore them and get over it.
3
On Sept 11, 2001, I was at a scientific conference in Marseilles. After the planes hit the towers and Pentagon all the attendees gathered in the large hall of the convention center watching the events unfold on the huge screen. I was seated between a scientist I had know for a couple years and one of his friends. Both Algerian Muslims. They were just as horrified by what they saw as I was. And their lives got much more difficult after that.
I managed the French division of our Swiss company for several years. We had numerous Muslim employees mostly of Moroccan descent, including one who worked directly for me. I went to his wedding. I went to the burial of his stillborn daughter after which we shared tea and biscuits at his home with the Imam of his mosque. I socialized with his friends and family. We are still good friends and keep in touch.
The men who murdered 12 people at Charlie Hebdo yesterday are not Muslims. They are criminals. Please stop posting opinions about things you do not know about.
I managed the French division of our Swiss company for several years. We had numerous Muslim employees mostly of Moroccan descent, including one who worked directly for me. I went to his wedding. I went to the burial of his stillborn daughter after which we shared tea and biscuits at his home with the Imam of his mosque. I socialized with his friends and family. We are still good friends and keep in touch.
The men who murdered 12 people at Charlie Hebdo yesterday are not Muslims. They are criminals. Please stop posting opinions about things you do not know about.
5
The outcome is the opposite of what the terrorists hoped to do. Rather than destroying Charlie Hedbo, a magazine many people never heard of has become a universal symbol of freedom of speech.
7
I am terribly troubled by this attempt to disqualify what was and still is Charlie Hebdo as some kind of old fashioned French humour, that would not have any relevance today. The problems tackled by Charlie are more than ever crucial: can we define ourselves outside of religion, outside of any link to any community, ethnic origin etc? What you don't seem to understand is that Charlie attacked all religions, simply because its journalists had the ideological viewpoint that religion impedes personal developement. Can we be atheist? Is it wrong to see any religion as another system of power, comparable to political power, that must therefore be criticized and questionned, even in a provocative way? Your paternalistic vision of French suburbs is an admission of the fact that people cannot grow, cannot escape sociological and ethnic determinants. It is, in fact, some kind of well intended ethnocentrism. It is a surrender.
15
I will be more sad if the French stop provocative satirical comedy. Speaking as a Muslim, if I had a few dollars to spare, I would have hired private planes, made millions of copies of these cartoons and dropped them on Yemen.
6
Violence is unfortunate for everyone. The surest way to incite a hot headed Muslim is to insult the Prophet. The fanatic Muslim has a poor idea of the Prophet to begin with, so it's like petrol to fire. All very predictable, French rationalism and satiric wit notwithstanding.
I watched Cabu on recre A2 as a child. My friends gifted me wolinski comic books when I moved to the US. "You won't find that kind of humor over there" they said correctly.
It's a bit too soon for your outsider analysis Mr. Hussey! Your tone is reasoned, you appear to make well thought out arguments, but in the end you make a reductive argument only someone foreign to the culture can make.
It's a bit too soon for your outsider analysis Mr. Hussey! Your tone is reasoned, you appear to make well thought out arguments, but in the end you make a reductive argument only someone foreign to the culture can make.
5
Once again a massacre by malcontents who use religion as an excuse for their violent acts. Most of these malcontents do not come from religious backgrounds at all. They usually have criminal pasts or are ashamed that they have not been successful in their adopted Western and affluent homelands. That is why ISIS will not succeed. They are an incongruous army of young men angry at the world because of their own failures.
6
This article sounds faintly familiar ... after Sept 11, 2001, some took to these same pages and opined that assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was a direct result of American greed and militarization, "chickens coming home to roost..."
If that is what this guy is hinting at, all is lost in a world where disagreement or satire or met with assassination and terrorism.
If that is what this guy is hinting at, all is lost in a world where disagreement or satire or met with assassination and terrorism.
6
First of,f my condolences to the families of these murdered artists. I hope the staff and contributors of Charlie Hebdo return stronger and resolute to freedom of speech. There are more of us peaceful and tolerant freedom of speech lovers in this world than any terrorist, or group, who uses their religion/idealogy to silence us. We will never be silent. Je suis Charlie!
4
Religious dogma is the 'easiest' way to close our mind to reality, as is, and that includes truth and beauty. The reason we oppose religion is that it claims absolute knowledge by way of make-believe magic, and tries to impose its will by indoctrinating children to believe the myths, and even kill others in the name of its loving god, if extremist fundamentalism develops. Currently, it is in the name of Islam that we see fundamentalist extremists' carnage and mayhem, indiscriminately aiming at innocent people. Muhammad was a man like the rest of us, primitive, cruel at times, imperfect, who tried to amalgamate thoughts learned from Judaism and Christianity, and creating a god that fit our human ambitions and desires, our moments of selflessness and joy, as well as our dark destructive tendencies. Unfortunately, we continue to perpetuate thoughts that belong to a distant past, that should have been relegated to the dustbin of history. And even most unfortunate is the fact that modern technology, in the form of very efficient-killing guns, has surpassed our ability and wisdom to control it, given that we tend to act by emotion, by intuition, and use reason to justify what we did...or didn't. We are living trying times, creating havoc where tolerance and inclusiveness should reign; we all, but especially the large Muslim community, must speak out...instead of lending tacit approval of intransigence by its silence.
5
This is not about freedom of speech. No one has ever questioned 'Charlie's' right to publish what they want, say what they want, whenever they want. This is about provoking people and then paying the price when there is retribution (as horrible as it was). They were playing with fire. They were satirizing people with a very low flash point, having deep religious convictions, and they didn't know when to stop. It's not freedom of speech, it's not cute, it's not cool or fashionable, it's just stupid.
8
Your last sentence can describe the play "Book of Mormon". At no time did I worry that the theater would be bombed. Guess at the difference between the French magazine & this play.
6
Oh, please! By that rationale, the press should always be policing what they print, lest they offend somebody with a "low flash point" and get their comeuppance. It IS about freedom of speech, insofar as Muslim fundamentalists believe slaughter is an appropriate response to blasphemy. Freedom of speech is only relevant when somebody might object to it.
3
This is ENTIRELY about freedom of speech. You clearly don't understand that freedom of speech IS the freedom to say offensive things, without the threat of a "heckler's (or murderer's) veto" - This is the very substance of our nation and our society -
10
Yes, this little cultural aperçu makes some sense. But it also carries a distinct air of snobbery towards the gifted writers, editors and, especially, cartoonists at Charlie. Freedom for the speech that we hate, Holmes insisted. The Jon Stewarts and Charbs of this world make room for the rest of us to have more measured and balanced opinions of religion, politics, art--and life at large. Hussey identifies the resentments of the banlieues--many of them ghettoes, as he suggests--but can only just barely bring himself to a moral judgment of the killings. Classic in cultural studies but missing the important point: France is not out to 'crush or assimilate' the identities of its immigrants. Integration is hard, especially in a time of recession and chronic unemployment. But it must and will take place with freedom of speech, even offensive and crude speech! Vive Charlie!
4
I prefer South Park and Jon Stewart (and I think South Park also had some sort of issue when it mocked the precious prophet)
I'm prepared to say everything can be profaned and mocked as long as you don't do unto others what you don't want done unto oneself. And killing someone else would certainly be at the top of the list.
I'm prepared to say everything can be profaned and mocked as long as you don't do unto others what you don't want done unto oneself. And killing someone else would certainly be at the top of the list.
5
How can secularism be "militant, aggressive?"
We secular humanists don't really believe any specific things about which to be aggressive and/or militant.
I will confess to be a bit excitable in my rejection of militant, aggressive sectarianism. But that's in response to militancy and aggression, not in defense of any idiocy.
We secular humanists don't really believe any specific things about which to be aggressive and/or militant.
I will confess to be a bit excitable in my rejection of militant, aggressive sectarianism. But that's in response to militancy and aggression, not in defense of any idiocy.
4
Bien dit, M. Hussey
Many of us (now in our 70's) are all "soixant-huitards" at heart, or were.
So, we sympathize. I sympathize with both parties.
Assassination is probably not the way anyone wants to exit this world.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Or, when my frontal lobe matured (about age 30 in most people), I started to understand "consequences".
Many of us (now in our 70's) are all "soixant-huitards" at heart, or were.
So, we sympathize. I sympathize with both parties.
Assassination is probably not the way anyone wants to exit this world.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Or, when my frontal lobe matured (about age 30 in most people), I started to understand "consequences".
3
Cartoons that were not witty, not intelligent, not mature, and drawn by those full of self-importance and holding gross intolerance. Meaningless publication that could only appeal to those with similar character faults. Sure - their deaths are a tragedy.
So was the waste of talent on years of publishing garbage.
So was the waste of talent on years of publishing garbage.
4
Why should I stoop to respecting a Beware of the Dog sign?
1
>
The vibes that I'm picking up are that the French see this as a threat to free speech rather than a demand for guarantee safety, which is the correct view. I believe the French editor said he'd rather die than give up free speech. Few Americans would say this, which is why we lost so many rights since 9/11.
How different the French are than us and in a better way. We, or most of the American people, are more than willing to exchange freedom for neurotic safety. A famous Justice, I forget whom, once said: that the Government does not have to take away the peoples rights, they'll give them away. If you read the fine print in the Patriot Act, the rights that the American people gave away are substantial.
As I listen to the panic on the morning TV wind-bag shows, which are Americans, not French, the over reaction outlines the hopelessness that stupidity burdens Man with.
In 2012, 33,561 Americans lost their lives in car accidents. This translates to 91 per day and 2,796 per month. Google it.
Yes what happened in France was horrific, terrible and a tragedy, but it is no reason to lose your mind. Tragedy defines life. Life is full of risks and tragedy, nothing new, read the ancients. Freedom is expensive.
If this happened in NY, I pretty sure our response would have not been as good as the French. One does not have to be clarvoiynat to imagine the hysteria that would have been the U.S. reaction.
The vibes that I'm picking up are that the French see this as a threat to free speech rather than a demand for guarantee safety, which is the correct view. I believe the French editor said he'd rather die than give up free speech. Few Americans would say this, which is why we lost so many rights since 9/11.
How different the French are than us and in a better way. We, or most of the American people, are more than willing to exchange freedom for neurotic safety. A famous Justice, I forget whom, once said: that the Government does not have to take away the peoples rights, they'll give them away. If you read the fine print in the Patriot Act, the rights that the American people gave away are substantial.
As I listen to the panic on the morning TV wind-bag shows, which are Americans, not French, the over reaction outlines the hopelessness that stupidity burdens Man with.
In 2012, 33,561 Americans lost their lives in car accidents. This translates to 91 per day and 2,796 per month. Google it.
Yes what happened in France was horrific, terrible and a tragedy, but it is no reason to lose your mind. Tragedy defines life. Life is full of risks and tragedy, nothing new, read the ancients. Freedom is expensive.
If this happened in NY, I pretty sure our response would have not been as good as the French. One does not have to be clarvoiynat to imagine the hysteria that would have been the U.S. reaction.
5
From the one side, every media should be responsible for what they do publish. And I think, that the freedom of speech should have some limitation, which regards not the topic, but the form of how the message is delivered.
From the other side, on Western society to realize one simple principle - intolerance must not be tolerated. The people who believe, that they have a right to kill other people just because the latter doesn't comply with their beliefs and attitudes, such people they are beyond any intelligible norms .
Such people, societies and movements should be brought to court and suppressed, just the same as it happened to Nazis on Nuremberg process.
From the other side, on Western society to realize one simple principle - intolerance must not be tolerated. The people who believe, that they have a right to kill other people just because the latter doesn't comply with their beliefs and attitudes, such people they are beyond any intelligible norms .
Such people, societies and movements should be brought to court and suppressed, just the same as it happened to Nazis on Nuremberg process.
I believe, as Holmes said, the only limitation of free speech should be not falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
1
Perhaps now excuses will stop that victims are to blame?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
7
That's boldly original.
Such actions only increases pressure on the western world to increase their efforts in the battle against jihadists, e.g., Isis. We are dealing with a scourge that we have not seen since Hitler.
3
One of the issues that I haven't seen discussed is the diversity of the Charlie staff. France is a nation that is 10% Muslim. If an American magazine had hired no African-Americans - and also mocked blacks - we would think that something is definitely wrong, and would likely condemn the magazine. Of course, this does not in any way justify mass murder (and I condemn the attack unequivocally), but it does remind us that if a group is both excluded and attacked, anger and frustration may result. Let me say that I have no idea about the makeup of the staff of Charlie Hebdo, so perhaps this is an unjustified concern, but it is a question that is worth asking. I have not seen mention of whether there were any French Muslims associated with the magazine.
4
There are arabs in the Charlie Hebdo team. Riad Satouf, a telented and provocative cartoonist, publishes a weekly chronicle about the Arab world. One of the killed journalists, Moustapha Ourrad, was also an Arab.
14
While I vociferously endorse the right to "free expression" I must say that I find no value in humiliating or shaming someone because of their religious beliefs. I feel that it is a form of intolerance.
The wisdom behind the statement "all men are endowed by THEIR creator" should guide us in our relations with those whose beliefs sometimes run counter to our own.
Those who so stridently defend the humiliation of Mohammed might want to have another look at Serrano's "Piss Christ."
The wisdom behind the statement "all men are endowed by THEIR creator" should guide us in our relations with those whose beliefs sometimes run counter to our own.
Those who so stridently defend the humiliation of Mohammed might want to have another look at Serrano's "Piss Christ."
3
If you don't want to be shamed, then don't do shameful things - like murdering cartoonists and others in the name of religion. And no one was murdered as a result of Serrano's work.
2
Please read Thomas Paine - He would not agree with you in the slightest.
Simply decline to read or view the material you find objectionable.
11
I was both shocked and surprised that many of the cartoonists were 80 and over.
2
Good article by Andrew Hussey, although by the time I got to the op-ed page I had lost count of the number of times the paper used the capitalized word "Prophet" to identify Muhammad. Is there anyone who doesn't know who he is?
Is the constant repetition of the honorific an attempt to ward off violence?
Is the constant repetition of the honorific an attempt to ward off violence?
3
I am waiting for the Pope, a man whom I admire, to thread this needle.
1
Mr. Hussey is absolutely right about the generationality of Charlie Hebdo. I was there in the 60's and the provocateur role was suited to domestic attack on perceived Gaullist oligarchy (resulting in the Merry Month of May '68) when there was a specific homegrown target for satire. But France was still in an immediate postcolonial and postwar mindset, thus the targets were internal overcompensation. The international and panreligious stage of today makes the same approach seem gratuitous and without purpose. Surely no Islamists of radical tendencies will have their eyes unscaled about their faith by cartoonists in Paris.
7
If you constantly insult and humiliate unhappy, marginalized, or deranged people, you shouldn't be surprised if they answer violently. I presume Charlie Hebdo had the good manners not to brutally mock anorexics or schizophrenics. What was to be gained by trashing overly pious Muslims?
15
Who decides who's "overly pious"? You?
Satire is meant as an attack on authority -- and, in this case, as an attack on the grasp religion has over the lives of all too many people. However, comming out from the minds of French people, it came off as the mark of an arrogant and complacent, not to say contemptuous elite.
To anyone who doesn't fit the Western stereotype, it was an unnecessary slap in the face, a degrading display of power. It's exactly like listening to Rush Limbaugh: trying to satire and mock poor people, however short some of them fall from your ideals, always will sound cruel comming out of the mouth of a rich man. Here, you have a Western native, more or less telling everyone else that his ideals should replace theirs, that his conduct is better than theirs... And all you needed is someone desperate enough, with sufficiently little to loose, for an exaggerated response to take place.
I wouldn't warrant any censorship on this ground: naturally, a lawful behavior can fall very short of a moral one as laws are not meant as the guides to an ideal conduct, but as matters of minimal observance. However, I would warrant caution. If you want to mock Islam, Christianity, Jadaism or any deeply held belief, be careful. Mockery and satire are weapons and power is always best used in defense of the powerless, not at their expenses.
To anyone who doesn't fit the Western stereotype, it was an unnecessary slap in the face, a degrading display of power. It's exactly like listening to Rush Limbaugh: trying to satire and mock poor people, however short some of them fall from your ideals, always will sound cruel comming out of the mouth of a rich man. Here, you have a Western native, more or less telling everyone else that his ideals should replace theirs, that his conduct is better than theirs... And all you needed is someone desperate enough, with sufficiently little to loose, for an exaggerated response to take place.
I wouldn't warrant any censorship on this ground: naturally, a lawful behavior can fall very short of a moral one as laws are not meant as the guides to an ideal conduct, but as matters of minimal observance. However, I would warrant caution. If you want to mock Islam, Christianity, Jadaism or any deeply held belief, be careful. Mockery and satire are weapons and power is always best used in defense of the powerless, not at their expenses.
1
They had no good manners and they mocked everything and everybody.
1
Is it ever right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater? We live in an inflamed world, instant, unparalleled communication throughout. Nothing justifies murder. Nor is free speech absolute. Needless to say, explanation is not justification.
8
Tragedy isn't directly related to death but instead is connected to how, why, an untimeliness, the element of surprise and sometimes plain randomness.
It is beyond sad and tragic to lose one life let alone twelve to such violence.
We live in a world with so much of it, it is unrecognizable to many of us and it does not remotely resemble that of 1968. Have we adjusted to the realities of today? Are we ASTUTE AT DISCERNING when something crosses the line whether friend or foe? Discernment is always key, but especially today.
Satire is esoteric in nature, belonging to those in the know and if expected to go over well why chose an unstable leader or religious beliefs or anything held sacred to a people? I'm at a loss myself especially when we have so much material in our own backyard. Why leave town?
Satire works when people don't feel ridiculed, ashamed or bullied. It works when wit is accompanied by grace, something we know little about.
satire |ˈsaˌtīr|
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or "ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices," particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. See note at wit .
While our own country is in a much needed debate over racism, would satire be appropriate, witty or funny?
Civility and the observance of another's right to believe whatever they would like (just as we do) is a basic social mores needing to be taken much more seriously and very quickly I think.
It is beyond sad and tragic to lose one life let alone twelve to such violence.
We live in a world with so much of it, it is unrecognizable to many of us and it does not remotely resemble that of 1968. Have we adjusted to the realities of today? Are we ASTUTE AT DISCERNING when something crosses the line whether friend or foe? Discernment is always key, but especially today.
Satire is esoteric in nature, belonging to those in the know and if expected to go over well why chose an unstable leader or religious beliefs or anything held sacred to a people? I'm at a loss myself especially when we have so much material in our own backyard. Why leave town?
Satire works when people don't feel ridiculed, ashamed or bullied. It works when wit is accompanied by grace, something we know little about.
satire |ˈsaˌtīr|
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or "ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices," particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. See note at wit .
While our own country is in a much needed debate over racism, would satire be appropriate, witty or funny?
Civility and the observance of another's right to believe whatever they would like (just as we do) is a basic social mores needing to be taken much more seriously and very quickly I think.
9
Are there no options other than "crushed or assimilated" for the "identities" of immigrants on the city's fringes? Identity too rigid in its definition is always a problem. Can't it be softened in a way which still admits to individuality of person and culture without that counting as either a "crushing" or "assimilation"? Is there a third way?
This question is enormously important for Europe, as it otherwise may embrace the "be assimilated or be crushed" approach to populations with Islamic heritage. Faced with that threat, identities become even more rigid. How to soften them? Humor?
This question is enormously important for Europe, as it otherwise may embrace the "be assimilated or be crushed" approach to populations with Islamic heritage. Faced with that threat, identities become even more rigid. How to soften them? Humor?
4
Much of the US has struggled with that for generations. The goal has been "Irish American" - both Irish AND American. It is imperfect but tries to match an acceptance of old culture with the acceptance of new values.
Under Sharia law there is neither freedom of press, freedom of speech and laughter.
12
Thomas, your claim is factually incorrect. But I understand your error because even many Muslims believe the same. That is much worse than your assertion.
Can anyone tells us where sharia law is practiced? I know it is not Iran or Saudi Arabia, and definitely not Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Can anyone tells us where sharia law is practiced? I know it is not Iran or Saudi Arabia, and definitely not Pakistan or Afghanistan.
2
Is it true that Charlie Hebdo never published a cartoon with Moses as the topic?
2
Don't know about Moses. But he certainly satirized both Mary and Jesus.
Black faced minstrelsy was once a funny acceptable expression of the unique innate ignorance, sloth and immorality of Black African Americans. Getting Blacks to mock and condemn themselves as objects of American white ridicule and contempt was "progress".
During slavery that denied Black humanity as persons and Jim Crow which denied Black equality as Americans this was all protected within the freedom of expression ambit of the First Amendment. Discrimination and violence including lynching was not very funny to Blacks.
Americans are still free to be white supremacist racist bigots in word or print or physical expression or protest. Are Tea Party depictions of Obama in stereotypical African garb funny?
France has a long history of colonialism and ethnic sectarian racist colored bigotry in France and it's empire. The guillotine and Robespierre. Napoleon and Haiti. France and Vietnam and Algeria and Mali and Palestine and Senegal and the Ivory Coast and Tunisia and Cambodia and Libya. France and the Dreyfus Affair and Marshall Petain and Vichy and Klaus Barbie. France and LePen the father and daughter.
Are Charlie Hebdo, "The Interview", "The Daily Show" The Stephen Colbert Show" " Saturday Night Live" and "Real Time with Bill Maher", the new age "Birth of a Nation", "Gone With the Wind", "Amos and Andy", "The Jazz Singer", "Showboat" or "Porgy and Bess"? Or are they something else?
Who is laughing at who? And why and when are they laughing? Does or should it matter?
During slavery that denied Black humanity as persons and Jim Crow which denied Black equality as Americans this was all protected within the freedom of expression ambit of the First Amendment. Discrimination and violence including lynching was not very funny to Blacks.
Americans are still free to be white supremacist racist bigots in word or print or physical expression or protest. Are Tea Party depictions of Obama in stereotypical African garb funny?
France has a long history of colonialism and ethnic sectarian racist colored bigotry in France and it's empire. The guillotine and Robespierre. Napoleon and Haiti. France and Vietnam and Algeria and Mali and Palestine and Senegal and the Ivory Coast and Tunisia and Cambodia and Libya. France and the Dreyfus Affair and Marshall Petain and Vichy and Klaus Barbie. France and LePen the father and daughter.
Are Charlie Hebdo, "The Interview", "The Daily Show" The Stephen Colbert Show" " Saturday Night Live" and "Real Time with Bill Maher", the new age "Birth of a Nation", "Gone With the Wind", "Amos and Andy", "The Jazz Singer", "Showboat" or "Porgy and Bess"? Or are they something else?
Who is laughing at who? And why and when are they laughing? Does or should it matter?
9
The cartoons in your link are offensive, and no doubt that's what the goal of the cartoonist was. I'm sure they drew lots of offensive cartoons on various other issues, but I'm pretty sure they had some lines they didn't cross.
"What was gunned down on Wednesday in Paris was a generation that believed foremost in the freedom to say what you like to whomever you like. "
I'm pretty sure the above statement is inaccurate. Even the French staying clear of offending some other minority groups. The muslims and Romas were perceived to be legitimate targets.
I'm sorry for your loss, my condolences to the families.
"What was gunned down on Wednesday in Paris was a generation that believed foremost in the freedom to say what you like to whomever you like. "
I'm pretty sure the above statement is inaccurate. Even the French staying clear of offending some other minority groups. The muslims and Romas were perceived to be legitimate targets.
I'm sorry for your loss, my condolences to the families.
4
As an American I am thankful for this educational opinion piece that shows a different perspective from another article, published in the NYT, by Carvajal and Daley, both describing the satire and humor amongst the French people.The two perspectives show the French have a live and let live attitude within their society. And that's a relief. It gives hope that the Islam religion does become as "banal as Catholicism". Only then will its religious followers be accepted as another philosophical perspective of a chosen lifestyle.
When Islamists murder people they are murdering themselves.
When Islamists murder people they are murdering themselves.
5
The democratic fabric of an adopted country has been bruised by the very religious fanatic twisted souls whose parents moved in to the adopted land from their countries of origin, most of whom continues to have no appetite for the religious freedom. On the other hand, irrespective of whether one agreed with the choice of cartoons and write-ups by Charlie Hebdo, their form of journalism is reflective of incredible degree of freedom and free thinking,the very freedom which has attracted the immigrant population far away from their oppressed and mis-ruled countries.
3
The civilized world needs a new rendition program to kidnap angry Islamic men and force them to watch Western comedies until they develop a healthy sense of humor. The power of Christ compels you!
1
this is an interesting and thought provoking piece that opened my mind to the bifurcated inner city/suburb chemistry in France. I did not know about that aspect of French life. I wonder: Would respect for the beliefs of all and more kind-heartedness have prevented such actions -- or are such brutal assassinations baked into the cake, in terms of our world today?
4
After 9-11, I could not wait to fly again. I was unwilling to let extremists change my world. The terrorists who hijacked the planes that day slaughtered ordinary people going about the business of life.
But the publishers of Charlie Hebdo were not ordinary people. They deliberately provoked a fringe group known to be violent. Although we hold their right to do so sacred, the results should not come as a surprise.
The staff at Charlie Hebdo and those who brutally murdered them share a bond. They are both at the fringes of their respective cultures. The worst outcome of this horrible deed would be for the rest of us to overreact and descend into the same narrow thinking.
At times like these, it’s worthwhile to remember a simple truth: Not all Westerners all Mohammed haters. Not all Muslims are terrorists.
But the publishers of Charlie Hebdo were not ordinary people. They deliberately provoked a fringe group known to be violent. Although we hold their right to do so sacred, the results should not come as a surprise.
The staff at Charlie Hebdo and those who brutally murdered them share a bond. They are both at the fringes of their respective cultures. The worst outcome of this horrible deed would be for the rest of us to overreact and descend into the same narrow thinking.
At times like these, it’s worthwhile to remember a simple truth: Not all Westerners all Mohammed haters. Not all Muslims are terrorists.
14
"They deliberately provoked a fringe group known to be violent" - Really?
Are you saying that Muslims are a fringe group, known to be violent? The cartoonists weren't going after the IRA, or the Red Brigade, but Islam's tendency toward violence and intolerance.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, true. But why are most terrorists Muslim?
Are you saying that Muslims are a fringe group, known to be violent? The cartoonists weren't going after the IRA, or the Red Brigade, but Islam's tendency toward violence and intolerance.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, true. But why are most terrorists Muslim?
3
One might not agree with Charlie Hebdo, but the editors and cartoonists had every right to express an opinion and to mock what they see as idiocy without the response of being murdered. Both the alleged gunmen have ties to Islamic extremism, one of them has already been in a French prison for offenses related to terrorism. Can we please stop intellectualizing Islamic terror and blaming those who are victims of it.
4
Provocation provokes. That is what it means to do. When it is literary satire, however, what it should provoke is countervailing wit, not mass murder.
The Charlie Hebdo incident is not really a declaration of war against secular expression; it is a much broader assault on moderation, tolerance of human diversity, and freedom of expression, all of which are essential to the functioning of a liberal, civil society.
Decent people must struggle against such assault, whether from religious radicals, the far right or the far left.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The Charlie Hebdo incident is not really a declaration of war against secular expression; it is a much broader assault on moderation, tolerance of human diversity, and freedom of expression, all of which are essential to the functioning of a liberal, civil society.
Decent people must struggle against such assault, whether from religious radicals, the far right or the far left.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
14
I am 69. I remember the civil rights demonstrators of the 50's-60's, who behaved with dignity when they were verbally and physically attacked. I have witnessed the desecration of funerals, verbal harassment on the internet, verbal harassment in street demonstrations, etc. Those who will test the extremes of free speech risk their reputation, their safety, that is a fact, and that fact begs to be contemplated. To defend free speech at all costs misses the point. To use free speech responsibly is to appreciate its value. To use it to offend, is to denigrate its value.
22
Mr. Hussey's essay is very modern in its strive not to offend, but in reading it, it's also very difficult to figure out exactly what he's arguing - another modern trait of too much writing in the internet era. Its thumbs up approach to just about everything he mentions in the essay except the murder of Charlie Hebdo's editorial staff seems made for Facebook - or a modern day political campaign. The dead, it seems to me, had much clearer ideas and much clearer ways of expressing them
10
Thank you Professor Hussey for providing the historic, cultural and social context to this awful tragedy.
It has touched me deeply. Your "right on" assessment gives me little hope for meaningful change when you see it through the lens of a formerly colonized population versus that of the culturally democratic establishment.
It has touched me deeply. Your "right on" assessment gives me little hope for meaningful change when you see it through the lens of a formerly colonized population versus that of the culturally democratic establishment.
2
It is a dangerous journey to be white, privileged, and offensive toward people who are not white and privileged but incredibly violent. Make fun of the elite, the powerful, the privileged, but why take shots at the oppressed, the struggling, and the somewhat desperate? Isn’t that what defines terrorists? They are desperate for something? I am sad about all these things but also not that surprised.
Freedom is a privilege of the individual, a civil right premised on the primacy of man ( not group). Radicals of all kind -- from religious radicals to leftist radicals -- are not working from the premise of individualism; they have assumed the identity of their radical group.
Freedom is a privilege of the individual, a civil right premised on the primacy of man ( not group). Radicals of all kind -- from religious radicals to leftist radicals -- are not working from the premise of individualism; they have assumed the identity of their radical group.
22
French wit and satire have been a core part of their literature since troubadours began rhyming. As the author states, Charlie Hebdo was likely so mainstream that it sold fewer magazines, since anyone truly interested --not many--could google the latest cover or cartoon.
But it's hard to underestimate the magazine's effect on aggrieved populations who are just itching to make a statement about the oppression of the cultures they come from.
This morning on Morning Joe, a conversation with someone clearly of Muslim background, was trying to defend yesterdays act in the context of the cultures from which these terrorists acted. He was adamant that it's not the religion of Islam per se that triggers revolts against western values of freedom of expression, but rather the sense of isolation and oppression the perpetrators felt from their own cultures.
I could see his point but I couldn't accept his basic premise because any person of Islamic background who happens to migrate to a western country because of the total lack of opportunity in his or her own country had absolutely no right to impose their values on their host country.
But this is besides the point. 12 people are dead, and we are arguing about the why and wherefore of the attacks. Arrest the terrorists and mete out the punishment that's due them. Right now, the French don't want to "understand"--they want justice.
But it's hard to underestimate the magazine's effect on aggrieved populations who are just itching to make a statement about the oppression of the cultures they come from.
This morning on Morning Joe, a conversation with someone clearly of Muslim background, was trying to defend yesterdays act in the context of the cultures from which these terrorists acted. He was adamant that it's not the religion of Islam per se that triggers revolts against western values of freedom of expression, but rather the sense of isolation and oppression the perpetrators felt from their own cultures.
I could see his point but I couldn't accept his basic premise because any person of Islamic background who happens to migrate to a western country because of the total lack of opportunity in his or her own country had absolutely no right to impose their values on their host country.
But this is besides the point. 12 people are dead, and we are arguing about the why and wherefore of the attacks. Arrest the terrorists and mete out the punishment that's due them. Right now, the French don't want to "understand"--they want justice.
34
Before everyone jumps on the free speech being violated bandwagon, please understand that Charlie Hebdo fired a columnist in 2009 for provoking racial hatred because of his allegedly anti-semitic comments about Sarkozy's son. The columnist was also subject to criminal prosecution. Seems the attitude about free speech was a bit different when it concerned a top political figure and a jab at the Jewish faith.
Read the story for yourself. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartooni...
Read the story for yourself. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartooni...
11
ScottW, that is the infamous double standard. Free speech is really what your government tells you. Freedom of speech is not as absolute as many people think it is.
If anyone disagrees they can try yelling fire in a crowded theater, or joke about guns at an airport.
If anyone disagrees they can try yelling fire in a crowded theater, or joke about guns at an airport.
2
The author "cursed" Charlie Hebob for its "willful and unnecessary provocations" over the years. It seems to me that the author is part of the problem. Hebob willfully used humor and satire to highlight hypocritical practices across all of society, including pretty much all religions. Catholics and Buddhists did not storm Hebob's offices. But Muslims take deep offense when their own hypocritical practices -- a religion of "love" that stones people to death -- are highlighted.
The author would do better to encourage Muslims in France to join the French citizens they live beside (and frequently complain about) in solidarity, sovereignty and in defense of free expression. But I forget, Muslims don't really believe in that. So to non-Muslim eyes they seem more aligned with their radical brethren than the citizens of the countries they move to and claim persecution from.
The author would do better to encourage Muslims in France to join the French citizens they live beside (and frequently complain about) in solidarity, sovereignty and in defense of free expression. But I forget, Muslims don't really believe in that. So to non-Muslim eyes they seem more aligned with their radical brethren than the citizens of the countries they move to and claim persecution from.
20
So much for Free Expression, but how about respect? Is it right to hurt other people's feelings?
6
What happened it is horrible. It is an act of intimidation, attempt to frighten, to make change its principles. It is impossible to leave it unanswered and unattended, isolate themselves from the problem of terrorism. However, fight it while terrorism is been supported by the West it is a very difficult task.
Can you imagine if the killing of an abortion doctor were reported from the standpoint of some ardent Catholic immigrants in a housing project somewhere who see in abortion clinics an "arrogance of power?"
Mr. Hussey's attempt to blame the victims here is astounding. As far as he's concerned, Charlie Hebdo is not worthy of sympathy by today's Leftists , because tits circulation has dropped, and its proprietors are (or were) old, and therefore supposedly members of the "cultural establishment."
While the terrorists may be politically-motivated, their actions are the same as any other ruthless thugs who kill and torture to enforce discipline. Think Stalin, a Latin America drug lord, a Mafia boss. These are evil men who would destroy 12 lives to punish a magazine that insulted them.
Its ironic that the Charlie Hebdo victims were in the same journalistic profession as Mr. Hussey, but Mr. Hussey has chosen a different, far more accommodating attitude toward the armed hoodlums who would dictate to us what cartoons we are, and are not, allowed to see.
Mr. Hussey's attempt to blame the victims here is astounding. As far as he's concerned, Charlie Hebdo is not worthy of sympathy by today's Leftists , because tits circulation has dropped, and its proprietors are (or were) old, and therefore supposedly members of the "cultural establishment."
While the terrorists may be politically-motivated, their actions are the same as any other ruthless thugs who kill and torture to enforce discipline. Think Stalin, a Latin America drug lord, a Mafia boss. These are evil men who would destroy 12 lives to punish a magazine that insulted them.
Its ironic that the Charlie Hebdo victims were in the same journalistic profession as Mr. Hussey, but Mr. Hussey has chosen a different, far more accommodating attitude toward the armed hoodlums who would dictate to us what cartoons we are, and are not, allowed to see.
25
I read Mr Hussey's book in which he seems to blame French colonialism for its current problems with its North African immigrant population.
Yes, colonialism was brutal and evil. But France had other colonies and other colonial wars, (Southeast Asia, e.g.) yet doesn't have the same problem with those immigrants. He never explains why it is this particular group that is so resistant to assimilation.
Yes, colonialism was brutal and evil. But France had other colonies and other colonial wars, (Southeast Asia, e.g.) yet doesn't have the same problem with those immigrants. He never explains why it is this particular group that is so resistant to assimilation.
6
What is amazing is that you CAN'T imagine that these Catholics, or others whose world-view differs from yours, have a point of view worth reporting. That doesn't mean you have to agree, or certainly not support violent reactions like yesterday's horrific murders. But your outrage at the author's attempt to explain the alienation of certain immigrant-descended Muslims is in itself outrageous.
Why do people always accuse the Danish cartoons of mocking Mohammed? The one I saw mocks not the man or the religion, but Islam's violent expression. The cartoon is simply Mohammed's turban as a lit bomb. The reason that cartoon is so provocative is merely that truth hurts. That is what good satire is. Don't like the cartoon? Mend your own ways to deflate the truth of the cartoon. Killing people to protest a depiction of Islam as violent is pure brutal idiocy, nothing less.
The cover of Charlie Hebdo, which shows lovely, very French, sarcasm in the form of saying, yeah, sure, our long carefully nurtured French culture will roll over for our Islamic immigrants, as soon as hell freezes over.
The cover of Charlie Hebdo, which shows lovely, very French, sarcasm in the form of saying, yeah, sure, our long carefully nurtured French culture will roll over for our Islamic immigrants, as soon as hell freezes over.
35
Americans might just reply: "Get over yourself". Works for me.
A thoughtful, subtle essay.
7
"Or at least this is how the magazine is viewed out in the banlieues." It should go without saying that the residents of the banlieues have no right to dictate to anyone.
11
I am not Muslim. I clicked the link in this article to the lewd caricatures of Mohammed. I did not find them amusing. I found them sickening. This is no excuse for the horrible execution at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper.
In a civilized society can we not put our views forward without resorting to violence? I am talking about degrading violence both to the body and the spirit.
In a civilized society can we not put our views forward without resorting to violence? I am talking about degrading violence both to the body and the spirit.
26
A cartoon is "degrading violence both the body and the spirit"? If I had a dollar for every time I was teased, or told to "lighten up", I would be in Paris shopping.
1
"“The war against the Arabs,” he replied."
Arabs ... are individuals that dwell or own the Arabian or Arab regions. Thus, they form a specific internationally known nationality. They speak the Arabic (Arabian) language and can choose whatever faith or religion they plan to follow.
So Arabs are not necessarily the followers of Islam and the teachings of the Quran.
I suspect there is as much difference between Arabs and the followers of Islam as there is between the two parties who respectively say peace in their native language:
salaam alaykum and
shalom
Arabs ... are individuals that dwell or own the Arabian or Arab regions. Thus, they form a specific internationally known nationality. They speak the Arabic (Arabian) language and can choose whatever faith or religion they plan to follow.
So Arabs are not necessarily the followers of Islam and the teachings of the Quran.
I suspect there is as much difference between Arabs and the followers of Islam as there is between the two parties who respectively say peace in their native language:
salaam alaykum and
shalom
4
As yesterday's tragic events and their immediate aftermath demonstrate, sooner or later everything that's old is new again. The Parisian mind included.
Interesting take on charlie hebdo and the banlieus. Is there any data that could support such a hypothesis?
1
Between the Christian extremists here in the U.S. (including the ones on our Supreme Court who cite Catholic theology in their opinions) and the Muslim extremists around the world who believe the infidels should be killed, the future for religious moderates (including agnostics and most atheists) is looking bleak.
Jefferson and Adams understood that a wall between Church and State was necessary because extremists will due unspeakable things (beheadings, Inquisitions) and fight to the death in the name of religion.
If the combat were limited only to extremists, it might not be so bad for the rest of us, but of course, they'll determined to drag us all into it. You know, for God.
Jefferson and Adams understood that a wall between Church and State was necessary because extremists will due unspeakable things (beheadings, Inquisitions) and fight to the death in the name of religion.
If the combat were limited only to extremists, it might not be so bad for the rest of us, but of course, they'll determined to drag us all into it. You know, for God.
7
Catholics are not gunning down writers at various news and magazine organizations even when they write vicious articles about their religion. Many of us respond with words not violence. Muslim terrorists have absolutely nothing in common with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church preaches love not hate.
3
The Catholic Church is responsible for the Crusades against Islam in the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church is responsible for the oppression of women and minorities the world over. The Catholic Church is responsible for the sexual abuse of children. The Catholic Church preaches love in the same manner as Islam does.
2
Bigotry, like racism is intolerable. The two words are often confused and misused which only underscores the unacceptability of Bigotry. There was outrage over Mel's Crucifixion though it did not escalate into publications lampooning Jesus. I don't deny this was a criminal act, the shooting of the policeman was cold blooded murder, no passion, no taunting, no driving belief. Unfortunately Charlie Hebdoo has now paid the price of Bigotry, I wonder if it would have had the same outcome if the magazine had directed its talents to the Pope, the Queen of England (as head of the Church of England), the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders and prophets. I don’t think so because it seems it is understood that this is a no go area, why not the same for Islam?
3
It is not the case that Charlie Hebdo refrained from attacking sacred cows other than Islamic ones. They have consistently mocked all religions, all political parties, all taboos, whether those of the right or of the left. Look up some of Cabu's work, such as "Le Journal de Catherine" ("Catherine's Diary") published in 1970, almost half a century ago. It portrays scenes inside a Catholic boarding school that Catholics, and most non-Catholics, would find extremely offensive (but funny nonetheless). To say that these cartoonists were simply anti-Islamic because French Muslims, like the Roms, are the weakest group in France today, while other groups represent "no go areas", completely misrepresents the truth and lays the groundwork for a craven and despicable defense of their murderers.
28
"...I wonder if it would have had the same outcome if the magazine had directed its talents to the Pope, the Queen of England (as head of the Church of England), the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders and prophets. I don’t think so because it seems it is understood that this is a no go area, why not the same for Islam?"
That is not an accurate understanding of Charlie Hebdoo. It satirizes pretty much all religions, public figures, even Jesus is not off limits... as Hussey describes in this very article. There are better questions to ask given that reality.
That is not an accurate understanding of Charlie Hebdoo. It satirizes pretty much all religions, public figures, even Jesus is not off limits... as Hussey describes in this very article. There are better questions to ask given that reality.
5
You entirely misunderstand Carlie Hebdo and the entire situation. Charlie Hebdo DID routinely mock the Pope, Queen Elizabeth, Jesus, Christianity, and Judaism - Just as they mocked Muhammed and Islam. In the modern world, Muslims have a near monopoly on killing and attempting to kill those who offend them.
This is not a problem with 'bigotry', it is a problem with Islam, and its intolerance -
This intolerance is codified in the laws of the Islamic world from the Maghreb to Southeast Asia -
This is not a problem with 'bigotry', it is a problem with Islam, and its intolerance -
This intolerance is codified in the laws of the Islamic world from the Maghreb to Southeast Asia -
4
The cartoons in your link are offensive, and no doubt that's what the goal of the cartoonist was. I'm sure they drew lots of offensive cartoons on various other issues, but I'm pretty sure they had some lines they didn't cross.
"What was gunned down on Wednesday in Paris was a generation that believed foremost in the freedom to say what you like to whomever you like. "
I'm pretty sure the above statement is inaccurate. Even the French staying clear of offending some other minority groups. The muslims and Romas were perceived to be legitimate targets.
I'm sorry for your loss, my condolences to the families.
"What was gunned down on Wednesday in Paris was a generation that believed foremost in the freedom to say what you like to whomever you like. "
I'm pretty sure the above statement is inaccurate. Even the French staying clear of offending some other minority groups. The muslims and Romas were perceived to be legitimate targets.
I'm sorry for your loss, my condolences to the families.
2
To someone who came of age in the late '60s--early '70s, one point that the writer makes especially stands out---when one generation's "upstarts" become the establishment, and don't realize that they have become the establishment, still viewing themselves from their youthful perspective without seeing that the world around them has changed, those "upstarts" can be perceived as "oppressors" by a new generation of underdogs. That what is viewed as just the cheeky behavior of intellectuals in Paris could be perceived as the dehumanization of the powerless by those living in the suburbs of Paris in no way condones the barbaric act that was committed. But freedom of expression should also make it possible for those powerless to express, in peaceful if pointed ways, their no doubt equally satirical view of their society's privileged, including those of the highly educated who may be lacking in self-awareness.
15
"the arrogance of those in power who can mock what they like, including deeply held religious beliefs, perhaps the only part of personal identity that has not been crushed or assimilated into mainstream French society"... Well, Andrew, if we're indeed crushing their personal identities, we're not doing a very good job at it, especially at imposing the ideas of freedom of expression, or woman's rights... seems to me some more crushing needs to be done against the enemies of our liberal societies...
21
I commend the New York Times for not publishing the cartoons.
21
I condemn the NYT and any other organization for not publishing the cartoons. Printing them would be a reminder to the murdering pigs of the world that most of us still believe in freedom of expression.
6
As a French expat, I have to say this article gives a very good insight from an outsider of what Charlie Hebdo is for French people. By attacking Charlie Hebdo, they attacked the French society and "la republique" deep in its roots. Therefore, the entire nation felt attacked and if they think they killed Charlie Hebdo, this is the complete opposite they created.
68
Arguments supporting Hebdo's free speech rights in our country are filled with hypocrisy. When 2 officers were gunned down in Brooklyn, legions of high ranking officials blamed the peaceful protests as the precipitating cause of a mad man's murders. Even the mayor called for a curtailment of peaceful protests. No one cared about free speech and many blamed the free speech for the officers' deaths.
In Paris, our reaction to the murders of journalists is just the opposite. The same folks who blamed the protestors in our country for inciting the violence against 2 officers, condemn the Hebdo murders as a direct assault on free speech. Few argue that the satirical cartoons were responsible for inciting the murders.
The difference in reaction--politics. Police officers are revered in the U.S., so free speech was made the villain. On the other hand, people hate Muslims and Islam, so free speech becomes the victim.
Remember, most of the conservatives, allegedly outraged by the Hebdo murders, were the same people calling for a boycott of all things French in 2002, when France independently refused to join in our illegal war in Iraq. Remember Freedom Fries?
I can only imagine the outrage and condemnation these faux free speech supporters would have expressed at any cartoon satirizing Bush/Chenney, et al. Do you think a single one of these cartoons would have run in the NYT's?
In Paris, our reaction to the murders of journalists is just the opposite. The same folks who blamed the protestors in our country for inciting the violence against 2 officers, condemn the Hebdo murders as a direct assault on free speech. Few argue that the satirical cartoons were responsible for inciting the murders.
The difference in reaction--politics. Police officers are revered in the U.S., so free speech was made the villain. On the other hand, people hate Muslims and Islam, so free speech becomes the victim.
Remember, most of the conservatives, allegedly outraged by the Hebdo murders, were the same people calling for a boycott of all things French in 2002, when France independently refused to join in our illegal war in Iraq. Remember Freedom Fries?
I can only imagine the outrage and condemnation these faux free speech supporters would have expressed at any cartoon satirizing Bush/Chenney, et al. Do you think a single one of these cartoons would have run in the NYT's?
47
There is a difference between criticizing or condemning what was said from killing because of what was said. The NYT does not run political cartoons.
1
"Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-sha...
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-sha...
3
I completely agree with you. Killing people to advance a political cause, or religion, is absolutely wrong. I look forward to reading your comments when the U.S. kills innocent civilians by Drone, or War.
Peace.
Peace.
17
"What was gunned down on Wednesday in Paris was a generation that believed foremost in the freedom to say what you like to whomever you like. Parisians pride themselves on what they call “gouaille,” a kind of cheeky wit, based on free thinking and a love of provocation, that always stands in opposition to authority.
The awful killings are the direct opposite of all that: the merciless massacre of the Parisian mind."
I like this very much. I think this says it all and I hope the NY Times prints this comment, as it seems to censor any comment made by me. Why I don't know.
The awful killings are the direct opposite of all that: the merciless massacre of the Parisian mind."
I like this very much. I think this says it all and I hope the NY Times prints this comment, as it seems to censor any comment made by me. Why I don't know.
3
I think the looming task for our culture is to deal with the sins of multiculturalism: in our efforts to provide a safe place for other cultures to live their customs and beliefs, we have abandoned a base level of assimilation that would correct for customs or beliefs that cannot live in our culture.
The dirty reality is this: to live in the West - to come here seeking our protection, our freedoms, our economic opportunity - is to compromise some of the cultural or ethnic traditions of the unstable lands and cultures producing these refugees.
We cannot be both: you cannot flee the Islamic world because it stifles all economic, religious, intellectual, and personal liberty while simultaneously trying to impose a photocopy of that culture into a new, Western host country to which you are trying to immigrate and join.
Speaking as a fierce liberal, the time has come to face this dissonance bravely and understand that there is a middle path that we must engage. In our anxiousness to never, never, never, never be the insular likes of a Cheney or a W Bush, we have gone too far in the other direction. There is no safe place to issue strong critique in liberal circles anymore without being labeled "one of those" conservatives.
We are all French, today. I know that my tears flow for the country to whom we owe our independence and our freedoms. Vive la France! Vive la République, et Vive l'égalité, la liberté, la fraternité! Nous sommes l'un avec vous, amis.
The dirty reality is this: to live in the West - to come here seeking our protection, our freedoms, our economic opportunity - is to compromise some of the cultural or ethnic traditions of the unstable lands and cultures producing these refugees.
We cannot be both: you cannot flee the Islamic world because it stifles all economic, religious, intellectual, and personal liberty while simultaneously trying to impose a photocopy of that culture into a new, Western host country to which you are trying to immigrate and join.
Speaking as a fierce liberal, the time has come to face this dissonance bravely and understand that there is a middle path that we must engage. In our anxiousness to never, never, never, never be the insular likes of a Cheney or a W Bush, we have gone too far in the other direction. There is no safe place to issue strong critique in liberal circles anymore without being labeled "one of those" conservatives.
We are all French, today. I know that my tears flow for the country to whom we owe our independence and our freedoms. Vive la France! Vive la République, et Vive l'égalité, la liberté, la fraternité! Nous sommes l'un avec vous, amis.
50
The implied point of this article is that white Parisians have chosen to exist in their own dated cultural bubble, ignoring the enormous ethnic and cultural changes outside central Paris. This applies, not only to Muslims in the suburbs, but also to other religious Parisians. I live in Sydney, where the government and police and have spent decades trying to get alongside our ethnic minorities. The result is that it is considered at least, impolite, and at most, illegal, to disseminate such material.
Every first world country has to live with the ethnic consequences of its 19th century colonialism. We should stop putting our heads in the sand, and get on with integrating.
Every first world country has to live with the ethnic consequences of its 19th century colonialism. We should stop putting our heads in the sand, and get on with integrating.
16
The "integration" you advocate sounds like capitulation to Islamic fundamentalism. The many terrorist actions, plots and exported Jihadis in your country suggest that "getting alongside" angry Moslems hasn't succeeding in pacifying them.
4
"The pen is mightier than the sword"
-- English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839
Vive la différence !
The world stands with France today......and with freedom of expression..with “la provoc” ....with “L’esprit frondeur” .....with “gouaille,”....with secularism...with a sense of humor.... against the dark, medieval forces of organized religion and radical Islam.
-- English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839
Vive la différence !
The world stands with France today......and with freedom of expression..with “la provoc” ....with “L’esprit frondeur” .....with “gouaille,”....with secularism...with a sense of humor.... against the dark, medieval forces of organized religion and radical Islam.
78
Organized religion seems so nasty, a vehicle for violence and domination. It's admirable to be able poke fun at it; the alternative is to become a hater. The only person lately who seems both religious and kind is the Pope. I'll be interested in how religious leaders respond to the attack.
7
The Dutch had the right idea.
They sent prospective immigrants a DVD which showed men kissing and women, topless, at the beach.
The gist was:
This is the Nederlands.
If you don't like it do not immigrate here.
They sent prospective immigrants a DVD which showed men kissing and women, topless, at the beach.
The gist was:
This is the Nederlands.
If you don't like it do not immigrate here.
86
And yet they still have problems with their large, non assimilating immigrant populations.
Dying is easy, humor is hard.
3
Andy, your commentary sure doesn't sound like you give a fig for press freedom. Perhaps if the French government had been more active in protecting their journalists rather than warning them to be cautious, the murder of 12 of their citizens might not have occurred. Not to fear, worse is yet to come, only in reverse!
4
Thank you for the informative piece. May "gouaille" become the most welcome export from France.
4
Well, somebody finally said it! i am of the same generation that once mocked almost everything and i still do. However, mockery can easily turn into something that vilifies deeply one's soul. How would the people in the USA like it if a newspaper published a "cartoon" showing Christ with an erection ready for a sexual act?
I am deeply sorry for lives lost, but anybody whether religious or non believer should know when to far is too far.
I am deeply sorry for lives lost, but anybody whether religious or non believer should know when to far is too far.
22
Another person blaming the victim! There is nothing wrong with vilifying someone's "soul." (Is there really such a thing? Let's be honest: you are talking about strong feelings. not a mythical entity called a soul.)
There is nothing wrong with a lewd cartoon of Christ or Mohammed. And if you object, you must express yourself in words, not with murder.
There is nothing wrong with a lewd cartoon of Christ or Mohammed. And if you object, you must express yourself in words, not with murder.
5
Religionists enter a tolerant society. Adherent to any religion which encourages the killing of others for expressions of opinions are not tolerant. While I welcome Muslims into our midst, I do so with reservations at this point. When one enters another society, one adapts. Apparently there are factions of Muslims who believe in the crime of "blasphemy". I do not. I do not think that it is a Western concept that one "blasphemes". The mere refusal to become a member of a religion--whichever that religion is---let's face it, there are so many choices---is viewed as a sort of blasphemy.
Their attitude? Either agree with me or be killed.
It is not in my nature to desire to be in society with only those who agree with my views. However, I am weary of Muslims who seem to believe that when they move into a free & open society, they have the right to "reform" that society in their own views.
While I do not currently advocate for the mass deportations of Muslims who hold religious views that would seriously limit our openness & freedom, I am beginning to understand others who are labeled "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim".
It is not a right to enter the offices of those with whom I disagree in order to gun them down. That is not a Western value. I am beginning to sense why so many are fearful of Islam & some of the adherents of Islam. If Muslims wish to live within liberal, open societies, they are welcome to do so. They are not welcome as killers.
Their attitude? Either agree with me or be killed.
It is not in my nature to desire to be in society with only those who agree with my views. However, I am weary of Muslims who seem to believe that when they move into a free & open society, they have the right to "reform" that society in their own views.
While I do not currently advocate for the mass deportations of Muslims who hold religious views that would seriously limit our openness & freedom, I am beginning to understand others who are labeled "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim".
It is not a right to enter the offices of those with whom I disagree in order to gun them down. That is not a Western value. I am beginning to sense why so many are fearful of Islam & some of the adherents of Islam. If Muslims wish to live within liberal, open societies, they are welcome to do so. They are not welcome as killers.
63
@chuckwagon: "It is not a right to enter the offices of those with whom I disagree in order to gun them down. That is not a Western value."
Perhaps the right to publish, for money, deliberately humiliating cartoons is not such a great idea, even if it is Western. The problem of angry reactions to avid the experience of shame is a world-wide phenomenon, not one restricted to a particular ideology or religion.
Perhaps the right to publish, for money, deliberately humiliating cartoons is not such a great idea, even if it is Western. The problem of angry reactions to avid the experience of shame is a world-wide phenomenon, not one restricted to a particular ideology or religion.
1
Why is this comment not a NYT pick?
How ironic that one of the two prominent cartoonists murdered was Georges Wolinski, born in Tunisia (!) to Jewish parents, his father from Poland and mother, Lola Bembaron, from Tunisia.
8
Satire is not humour; it is jocularity. Unlike humour, satire is merciless. It is not civilized, just as unlimited freedom, i.e. unrestrained by self-discipline, is uncivilized.
Time to be more accurate in our thinking, more careful, and less aggressively precise.
Time to be more accurate in our thinking, more careful, and less aggressively precise.
10
First, since you knew the victims of this crime, I am sorry.
France, like most of the West has been a sleep while an organized effort by a political entity named Islam has been at work expanding its effort to control other nation states. The false identification as a religion has given Islam, its cover to hide and avoid any critical analysis. I believe the publishers and editors might have well understood this hence, there mocking of a political leader name Mohammad was and is right on.
France, like most of the West has been a sleep while an organized effort by a political entity named Islam has been at work expanding its effort to control other nation states. The false identification as a religion has given Islam, its cover to hide and avoid any critical analysis. I believe the publishers and editors might have well understood this hence, there mocking of a political leader name Mohammad was and is right on.
16
"...perhaps the only part of personal identity that has not been crushed or assimilated into mainstream French society."
No. That's just the problem. NONE of the personal identity of many Muslim immigrations has been assimilated into mainstream French society. This particular immigrant group has a large section that is highly resistant to integration or assimilation.
No. That's just the problem. NONE of the personal identity of many Muslim immigrations has been assimilated into mainstream French society. This particular immigrant group has a large section that is highly resistant to integration or assimilation.
26
Yes indeed - best write-up so far. Excellent work Mr. Hussey and thank you.
That's the best article I've read about CHARLIE and french cultural traditional sling-spirit.
" No one should be worried for his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, subject to responsibility for the abuse of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
1789 - Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.
We french are used to fanatism, specially anti-farangi (by the way, franc/farangi, close isn't ?). We've been fighting it for centuries, not 13 years and a few months. Ever heard about Armed Islamic Group or nowadays AQIM, those Africa sands' jackals facing french euroTigers ? Just check history, fella .. and news in the outta world. We are more after them than you think, that's why they tried to hit us.
"Même pas mal". WE ARE CHARLIE, and we'll stand our satirical ground.
" No one should be worried for his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, subject to responsibility for the abuse of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
1789 - Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.
We french are used to fanatism, specially anti-farangi (by the way, franc/farangi, close isn't ?). We've been fighting it for centuries, not 13 years and a few months. Ever heard about Armed Islamic Group or nowadays AQIM, those Africa sands' jackals facing french euroTigers ? Just check history, fella .. and news in the outta world. We are more after them than you think, that's why they tried to hit us.
"Même pas mal". WE ARE CHARLIE, and we'll stand our satirical ground.
10
So you don't think that purposely violating one of the most sacred tenets of a religion does not disturb the public order? How undisturbed is the public order in Paris today?
1
My impressions are varied. Some people in freedom movements love provocation for its own sake, enjoy mocking power, asserting their independence from the inhibitions of society. These rebels may also have worthy goals to defeat excessive restrictions. These vary in time and place.
We also see provocateurs in the NY demonstrations protesting police abuse, where a very few will deliberately incite cops, so they will be arrested, which will take up all the TV news coverage that evening.
Meanwhile 30,000 sedate and peaceful protesters, show mutual cooperation with cops on the streets, trying to achieve a goal. But the arrests get more TV time.
Those NY cops who turn their back on the mayor, and fly planes with anti Deblasio banners are setting themselves up as provocateurs, playing the role of victims for public sympathy. And getting it.
For some provocateurs the movement’s goals take 2nd place. Or are springboard for their own personal rebellion and limelight seeking.
This needs more discussion in coverage of protest movements of all kinds, so extremists don’t dominate the message. What were the actual motives currently of the aging hippie French satirists so brutally murdered?
I wonder if those opposing all religious authority could express it without having to pictorially humiliate their objects? There are cartoons and cartoons. Use facts, positive examples, persuasion. Maybe that’s not so satisfying.
We also see provocateurs in the NY demonstrations protesting police abuse, where a very few will deliberately incite cops, so they will be arrested, which will take up all the TV news coverage that evening.
Meanwhile 30,000 sedate and peaceful protesters, show mutual cooperation with cops on the streets, trying to achieve a goal. But the arrests get more TV time.
Those NY cops who turn their back on the mayor, and fly planes with anti Deblasio banners are setting themselves up as provocateurs, playing the role of victims for public sympathy. And getting it.
For some provocateurs the movement’s goals take 2nd place. Or are springboard for their own personal rebellion and limelight seeking.
This needs more discussion in coverage of protest movements of all kinds, so extremists don’t dominate the message. What were the actual motives currently of the aging hippie French satirists so brutally murdered?
I wonder if those opposing all religious authority could express it without having to pictorially humiliate their objects? There are cartoons and cartoons. Use facts, positive examples, persuasion. Maybe that’s not so satisfying.
28
Meredith,
You are wrong to blame the victims. The freedom to offend is essential. It should be met with other words and images, not with murder and terror.
You are wrong to blame the victims. The freedom to offend is essential. It should be met with other words and images, not with murder and terror.
4
Freedom of speech cannot exist without the right to offend. Charlie mocked everyone, not just Muslims. No one else responded by murdering artists and writers. We need more mockery of religious zealots, not less.
91
I hear what you are saying, but didn't we just go through a period during the recent Gaza War in which mocking of Jews was considered anti-Semitic and highly disturbing. I saw no defense of that form of free speech in this Country. In Germany, there are laws on the books that criminalize such speech.
I also think we under appreciate the outrage caused by our troops killing tens of thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq and the surrounding countries. Bush even had Bible verses written on his daily briefings.
In our country, we would never attribute violence to Christianity because of the crazed violent attacks of a few. Yet, many politicians love to describe us as a Christian nation as we march off to war. Check out the religious indoctrination going on in the military.
I lived through a period in Vietnam of love it or leave it. I find a lot of this sudden free speech outrage a not so thinly veiled response to Muslim/Islam hatred. Don't believe me. Wait for the response who support Hebdo's free speech rights when the anti-police violence protests start back up. Remember the mass arrests of occupy?
Free speech is a much more politically charged topic in our country that most want to admit.
I also think we under appreciate the outrage caused by our troops killing tens of thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq and the surrounding countries. Bush even had Bible verses written on his daily briefings.
In our country, we would never attribute violence to Christianity because of the crazed violent attacks of a few. Yet, many politicians love to describe us as a Christian nation as we march off to war. Check out the religious indoctrination going on in the military.
I lived through a period in Vietnam of love it or leave it. I find a lot of this sudden free speech outrage a not so thinly veiled response to Muslim/Islam hatred. Don't believe me. Wait for the response who support Hebdo's free speech rights when the anti-police violence protests start back up. Remember the mass arrests of occupy?
Free speech is a much more politically charged topic in our country that most want to admit.
40
The right to offend - really? Then why do we have laws against libel and slander and hate speech? When does satire cross the line into hate speech? What's the purpose of defying one of the most strongly held beliefs of an entire religious population? How is this not bullying and hate speech? It's certainly complete lack of respect, and the fact that they respect no one is no defense. The total disrespect for anyone who looks different, believes differently, or comes from a different culture is a large part of what's wrong with this world.
With freedom comes responsibility. Continuing in-your-face mockery of deeply held religious beliefs is not "tweaking the nose of authority." There's nothing "tweaking" about it. It's bullying, it's ugly, and it's an abuse of freedom of speech.
Mocking religious zealots will not lead to living in harmony and peace.
With freedom comes responsibility. Continuing in-your-face mockery of deeply held religious beliefs is not "tweaking the nose of authority." There's nothing "tweaking" about it. It's bullying, it's ugly, and it's an abuse of freedom of speech.
Mocking religious zealots will not lead to living in harmony and peace.
5
You are wrong. Charlie did not mock everyone. There were some topics that were off limits as in the case of Maurice Sinet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-c...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-c...
1
If I can figure out how to do it I intend to subscribe to Charlie Hebdo.
20
same here
"Fluctuat nec mergitur"
- motto of Paris
- motto of Paris
1
"It floats and doesn't sink", that's the spirit that freedom of expression stands for!
3
The two brilliant cartoonists Jean Cabut and Georges Wolinski will be remembered for their courage to stand up for freedom of expression in the face of many pressures and dangers.
The butchers acted cold-bloodedly with the intention of destroying this media platform. But Charlie Hébdo is not dead, because we will continue to defend our rights and freedoms.
The butchers acted cold-bloodedly with the intention of destroying this media platform. But Charlie Hébdo is not dead, because we will continue to defend our rights and freedoms.
36
There is no right without responsibility and there is no freedom without responsibility. Demagogues who inflame public opinion with shouts of Freedom! but fail to mention responsibility as a necessary, albeit onerous concomitant, are guilty of facile and irresponsible simplicities. Is it not time for an NYTimes article on this perennial plague on all our well-beings?
It occurs to me that when the lunatics in Pyongyang demanded that Seth Rogen's "The Interview" never see the light of day at cinemas and cable sites across the land (threatening retaliation if the movie were released) Americans responded by insisting that the cowards at SONY put the movie out as scheduled. Perhaps a fitting tribute to the folks at Charlie Hebdo, and the most appropriate response to the jihadist barbarism that claimed their lives, would entail a competition sponsored by this paper- or any other major U.S. news outlet- to come up with the funniest jokes relating to Islam and/or The Prophet himself. The best of which would be published every Friday. Heck, let's toss in some good cracks about Jesus, Moses and Buddha while we're at it (just to show that we don't discriminate here). The grand prize might be an all-expenses-paid hajj to Mecca. The only requirement would be that the jokes actually be funny. No gratuitous nastiness. No "Take my Mullah- please!." And we'd keep the contest going for as long as the violence against free speech continues (inshallah).
98
You missed out that it was not Pyoeng Yang at all, but a clever PR and advertising trick by either Sony itself or insiders of it.
The great mullah in Washington, of course, hacks in straight away - as usual: without any evidence! - to push out "sanctions". It's just like with his mass executions without any court or trial: Punishment comes before any trial.
Considering the status of the US Judiciary and its practice, one might say: What do we worry - it's normal. We did it in hundreds of death row cases, in Lockerbie, in the Krym and other places - we don't need law. We are it.
The great mullah in Washington, of course, hacks in straight away - as usual: without any evidence! - to push out "sanctions". It's just like with his mass executions without any court or trial: Punishment comes before any trial.
Considering the status of the US Judiciary and its practice, one might say: What do we worry - it's normal. We did it in hundreds of death row cases, in Lockerbie, in the Krym and other places - we don't need law. We are it.
1
"Mohammed walks into a bar . . . "
5
I understand your point, but people usually think something is funny when it does not affect THEIR sphere of religious, ethnic or cultural existence. Bush/Chenney irreverence shortly after 9/11 was considered taboo. How do you think an anti-Jewish cartoon would go over in Israel during the Gaza War?
The hypocrisy I see in many comments (not yours) is the love for free speech while condemning Muslims/Islam. They really don't love free speech as much as they hate Muslims. Many of these same people hated free speech 2 weeks ago in our country during the anti-police protests. The same folks who blamed the protestors for spurring on the cop killer, now revere it. The stench of hypocrisy is strong.
The hypocrisy I see in many comments (not yours) is the love for free speech while condemning Muslims/Islam. They really don't love free speech as much as they hate Muslims. Many of these same people hated free speech 2 weeks ago in our country during the anti-police protests. The same folks who blamed the protestors for spurring on the cop killer, now revere it. The stench of hypocrisy is strong.
8
Revenge here was not eaten cold,
The murders were brutal and bold,
And their bloody rage
Took Gaza off the page,
That story now will not be told.
The murders were brutal and bold,
And their bloody rage
Took Gaza off the page,
That story now will not be told.
44
There is no point in telling these islamists, that their violence is hurting their own cause.
They didn't understand the islam, how can we expect that they understand politics ?
They didn't understand the islam, how can we expect that they understand politics ?
11
Here's to the end of '68,
a year that cried out at all the hate...
a year that cried out at all the hate...
1
/bows
So much for free sppech, what a joke.