Je suis Peter Carey!
4
I was going to write how these writers did not even understand what free speech or what it even meant. But then I got to the end of the article and Mr. Rushdie said all that needed to be said.
45
There are lots of powerless and disenfranchised Americans who are open to ridicule by the elite Homophobia is out of style, but we make fun of poor white people -- their accents, their values, their style, their decorating preferences -- all the time. We don't see this as racism or even prejudice but just as making fun of stupid people who have no taste. Still, we don't grant disenfranchised Americans a license to kill in frustration.
Like the United States, France is a deeply racist nation, that has not in any way come to terms with its colonialist past. France has been in bed with Islam for over 100 years but they are shocked when people stop serving them food and start demanding equality. Secularism is a fig leaf -- certainly they haven't cancelled Christmas or banned the observance of Lent. Given the context of French politics, where Muslim girls are effectively banned from public schools and people speak openly of "being French" as incompatible with being brown or black, there is no such thing as pure satire
The missing voices here are those of the vast majority of brown and black people in France who are very much French, without ceasing to be also North African, Muslim, Caribbean, etc. If Charlie Hebdo would hire some of them, they'd have a much funnier paper that is just as biting -- a paper that might deserve the award.
Like the United States, France is a deeply racist nation, that has not in any way come to terms with its colonialist past. France has been in bed with Islam for over 100 years but they are shocked when people stop serving them food and start demanding equality. Secularism is a fig leaf -- certainly they haven't cancelled Christmas or banned the observance of Lent. Given the context of French politics, where Muslim girls are effectively banned from public schools and people speak openly of "being French" as incompatible with being brown or black, there is no such thing as pure satire
The missing voices here are those of the vast majority of brown and black people in France who are very much French, without ceasing to be also North African, Muslim, Caribbean, etc. If Charlie Hebdo would hire some of them, they'd have a much funnier paper that is just as biting -- a paper that might deserve the award.
12
"...what some saw as the magazine’s particular glee in beating up on France’s vulnerable Muslim minority."
I have read this claim many times in many publications, yet never once has anyone provided a specific example. I now add the New York Times to that list of those who didn't even attempt to substantiate the claim.
I have read this claim many times in many publications, yet never once has anyone provided a specific example. I now add the New York Times to that list of those who didn't even attempt to substantiate the claim.
23
Who CARES? Why even give these cowards any legitimacy by publishing this article in the first place? Hopefully no one comes after them for something they write, but if they do go after them, we'll see how fast they change their views. The pope, who I general like...a LOT...is most definitely wrong on this one. Shame.
8
Pardon : “PEN’s seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation.”??? So Only if the country of origin is checked by the “kulturkammer” we can decide a satire is controversial in the “right way”? For instance : Do we really need to judge reactions on cartoons in the new York times by the “perceived cultural arrogance of the USA”? That’s a truly interesting bias we need to adhere to!
Please note that there were numerous French politicians who tried to silence Charlie hebdo in the past! Charlie hebdo was NOT “the French nation” just as MAD magazine is not “The USA nation”.
Please note that there were numerous French politicians who tried to silence Charlie hebdo in the past! Charlie hebdo was NOT “the French nation” just as MAD magazine is not “The USA nation”.
13
Sometimes it isn't just the message. It's also the medium. I wouldn't think it appropriate to parody Islam in a sit-com or a feature film, as these represent major undertakings. They carry more weight. Certainly more than a cartoon, especially the hastily scribbled ones in Charlie Hebdo. This is precisely why satirists use cartoons, because they are, after all, just cartoons. Muslims need to appreciate this, and not react with such vehemence when their religious views are skewered in small, insignificant drawings.
4
A few points:
PEN honored Amiri Baraka who was a rabid anti-Semite, homophobe, misogynist, and anti-white racist. I notice that the same people who call everyone racist and Islamaphobic find no problem overlooking this. The same could be said for Malcolm X. Would these people decline an event honoring him due to his bigotry?
One of the members compared Charlie Hebdo's cartoons to the desecration of a Jewish cemetery that happened around the same time. She asked whether PEN would be giving those who did it an award also. That's like saying that criticizing Zionism is the same thing as burning down a
mosque.
Many people point out that Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for anti-Semitism and that Jews were off limits. This isn't true, but if it was, isn't freedom of the press the right to be more sensitive to some groups than others? If Jewish or Christian terrorists targeted media outlets who were biased against them 100% of the Islamic media and 99% of western leftist media would disappear. It is disturbing that in the wake of massacring 12 people then 4 more solely for being Jewish the biggest concern of some people was that the dead cartoonists may have had a pro-Jewish bias.
In his letter Mr Cole condemned the murder of Nigerians for being students but not one word about 4 people murdered for being Jews. Why isn't this bias called out by the same people accused Charlie Hebdo of racial bias?
PEN honored Amiri Baraka who was a rabid anti-Semite, homophobe, misogynist, and anti-white racist. I notice that the same people who call everyone racist and Islamaphobic find no problem overlooking this. The same could be said for Malcolm X. Would these people decline an event honoring him due to his bigotry?
One of the members compared Charlie Hebdo's cartoons to the desecration of a Jewish cemetery that happened around the same time. She asked whether PEN would be giving those who did it an award also. That's like saying that criticizing Zionism is the same thing as burning down a
mosque.
Many people point out that Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for anti-Semitism and that Jews were off limits. This isn't true, but if it was, isn't freedom of the press the right to be more sensitive to some groups than others? If Jewish or Christian terrorists targeted media outlets who were biased against them 100% of the Islamic media and 99% of western leftist media would disappear. It is disturbing that in the wake of massacring 12 people then 4 more solely for being Jewish the biggest concern of some people was that the dead cartoonists may have had a pro-Jewish bias.
In his letter Mr Cole condemned the murder of Nigerians for being students but not one word about 4 people murdered for being Jews. Why isn't this bias called out by the same people accused Charlie Hebdo of racial bias?
20
"The cultural arrogance of the French nation" will be there to defend Mr Carey writer's rights and his freedom of speech.
13
PEN should stick to literature. Political awards should be left to others.
2
They didn't seem especially "powerless" when they murdered the editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo, a police officer, and their associate terrorized and murdered another police officer and a bunch of Jewish people at a kosher grocery store. Other Muslims in France don't seem so disillusioned when they run through the streets of Paris smashing Jewish-owned businesses, synagogues, and yelling "death to the Jews." Shame on these authors for their supporting a neo-fascist movement that advocates and follows up with violence and terror to quiet those they disagree with.
31
It seems to me that Glen Greenwald has the right take on this:
"This is now a common, and quite potent, tactic: inducing support for highly illiberal western government policy by dressing it up as support for liberal principles. And it highlights the fraud of pretending that celebrations of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are independent of the fact that the particular group they most prominently mock are Muslims, a marginalized, targeted, and largely powerless group in France and the west generally.
As I wrote after the Paris rally, it is simply inconceivable that Charlie Hebdo would have been depicted as heroes had their primary targets been groups more favored and powerful in the west (indeed, a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was fired by the magazine in 2009 for mocking Judaism: where were all the newfound free speech crusaders then?). As the objecting PEN writers note, one can regard the murders of the Charle Hebdo cartoonists as repugnant, vile and dangerous (as any decent person does) while simultaneously scorning the Muslim-bashing focus of their “satire.”—http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29860-writers-withdraw-fr...
"This is now a common, and quite potent, tactic: inducing support for highly illiberal western government policy by dressing it up as support for liberal principles. And it highlights the fraud of pretending that celebrations of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are independent of the fact that the particular group they most prominently mock are Muslims, a marginalized, targeted, and largely powerless group in France and the west generally.
As I wrote after the Paris rally, it is simply inconceivable that Charlie Hebdo would have been depicted as heroes had their primary targets been groups more favored and powerful in the west (indeed, a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was fired by the magazine in 2009 for mocking Judaism: where were all the newfound free speech crusaders then?). As the objecting PEN writers note, one can regard the murders of the Charle Hebdo cartoonists as repugnant, vile and dangerous (as any decent person does) while simultaneously scorning the Muslim-bashing focus of their “satire.”—http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29860-writers-withdraw-fr...
8
An attack like the killing of the Charlie Hebdo staff really brings the intellectual cowards out of the woodwork - both these six authors and many of the commenters here. Religious worship does not give ideas protection from ridicule. An idea has no rights. Mocking an idea can never be immoral. People, on the other hand, do have rights - among the highest of them is the right to not be murdered for their speech.
The kind of violence visited on Charlie Hebdo is part of a pattern of violence against anyone who criticizes Islam. No other religion maintains the kind of aura of intimidation towards critics that Islam does, which is just one of many reasons that such criticism is well deserved. The PEN award for Charlie Hebdo is well deserved.
The kind of violence visited on Charlie Hebdo is part of a pattern of violence against anyone who criticizes Islam. No other religion maintains the kind of aura of intimidation towards critics that Islam does, which is just one of many reasons that such criticism is well deserved. The PEN award for Charlie Hebdo is well deserved.
21
Kudos to these brave souls. We are not Charlie because most of us don't ridicule people people for their faith, their race or their ethnicity.
Don't confuse the issue - yes, those men had a right to denigrate Islam. No, we mustn't applaud the act. We condemn their murder on grounds of free speech but their hate is no different than the KKK, it's just hard to say that when the perpetrator is a French liberal.
Don't confuse the issue - yes, those men had a right to denigrate Islam. No, we mustn't applaud the act. We condemn their murder on grounds of free speech but their hate is no different than the KKK, it's just hard to say that when the perpetrator is a French liberal.
9
Salman Rushdie said it all... no need to add anything.
35
Openly condemning PEN for its support of Charlie Hebdo is a great way to get some free publicity!
6
I agree with the decision of these writers to protest. I think the Pope said it best, "you don't make jokes/cartoons about anyone's religion". No of course I don't condone the kneejerk reactions of "terrorists" but that doesn't give the "satirists" the right to make fun of religion---Islam, Catholic, Jewish, doesn't matter don't make fun of religion!
6
The Pope is wrong on this one... free speech is just that.. to criticize organized religion is probably the most important thing one can do.. It's the backbone of free speech.. If your or the Pope or some Mullah can't take a joke and usually there is some truth in it, then that's YOUR problem. Who gives you or anyone the right to commit violent acts because someone says something you didn't like.. Offense is in one's own mind... an insulting joke for one person is a good belly laugh for another. BTW, the Pope's official spokesperson, clarified his remarks. He didn't what the Pope to be seen as a bully or a despot(despot's usually jail critics of their regime or religion .
21
it certainly does give everyone the right to criticize anyone, any political party and any religion.. time to grow up and free yourself.
8
Why not? What makes religion so special?
9
As a member of PEN, I applaud their decision to recognize Charlie Hebdo and would attend the ceremony if I could. Indeed, it was because of the attack on the writers/cartoonists in Paris that I chose to join.
We are all Charlie.
We are all Charlie.
31
Frankly, I have never heard of any of the writers mentioned in the article, with the exception of Salmon Rushdie, whose obra magister, " Satanic Verses" earned him a fatwah from the Ayatolla and which forced him into hiding for years. By anyone's standards, Rushdie is a "grand ecrivain," and a brave one at that. But the names of the others are unknown to me as well as to most Americans, so their absence at the gala is, on my view , no great loss. But their compassion for the underdogs, the zealots who killed 17 people at Charlie Hebdo, is indeed touching, but misplaced, They remind me of the late Lenny Bernstein who would entertain at his penthouse in the late 1960's activists of the original Black Panther Party, serve them fancy hors d'oeuvres. He too was a champion of the underdog, but at least Bernstein was not catering to religious zealots and assassins, as seems to be the case with the dissidents within PEN.
8
I totally agree with Salman Rushdie but if you haven't heard of the other writers, most of whom are fairly well known, that only indicates that you should spend more time reading so that you are familiar with writers who have been widely read and are good writers. Also, the fact that you never heard of them does not indicate that their absence at the gala is no great loss. Is celebrity everything? I'd say NOT. However, I do not agree with their absence from the gala but they are overall good writers.
9
To criticize the award is not to sympathize with the attackers. False logic.
6
The entire debate around Charlie Hebdo is interesting and valuable. There is a difference between defending a person's right to free speech and agreeing with what that person says. The writers who are objecting to what PEN is doing are raising legitimate and valuable concerns. As they note, CH went out of its way to attack and alienate a vulnerable minority. It had a right to do so but, as Garry Trudeau pointed out, CH fired a writer for anti-Semitism earlier, an act that certainly calls into question its commitment to free speech and raises the specter of the idea that there is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" discrimination possible in France. Indeed, this is, demonstrably, the case, as the state's move to suppress "dangerous" speech in the aftermath of CH makes clear. Indeed, this is an aspect of the problem that most Americans seem to miss. France, like most states, has ideas on the acceptable parameters of free speech. It is not in favor of unencumbered free speech. As such, the question of where and why it draws those parameters becomes very pertinent. In fact, the boundaries do appear to be heavily influenced by religious and racial prejudices that are popular within the state. CH reflected those popular prejudices and played to them.
42
It's hard to imagine that had such cartoons crudely mocked, say, the Queen of England, the Pope, or right wing Israeli politicians, or certain unfortunate American actions in Iraq during the war -- that they would receive such rich endorsement as expression deserving to be free. Or that all these people would be so eager to declare themselves to be Charlie (which, as even David Brooks recognized, they ain't).
4
Full article of Salmon Rushdie's disagreement with the five writers withdrawing from the PEN Awards night:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/salman-rushdie-pen-charlie-...
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/salman-rushdie-pen-charlie-...
5
It is very difficult to believe that there are presumably intelligent people/writers out there, who find it fit to condemn the Charlie cartoonists and therefore excuse their assassination. Drawing cartoons, and not all of them were about Muslims, does not deserve death. Is that so hard to get ? They died for freedom of speech. Period. Shame on the 6 PEN members who posture for a wrong cause.
41
Get a grip. None of these writers "excused their assassinations."
17
They certainly rationalized it though. Almost a distinction w/o a difference.
11
It was the "powerless and disenfranchised" who were the racist mass murderers, but there has always a slice of the deluded Left that loves the totalitarian way of life.
15
The Left is trying to formulate some ridiculous new standard for what kind of speech deserves to be protected. They have lost all credibility.
4
As I have written on Facebook, I think that what motivates the members of PEN who have declined the gala is the instinct of self preservation: Not one of them wants to walk around with a bullseye on his back, which some fear may be the case if they were to support the award ceremony in honor of the slain journalists of Charlie Hebdo. One can offer, as a subterfuge, as a "faux fuyant(a means of avoiding having to make a commitment)," all the excuses in the world, from blaming the French for their "cultural arrogance and blindness," for "punching down " on a minority that already suffers from discrimination, inter alia, but at the end of the day,, one is either for freedom of speech , and willing to honor those who died defending it, or one is not. Salmon Rushdie, who was the target of a fatwa, and suffered for years in hiding because of the justifiable fear that he could be "scribbled" by a religious zealot for writing his obra magister, "Satanic Verses,"is not afraid to honor the 17 murdered journalists at the gala, so why are some of the other dissenting members of Pen unwilling to do so?As I have indicated, behind their words lies the fear that if they endorse the gala and the awards ceremony, they too might become victims of the same style of religious zealotry that resulted in the deaths of the aforementioned journalists. But If ever there was a moment to "stand up and be counted," and come out in defense of freedom of speech and expression, it is now.
12
As an occasional reader of Charlie Hebdo, the comments made by these writers, some NYT readers, and people all over the Internet, most of whom only took stock of the paper on the day its staff was murdered, truly make my blood boil.
To state it in the simplest terms : Charlie Hebdo was not hate speech. It was emphatically secular and anti-religious, skewered religious extremism and institutions. The gold standard in this domain was naturally the Catholic Church, and the cartoonists drawing about Islam felt they were doing it in the same spirit as they did about christianism.
Charlie Hebdo was not anti-muslim. They chose, as many seem unable to, to distinguish people from their beliefs, and so considered that drawing crude pictures of Muhammad or religious extremists was not an attack on Muslims as such. And yes, a handful of cartoons were crude and frankly insulting, but do not fall into the 'hate speech' category.
Finally, and this seems hard for Anglo-Saxons to grasp, they were not necessarily advocates of 'absolute' free speech. They fought against hateful speech, from the far right or religious extremists, and certainly did and do not consider themselves an outlet for hate and bile. Four million Frenchmen did not take to the streets to defend their right to insult Muslims.
To state it in the simplest terms : Charlie Hebdo was not hate speech. It was emphatically secular and anti-religious, skewered religious extremism and institutions. The gold standard in this domain was naturally the Catholic Church, and the cartoonists drawing about Islam felt they were doing it in the same spirit as they did about christianism.
Charlie Hebdo was not anti-muslim. They chose, as many seem unable to, to distinguish people from their beliefs, and so considered that drawing crude pictures of Muhammad or religious extremists was not an attack on Muslims as such. And yes, a handful of cartoons were crude and frankly insulting, but do not fall into the 'hate speech' category.
Finally, and this seems hard for Anglo-Saxons to grasp, they were not necessarily advocates of 'absolute' free speech. They fought against hateful speech, from the far right or religious extremists, and certainly did and do not consider themselves an outlet for hate and bile. Four million Frenchmen did not take to the streets to defend their right to insult Muslims.
58
I am happy to see that six writers will not attend the PEN dinner.
The staff at Charlie Hebdo were victims, and I'm sorry they died.
One only has to look at the parade of world leaders, to realize
that something is wrong. Egypt? Israel? UK? US?
The staff at Charlie Hebdo were victims, and I'm sorry they died.
One only has to look at the parade of world leaders, to realize
that something is wrong. Egypt? Israel? UK? US?
3
Rushdie is perfectly right, and earned his opinion the hardest of hard ways.
27
Ms. Kushner complains about a "kind of forced secular view" promulgated by Charlie Hebdo.
Hold on... for thousands of years we have been forced into religious views by crusades, missionaries, burning of witches, inquisition, incarceration in monasteries of young women, whipping, stoning, hanging of apostates.... And now, we cannot "force" a secular view just a little bit?
And the way we "force" a secular view is just by drawing some silly cartoons.... and even that is too much? We don't stone anybody for not going to a swingers club, don't whip or flog anybody for not getting drunk, do not hang people for the crime of "apostasy" of not believing in Darwin's theory of evolution.
The position of these writers is simply mind staggeringly stupid, suicidal that is.
Hold on... for thousands of years we have been forced into religious views by crusades, missionaries, burning of witches, inquisition, incarceration in monasteries of young women, whipping, stoning, hanging of apostates.... And now, we cannot "force" a secular view just a little bit?
And the way we "force" a secular view is just by drawing some silly cartoons.... and even that is too much? We don't stone anybody for not going to a swingers club, don't whip or flog anybody for not getting drunk, do not hang people for the crime of "apostasy" of not believing in Darwin's theory of evolution.
The position of these writers is simply mind staggeringly stupid, suicidal that is.
54
These five should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Free expression does not end at the point where it offends someone. Especially someone's religion. They have likely never understood what the true spirit of free expression is. "The point is not what the magazine said, but its right to say it" -J. Goodale, Founder PEN
Only two words left for these five, good riddance.
Only two words left for these five, good riddance.
28
I find the views expressed by the six writers in withdrawing as literary hosts to be offensive in the extreme. I assume that the six will self-censor and maintain total silence in the future so as not to offend a minority group which finds their position culturally intolerant and serves to promote a kind of forced religious view. Or do the six need a gun pointed at their head for them to realize that they, too, can be easily and effectively silenced if we all do not continually defend the right of free expression. They are an embarrassment.
Je suis Charlie.
Je suis Charlie.
8
It does not take courage to make fun of the deeply held beliefs of another person; if it did every school play yard would be littered with medals.
If we cannot say murder is wrong and also say mocking someone's faith for nothing more than a laugh is not some great triumph of freedom without our heads exploding we have no business dabbling with complex issues like religion and free speech.
If we cannot say murder is wrong and also say mocking someone's faith for nothing more than a laugh is not some great triumph of freedom without our heads exploding we have no business dabbling with complex issues like religion and free speech.
39
Being able to engage in unpopular or offensive speech IS a great triumph of freedom. It shows that we as a society are more afraid of what happens when disagreeable voices are silenced than when irritating or hurtful voices are heard. It recognizes that even that classification of speech into legitimate categories and, as you imply with "nothing more than a laugh", illegitimate ones presupposes the possibility that the latter has value. Please get off your high horse, telling us what we have "business dabbling with."
5
"It does not take courage to make fun of the deeply held beliefs of another person;"
Tell that to an anti-Nazi in Nazi Germany. Tell that to an anti-fascist in Franco's Spain. Tell that to a civil rights fighter in the Old South. And tell that to anyone anywhere in 2015 who would mock Muhammad or his meme, Islam.
Tell that to an anti-Nazi in Nazi Germany. Tell that to an anti-fascist in Franco's Spain. Tell that to a civil rights fighter in the Old South. And tell that to anyone anywhere in 2015 who would mock Muhammad or his meme, Islam.
12
It has become a form of radical chic to blame the victims rather than the victimizers in the Charlie Hebdo murders. All sorts of rationalizations are offered by those on the far left, as well as the six dissenters in PEN, for the massacre of the cartoonists. Some accuse the French government of "cultural arrogance and blindness" and discrimination Others, ostensibly siding with the religious zealots who carried out the executions, blame the government for "punching down on Muslims," as if any of these accusations justified the killings. But anyone with a basic knowledge of French and Algerian history--I lived in the Petite Kabylie for several years in my youth--knows that Algeria is still a third world country struggling valiantly to get on its feet, and that however deplorable conditions might appear for the majority of Francophile Muslims living in France, they are far better off there than they would be if they had remained at home. One should recall that no sooner had Algerians celebrated the referendum in July 1962 granting their country independence than the migration to metropolitan France began,simply because Algeria was and remains, for the average citizen,"invivable!"Unemployment exceeds 30 percent, and demographic growth far exceeds economic growth.So,everything is relative.But, it is important to keep in mind that nothing justifies the killings of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, and I hope that those dissidents with PEN have a change of heart.
9
The Charlie Hebdo members did not deserve to die. The killers were terrible people. That said, what were Charlie Hebdo's intentions when they went out of their way to denigrate something worshiped by a billion plus people? To point out that all religions are stupid? To point out that Islam is a stupid religion? That muslims are an ignorant people? No elegant intention comes to mind readily - and I think this was a pretty crass act on the part of Charlie Hebdo. If a prize for free speech needed to be awarded, I would sooner it be given to someone like Edward Snowden, who had noble intentions and put his life on the line for a good cause, than to a crude entity like Charlie Hebdo.
17
So, its intolerant of the six to pull out of the PEN Gala because they have doubts about honoring Charlie Hebdo, but its not intolerant of people to condemn them for expressing their opinions?
These six authors are within their rights to express their doubts about the PEN decision. I may not agree with them, but I wont condemn them for thinking differently than myself.
Any group or person that demands that its members have uniform opinions is not a real supporter of freedom of thought or expression.
These six authors are within their rights to express their doubts about the PEN decision. I may not agree with them, but I wont condemn them for thinking differently than myself.
Any group or person that demands that its members have uniform opinions is not a real supporter of freedom of thought or expression.
22
Well, if we follow your thinking to its logical end, no one should ever disagree with anyone without being branded intolerant. I'm for the free exchange of all ideas (I reject the outrage industry) in any and all forms. These writers are incorrect - they hold false assumptions and engage in specious, silly reasoning. Yes, I am intolerant of falseness and I will name it when I see it. Still, not a single person here has suggested any class of suppression, the precise thing Hedbo is against and Islamists support. We're merely stating our distaste with the poor thinking of these writers. They are morally confused and it is reasonable to call them as much.
18
Thank you
On the contrary Mr. Reagan. I can disagree with you or the six authors referenced in this article without condemning them by calling your or their opinions specious or silly. Disrespecting the opinions of others is something we are all guilty if from time to time and some opinions (racism, sexism, etc) are not worthy of respect. But these authors have voiced their personal opinions on an issue about which they care deeply and not without some level if professional risk (obviously). By calling them out, demeaning their arguments, and pronouncing them false you are practicing a form (subtle) of suppression. By labeling them you seek to discourage others from following their example.
3
The people who say the cartoons in "Charlie Hebdo" are hate speech are the reason why it is almost impossible now to do real satire, i.e. satire that really "bites" and does not mind ruffling some feathers in the process. Have we become so mind-numbingly politically correct? "Charlie Hebdo" makes fun of everything: every religion when it becomes intolerant, every political party when it becomes self-important, every ideology when it becomes radical. And Charlie Hebdo is not "attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority" as Mr. Trudeau says. I sincerely hope he does not make the mistake of mixing up the Arabic minority in France with the Islamic extremists who are the real targets of the cartoons.
Yes, Charlie Hebdo is often crude, juvenile, tasteless and not always very funny. In other words, it's hit or miss and it's not for everybody. But I hope there is still some room for this kind of humour, even if it is too "childish" to an overly sensitive "elite" who think they have a monopoly on good taste. Otherwise, "freedom of speech" means nothing.
Yes, Charlie Hebdo is often crude, juvenile, tasteless and not always very funny. In other words, it's hit or miss and it's not for everybody. But I hope there is still some room for this kind of humour, even if it is too "childish" to an overly sensitive "elite" who think they have a monopoly on good taste. Otherwise, "freedom of speech" means nothing.
18
Only those who believe that satire can't be done without hate speech are the ones who don't know what satire really is. As I told one of your 'friends', Waterford Whispers and the Onion seem to be able to do it. HMM. An overly sensitive elite? Is that what we're calling impoverished, marginalized groups, nowadays? No, only the supporters of Charlie Hebdo can truly be called elite. Oops.
8
I had no idea religious fundamentalists were impoverished and marginalized. Because, in case you did not know, that's what CH is making fun of. They're not making of all Muslims, they are making of those who promote a radicalized, hateful brand of Islam. Between the people at CH who use pen and paper and the terrorists who bomb, murder and burn alive people, who is really spewing hate?
10
I can only laugh: "Hey you there! Yeah you, you satirical humor magazine - CUT OUT THE GLEE!"
These writers should pull out, they'd be a major buzzkill had they attended.
These writers should pull out, they'd be a major buzzkill had they attended.
6
Oh, yes, it's so hard to tell good humour, these days, right? Oh, wait, who said good humour had to be easy in the first place. Look up Waterford Whispers OR the Onion. Good satirists. Oops.
1
Peter Carey objects to "the cultural arrogance of the French nation." I guess that's the only way to explain why there was so vast an outpouring of grief for the victims of the massacre here in France. Six writers who clearly had never heard of Charlie Hebdo before the attacks modestly weigh in on a culture whose arrogance they'll explain to the rest of the world. Thanks guys.
50
So Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi have apparently taken the position that the Charlie Hebdo victims are responsible for the deadly fate that befell them, and that the victims’ deaths do not invoke questions of free speech.
This is wrong. The victims here had every right to speak their minds—even if they drew offense. To claim otherwise is to claim that might makes right, and the gun trumps reason. And lest we forget what we are speaking of here, we are speaking of the adherents of one religion imposing their tenets upon all others, regardless of consent.
There once was a time when the left used to stand for freedom of speech, even if the speech expressed offensive ideas. Now some on the left cannot even bring themselves to do that. For shame.
This is wrong. The victims here had every right to speak their minds—even if they drew offense. To claim otherwise is to claim that might makes right, and the gun trumps reason. And lest we forget what we are speaking of here, we are speaking of the adherents of one religion imposing their tenets upon all others, regardless of consent.
There once was a time when the left used to stand for freedom of speech, even if the speech expressed offensive ideas. Now some on the left cannot even bring themselves to do that. For shame.
35
I don't like or agree with the brutal "humor" this type of magazine published, I believe it to be bullying, hateful, and the worst kind of "freedom of speech" humankind could concoct, but I totally agree with Rushdie. If we don't protect free speech, even the worst kind, then we lose. We must stand up for that right. There is a fine line between preaching hate and actually inciting violence and I belive this sort of magizine walks that fine line. Do we really really need that? It worries me that the writers and readers of this magazine do. Wouldn't it be great if these same people spent that time trying to change the world for the better instead of focusing on things that they feel powerless about?
9
This is not PEN's finest hour.
13
One can condemn the fanatics who targeted Charlie Hebdo and defend its right to express incendiary or even hateful sentiments without valorizing its actions. For example, a White Supremacist magazine has a right to draw MLK as a monkey but we don't have to valorize its editors or cartoonists. It is clear that Charlie Hebdo was not an equal opportunity offender, firing a cartoonist for anti-Semitic innuendo. Similarly, the neo-conservative editor of Jyllenden Post Flemming Rose who deliberately created the Muhammad cartoon provocation refused to run a risque cartoon of Jesus in the shopping season as being too controversial. France for its part routinely censors and even jails popular artists like Duedonne for hateful innuendo against protected targets enjoying high status. I wonder if those who have launched diatribes against critics of Charlie Hebdo like David Frum or Ross Douthat would be so eager to bestow awards on a magazine which held contests to draw Anne Frank or Joan of Arc in vulgar poses? Forgive me for doubting that this would ever be the case when the shoe is on the other foot.
27
No one would kill the staff of a magazine for a portrait of Anne Frank, so the gesture would be unnecessary.
3
The fact that there is a "popular artist" whose whole shtick makes fun of Holocaust victims tells you all you need to know about the threat Jews face. Furthermore, the leftist and Islamic media is very hateful to Jews but walks on eggshells for Muslims. If this is acceptable why are biases that are more sensitive to Christians or Jews not?
4
I can't help but wonder: would these authors have bowed out of an event celebrating the work of Vladimir Nabokov to show that they disapprove of pedophilia, which was the subject of his great novel, Lolita? Would they refuse to support an award to Salman Rushdie, because he gave offense to Muslims in his novel, The Satanic Verses? What about James Joyce, who offended religious and personal sensibilities on both sides of the Atlantic?
It's admittedly difficult, to support the concept of speech as opposed to the content. Some of my friends have argued to me: "What if Charlie Hebdo had been a publication of the KKK? Would you still say 'Je Suis Charlie'?" The answer, quite simply, is yes. If we truly believe in free speech, then we have to be willing to defend--and therefore identify with--even those with whom we disagree. This is not novel--John Adams did it when he defended British soldiers in the heart of revolutionary Boston. And today, when the judge asks Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to rise, it's his lawyers who get to their feet. Free speech (including that embodied in due process) means identifying with even the worst and most objectionable in society. Too many people are unwilling to do this, and it's why free speech is still such a troublesome arena all over the world, and it's exactly why organizations like PEN are absolutely necessary.
It's admittedly difficult, to support the concept of speech as opposed to the content. Some of my friends have argued to me: "What if Charlie Hebdo had been a publication of the KKK? Would you still say 'Je Suis Charlie'?" The answer, quite simply, is yes. If we truly believe in free speech, then we have to be willing to defend--and therefore identify with--even those with whom we disagree. This is not novel--John Adams did it when he defended British soldiers in the heart of revolutionary Boston. And today, when the judge asks Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to rise, it's his lawyers who get to their feet. Free speech (including that embodied in due process) means identifying with even the worst and most objectionable in society. Too many people are unwilling to do this, and it's why free speech is still such a troublesome arena all over the world, and it's exactly why organizations like PEN are absolutely necessary.
10
If having most of your staff murdered for what they wrote, and then the survivors continuing to publish in the face of that ongoing threat does not warrant such an award - what does?
This goes beyond one's views on the specifics of Charlie Hebdo - which vary in every direction, and to every extreme imaginable. Ironically - that just reinforces how deserving they are of this award.
At first, I thought these six had "over-thought" the issue. On further reflection, I now think it's the inverse. Shame on each one of them.
This goes beyond one's views on the specifics of Charlie Hebdo - which vary in every direction, and to every extreme imaginable. Ironically - that just reinforces how deserving they are of this award.
At first, I thought these six had "over-thought" the issue. On further reflection, I now think it's the inverse. Shame on each one of them.
62
Interesting that you don't support the right of these six to free speech and dissenting views.
3
Salman Rushdie is absolutely right. PEN's Self Righteous Six are the ones being intolerant. And of what ? People who died living their convictions ?!
59
If Charlie Hebdo wrote about Jews the way they wrote about Muslims, they would be in jail and not lauded like this.
22
even more important: they would be alive.
10
It was not about Muslims as people. It is about Islam as an ideology. They had cartoons about other profits. People who attacked Charlie Hebdo did not do it because as Muslim minority it hurt their feeling. They did it because islamic doctrine teach them to do this kind of horrible acts.
10
Why do you pick out Jews in particular as privileged? I think you're showing some of your own bigotry. Interesting how so often people protesting bigotry themselves express it.
Did you see that Trevor Noah made some strongly anti-Jewish statements and wasn't even asked to apologize. I wonder if you have a problem with that.
Did you see that Trevor Noah made some strongly anti-Jewish statements and wasn't even asked to apologize. I wonder if you have a problem with that.
12
I commend these novelists for their thoughtfulness about this issue. What happened at Charlie Hebdo was certainly an unspeakable tragedy. But hate does not have to be met with hate. What would the world be like if people acted out of something other than revenge?
5
I did not get it. You mean giving an award to a magazine is a revenge to killing innocent people?
4
I've lost some respect for a few favorite authors over this. I understand that it's well-meaning, but it's as misguided as it is inadvertently harmful.
There's an enduring intractability among many fellow liberals who fail to make the distinction between genuine xenophobia, and legitimate secular push for reform. Many are so scared to be confused with neocons that they unwittingly appease religion that they project their ideal view onto.
The obfuscationism employed by disingenuous apologists like Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald have done great harm to secular liberties in this regard, and it's being done paradoxically under the banner of liberal acceptance. They pander to the white guilt of naive fellow liberals who make the mistake of conflating skin color with religion. Islam isn't brown skin. No one is noble for immunizing any single religion from criticism. It's a religion, and one still struggling with a preponderance of human rights violations. If you wouldn't bite your tongue about Christianity, there's no reason to here. There was a recent WaPo article written by victims of Sharia atrocities titled, 'Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam' discussing this. I highly recommend.
Non-violent, non-racist satire is a necessary liberty that should be protected. People must be free to practice religion. Likewise we must be free to criticize it. Charlie Hebdo, however offensive, recognized this right, and what it would mean to suppress it.
There's an enduring intractability among many fellow liberals who fail to make the distinction between genuine xenophobia, and legitimate secular push for reform. Many are so scared to be confused with neocons that they unwittingly appease religion that they project their ideal view onto.
The obfuscationism employed by disingenuous apologists like Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald have done great harm to secular liberties in this regard, and it's being done paradoxically under the banner of liberal acceptance. They pander to the white guilt of naive fellow liberals who make the mistake of conflating skin color with religion. Islam isn't brown skin. No one is noble for immunizing any single religion from criticism. It's a religion, and one still struggling with a preponderance of human rights violations. If you wouldn't bite your tongue about Christianity, there's no reason to here. There was a recent WaPo article written by victims of Sharia atrocities titled, 'Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam' discussing this. I highly recommend.
Non-violent, non-racist satire is a necessary liberty that should be protected. People must be free to practice religion. Likewise we must be free to criticize it. Charlie Hebdo, however offensive, recognized this right, and what it would mean to suppress it.
74
Have you organized in defence of Duedonne who was arrested for merely saying, "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly"?
3
This is the same Dieudonné who has on four separate occasions invited the French Holocaust denier Faurisson on stage with him so that the audience could have a little chortle about the "alleged" Holocaust?
3
Charlie Hebdo drew cartoons. Coulibaly killed people. See the difference? Speech is never deemed free if it calls for or implies physical violence against others.
2
I completely agree with Mr. Rushdie. There either IS or there IS NOT freedom of expression. The Hebdo killings only promoted hatred. The Hebdo magazine did not.
82
I have no love for Charley. They pander to an easy market – hatred of the other. Yes, they stood up for what they believed, glibly vacuous as it was, and paid the price. The truth is they were murdered by a carnival mirror image of themselves; simply a kind of hatred warped in another direction.
Pen, at least the elite part, is more than happy losing dinner while debating in the headlines to achieve nothing. (Ah sorry, probably a book sale). But people did die for drawing pictures.
George Gross would have died if he didn't get out of 1930s Germany before his drawings caught up with him. And with him, in Germany, there were those who assaulted the Jews and others as harshly as Gross did the Nazis. They were the lucky ones, but time would catch up with them as well.
Sooner or later somebody comes for someone, and not eating dinner rarely stops them.
The Pen princes and queens have blithely built nothing into their protest. It is a vacuity that would seem out of character with what they do. Those in support of Charley at Pen see themselves defending everyone's right to not get murdered for drawing pictures. Freedom of speech is important in this, but the question is to what end? This is just not there in this headline debate.
Not that it matters, but I wouldn't give any award to Charley. Martyrs are (sometimes conveniently) dangerous, and given the right amount of time whatever truth was there will be perverted by other interests. And yes, I care that people died.
Pen, at least the elite part, is more than happy losing dinner while debating in the headlines to achieve nothing. (Ah sorry, probably a book sale). But people did die for drawing pictures.
George Gross would have died if he didn't get out of 1930s Germany before his drawings caught up with him. And with him, in Germany, there were those who assaulted the Jews and others as harshly as Gross did the Nazis. They were the lucky ones, but time would catch up with them as well.
Sooner or later somebody comes for someone, and not eating dinner rarely stops them.
The Pen princes and queens have blithely built nothing into their protest. It is a vacuity that would seem out of character with what they do. Those in support of Charley at Pen see themselves defending everyone's right to not get murdered for drawing pictures. Freedom of speech is important in this, but the question is to what end? This is just not there in this headline debate.
Not that it matters, but I wouldn't give any award to Charley. Martyrs are (sometimes conveniently) dangerous, and given the right amount of time whatever truth was there will be perverted by other interests. And yes, I care that people died.
4
I fully understand the position of the dissenting writers - Teju Cole's statement is especially important. I'm not the only one who believes that this award & the massive support given to Charlie Hebdo would not exist had the magazine dedicated an equal amount of its pages toward denigrating Judaism. Imagine the Jewish Defense League had bombed Hebdo's headquarters and killed cartoonists there. There would be condemnation but by no means would you see the outpouring of support by "free speech" adherents in the west. In fact, the magazine FIRED one of its staff writers because he dared to make a mild banal joke they deemed "anti-semitic." It is SO easy to support a magazine that goes out of its way to attack Muslims. Yes yes, Charlie Hebdo attacks other groups as well but anyone who's paid attention to it in the last 2 decades knows that it has given special attention to Muslims--insulting them, denigrating them, demonizing them. Condemning the slaughter of the cartoonists is something everyone can agree on. But supporting a magazine that punches down and attacks a marginalized, vulnerable, powerless population in France is something else entirely.
19
What part of "they were killed for exercising free speech" do you not grasp? Whether or not they were "punching down" - and that's a dubious argument itself - the fact remains that they were not themselves calling for violence against anybody, but they suffered the ultimate violent act themselves.
11
Sorry, but there is a good reason Charlie attacked Islam in particular. Have you not been paying attention to the news these past two decades?
14
What part of "free speech" is difficult for these six dunces to understand? Speech that expresses only what is acceptable and does not ruffle any feathers is a caged speech. Of course, it also gives this sextet the right to bow down to islamists and show where their sympathies lie.
I'm taken aback by the line of defense of Charlie Hebdo, as the "equal opportunity offender". What if it targeted only islamism, as the biggest menace this world is currently facing? What if it were published by ex-Muslims? Would its speech not deserve our protection? Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist targeting the "disenfranchised" because she dares to criticize Islam, without devoting equal attention to Buddhism or Christianity? For a satire to be free speech, does it have to offend everybody??
I'm taken aback by the line of defense of Charlie Hebdo, as the "equal opportunity offender". What if it targeted only islamism, as the biggest menace this world is currently facing? What if it were published by ex-Muslims? Would its speech not deserve our protection? Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist targeting the "disenfranchised" because she dares to criticize Islam, without devoting equal attention to Buddhism or Christianity? For a satire to be free speech, does it have to offend everybody??
59
This is today's American left -- motivated above all by an overearnest desire never to offend, lest the sanctity of identity politics be transgressed.
7
I agree. Posthumous martyrdom for satirists who spent more time offending religious and cultural paradigms than, as they should be doing, fostering healthy discussion about them? Perhaps my definition of the word COURAGE is Jamaican?lol What happened was heinous. But I would be more in support of a moment of silence, a statement of recognition.... some memorable acknowledgement, yes but this heroic award -no. I just do not feel that satire is an act of courage.
5
The withdrawal of these hosts has forced me to reexamine my raw reaction to the Hebdo terrorist attack. These writers have taken an unpopular stance in an attempt to recognize what they consider to be an oppressed population.
5
Tell the millions of refugees in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan about the oppressed Muslims in France. Most would trade places with them in an instant.
14
Does anyone else think they are afraid of being associated with Charlie Hebdo?
Can we get rid of the idea of "hate speech?" A lot of speech will be hated, and some is designed to be hateful. Shouldn't the answer to speech we don't like be more speech, speech that we do like? Rather than stifling some, how about we all speak out more?
Can we get rid of the idea of "hate speech?" A lot of speech will be hated, and some is designed to be hateful. Shouldn't the answer to speech we don't like be more speech, speech that we do like? Rather than stifling some, how about we all speak out more?
8
"A powerless, disenfranchised minority..." Now, there's an interesting perception.
18
Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi.... Painful to live in fear, isn't it? And now you will never get rid of it....
10
Well, my grandmother always said if you make your bed, you'll have to sleep in it. Perhaps they will get a taste of fear...
As for me, I fully intend to not support them in any way, shape or form. With the exception of Peter Carey, who has actually written some decent stuff, three out of the remaining five are really not worth the paper they write on. Trying to finish Rachel Kushner's Flamethrowers was a tedious process as the plot was so thin and the characters so flat and boring. The writing was utterly horrible (somebody got out her thesaurus and looked up lots of synonyms) and at the end I was bored to death. BTW, heard today on BBC that Francince Prose thinks that Charlie Hebdo's work, and perhaps by extension all satire, is worthless. Funnily enough, that is exactly what I thought of some of her books -- worthless in a supermarket-romance-novel (lower shelf) way.
As for me, I fully intend to not support them in any way, shape or form. With the exception of Peter Carey, who has actually written some decent stuff, three out of the remaining five are really not worth the paper they write on. Trying to finish Rachel Kushner's Flamethrowers was a tedious process as the plot was so thin and the characters so flat and boring. The writing was utterly horrible (somebody got out her thesaurus and looked up lots of synonyms) and at the end I was bored to death. BTW, heard today on BBC that Francince Prose thinks that Charlie Hebdo's work, and perhaps by extension all satire, is worthless. Funnily enough, that is exactly what I thought of some of her books -- worthless in a supermarket-romance-novel (lower shelf) way.
3
Comparing black politicians to monkeys? Casting the prophet of the largest religious group in the world as a porn star?
The fact that Charlie's staff were brutally executed is tragic and should be mourned. But mourning the death of an individual doesn't require us to mourn the cause of that individual (in this case, Charlie Hebdo).
The New York Times and exposé documentaries channel the right to free speech to some greater end - in the case of the aforementioned, to publish "All the News That's Fit to Print" and to inform the public about the plight of Orca whales and obese children.
Charlie Hebdo performs no such public service; it seeks only to offend for the sake of offense. As far as I'm concerned, it's no more a tribute to free speech than a lynching postcard.
The fact that Charlie's staff were brutally executed is tragic and should be mourned. But mourning the death of an individual doesn't require us to mourn the cause of that individual (in this case, Charlie Hebdo).
The New York Times and exposé documentaries channel the right to free speech to some greater end - in the case of the aforementioned, to publish "All the News That's Fit to Print" and to inform the public about the plight of Orca whales and obese children.
Charlie Hebdo performs no such public service; it seeks only to offend for the sake of offense. As far as I'm concerned, it's no more a tribute to free speech than a lynching postcard.
8
You obviously don't read French nor have you ever read Charlie Hebdo, which is fine. But you should know what you're talking about if you decide to do so.
Charb never compared Justice minister Christiane Taubira to a monkey, but created a mock logo for the racist National Front based on a recent racist FN-supporting magazine cover.
As for the right to mock religious prophets, or commit 'blasphemy', it is as vital to any modern society as the right to vote or to chose one's wife or husband. If a religion can't take a joke, then it IS one.
Charb never compared Justice minister Christiane Taubira to a monkey, but created a mock logo for the racist National Front based on a recent racist FN-supporting magazine cover.
As for the right to mock religious prophets, or commit 'blasphemy', it is as vital to any modern society as the right to vote or to chose one's wife or husband. If a religion can't take a joke, then it IS one.
27
The comparison of Christiane Taubira to a monkey was meant as a reflection of the National Front, France's far right party, mindset. And crass cartoons about religious figures are not hate speech. Comparing them to lynching postcards is frankly absurd.
12
It's tempting to say this is PC-thinking run amuck (on the part of the six writers who are boycotting the PEN awards).
But it's really more of a culturally myopic move. The Anglo-Saxon writers in PEN who are boycotting generally don't see the issue in exactly the way the French do.
The French make fun of people, and defend the right to make fun of people, in extremes that makes Anglo-Saxons uncomfortable. We have the idea of "fair play," where it can seem mean and nasty to pick on people who are downtrodden, but the French generally don't follow the same rules. This dichotomy extends to personal relations where a French friend will tell you your shirt is ugly with no thought that he's hurt your feelings.
The problem is exacerbated when someone tries to make a rule like Islam's about not portraying the prophet. The French rise to what they see as a challenge there, whereas we will generally (save for smart, brave folks like those who write Southpark) abide by these rules.
To blame Charlie Hebo for the position of many French Muslims who have been ghettoized is wrong. To blame Charlie Hebo for not thinking such a minority's religion is safe from ridicule is a cultural blindspot.
But it's really more of a culturally myopic move. The Anglo-Saxon writers in PEN who are boycotting generally don't see the issue in exactly the way the French do.
The French make fun of people, and defend the right to make fun of people, in extremes that makes Anglo-Saxons uncomfortable. We have the idea of "fair play," where it can seem mean and nasty to pick on people who are downtrodden, but the French generally don't follow the same rules. This dichotomy extends to personal relations where a French friend will tell you your shirt is ugly with no thought that he's hurt your feelings.
The problem is exacerbated when someone tries to make a rule like Islam's about not portraying the prophet. The French rise to what they see as a challenge there, whereas we will generally (save for smart, brave folks like those who write Southpark) abide by these rules.
To blame Charlie Hebo for the position of many French Muslims who have been ghettoized is wrong. To blame Charlie Hebo for not thinking such a minority's religion is safe from ridicule is a cultural blindspot.
23
....wel, not exactly *all* Anglo-Saxon.....
1
Really, than why does the French Republic arrest a leading comedian like Duedonne for merely stating "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly". As in most societies, some are more free and equal than others.
2
Charlie Hebdo has published way too many Islamaphopic pieces w/more viciousness than humor. They were kicking the people who were down & broke the code - they picked on the powerless -- what they did was largely ridicule. Goes w/o saying I hope the people who were murdered by lunatics rest in peace. But those who were killed were victims -- not heroes.
13
Dear N.Flood,
Did you actually read Charlie Hebdo? Or did you just read the 'reports' about Charlie Hebdo? Because they were ridiculing ALL religions and FAR from 'kicking the people who were down & broke the code' they were after politicians and people in power. Go to the source, don't fall prey of propaganda...
Did you actually read Charlie Hebdo? Or did you just read the 'reports' about Charlie Hebdo? Because they were ridiculing ALL religions and FAR from 'kicking the people who were down & broke the code' they were after politicians and people in power. Go to the source, don't fall prey of propaganda...
23
Stefania, Charlie Hebdo Magazine fired Maurice Sinet in 2009 accusing him of ridiculing Judaism. Sino won a judgement against the magazine for wrongful termination & rec'd a cash settlement.
6
They never stopped to criticize the powerful and the hateful - racists in particular. Sounds like you never actually made an attempt to read or understand Charlie.
5
These people think too much of themselves, to the point of incoherence.
24
Which people?
1
Unbelievable. Charlie Hebdo was an equal-opportunity offender. Its slashing, spare-no-prisoners style of satire skewered everything and anything. These writers are only demonstrating why it is so important to honor the magazine and the dead — so as not to make Islam something separate from other religions.
51
The problem is that it was really wasn't "an equal-opportunity offender." It's a question of the facts- not just a simplistic, romantic narrative that seeks to explain deaths in a way that fits in 160 characters. Freedom of speech in France is not remotely akin to freedom of speech in the US. This changes the narrative dramatically but again, doesn't suit a narrative peddled by other white journalists in the west.
4
this publication once dumped one of its allegedly hilarious social critics for being what it called - after being warned by euro-semites? - not hilariously anti-semitic.
as in america and most of europe, freedom of speech has some definite boundaries and they depend on which groups are offended and how much power they have to act offended and exercise power through "civilized"channels of suppression.
as in america and most of europe, freedom of speech has some definite boundaries and they depend on which groups are offended and how much power they have to act offended and exercise power through "civilized"channels of suppression.
5
What if Charlie Hebdo wasn't an equal opportunity offender? The New York Times printed Iranian cartoons mocking Holocaust victims but not cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammad. If a Jewish terrorist massacred 16 people over it would anyone even care that the paper had a bias? Having a bias is free speech and a anti-Jewish and Christians and pro Muslim bias is the norm to the left media.
2
http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
For what is documented there is indeed a prosecution for criminal satire. Consider, for example, the trial judge's explicit declaration that the defendant's "criminal intent brought you a parody over the line," or the prosecution's declaration that the defendant is a "menace" because he "knows how to twist language, stir up controversy." In addition, consider the eloquent words in the dissenting opinion of the chief judge of New York's highest court, warning us that the case will “penalize and chill speech that the constitution protects,” and that “the use of the criminal impersonation and forgery statutes now approved amounts to an atavism at odds with the First Amendment and the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas it is meant to foster.”
So again, one must wonder: why not a word from PEN about a case confronting us with the limits of parody and having such obvious consequences for thousands of sharp-witted Internet combatants? Does PEN believe that "intellectual provocateurs" should be imprisoned under whatever tawdry pretexts prosecutors and criminal court judges can invent? It's easy to defend the grand principle of the right to mock while discreetly ignoring what's happening right here in New York.