I am proud to be among the few still small voices condemning instead of praising Charlie Hebdo. But nobody in his right mind could possibly think that committing mass murder against its staff was the right way to express this condemnation:
It’s one thing to defy Islamic jihadists to expose human rights and other abuses Muslims perpetrate in the name of Islam — as Hirsi Ali and van Gogh did with their film. It’s quite another to do so merely to propagate caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed — as Charlie Hebdo and its celebrated cartoonists did with their cartoons. The former clearly informs and has undeniable redeeming social value; whereas the latter serves no purpose other than to provoke/offend Muslims (for the amusement of non-Muslims?).
Put another way, would so many people be standing in solidarity with these cartoonists if they were propagating racist caricatures of Blacks — complete with liberal use of the word “nigger” in speech bubbles…? Or, perhaps more relevant to Europeans, would so many people be standing in solidarity with them if they were propagating anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews — complete with hooked noses sniffing for financial schemes…? I don’t think so…
No amount of religious or cultural offense can ever justify the kind of jihadi justice meted out against Charlie Hebdo and its staff today – no matter how repugnant, or indeed sacrilege, their offense.
(‘Massacre in Paris: Islamic Jihadist Come Home to Roost,” The iPINIONS Journal, January 7, 2015)
Vous êtes Charlie. OK. Êtes-vous KKK too?
The prevailing argument in support of Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Muslim cartoons is that it desecrates all religions with equal irreverence. Except that, because Christians tolerate insults to their faith does not mean that Muslims should too. After all, nobody in his right mind would argue that, because Whites tolerate racist jokes about their race, Blacks should too.
(“Media Covering Manhunt more as Entertainment than News,” The iPINIONS Journal, January 9, 2015)
Frankly, I see little difference between Charlie Hebdo publishing anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic cartoons and the KKK publishing racist … and anti-Semitic propaganda. They both peddle hate speech that offends all reasonable notions of free speech.
This is why I am marking its heralded return today – complete with cartoons expressly intended to insult Muslims more than ever – by formally declaring my solidarity with those who feel as indignant towards Charlie Hebdo as I feel towards the KKK.
On 11 January, an estimated 1.6 million people took to the streets of Paris to voice their solidarity with those murdered at the hands of radical Muslim terrorists and proclaim ‘Je suis Charlie’ (I am Charlie). But not everyone in the city felt comfortable with that idea. Many Muslims throughout Paris chose to stay away – some of them even stating ‘Je ne suis pas Charlie’ (I am not Charlie).
(The Guardian, January 12, 2015)
Apropos of which, corporate interests might prevent the New York Times from declaring its solidarity. But refusing to follow media fashion, by running Charlie Hebdo cartoons, indicates that its editors do not think they constitute “news that’s fit to print” – even out of sympathy.
On the other hand, for those of you who want a related hashtag that is more worthy of your viral activism, how about #Je Suis Ahmed:
I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie disrespected me and ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so.
(Vox, January 9, 2015)
Meanwhile, a number art historians are declaiming that there’s nothing wrong with Charlie Hebdo publishing images of the Prophet Mohammed. After all, they argue, images of the Prophet appear in medieval Islamic art. But this is plainly specious. After all, I argue, medieval Islamic art invariably depicts respectful and reverential images of the Prophet, whereas Charlie Hebdo invariably publishes demeaning and defiling ones.
What’s more, non-Muslims telling Muslims what should not cause them religious offense reeks of the kind of paternalistic arrogance that once had Whites telling Blacks what should not cause them racial offense. Of course, just decades ago, it was commonplace to refer to Blacks as Negroes/Niggers. But it’s generally accepted that today, in light of cognitive dissonance, only racists and ignoramuses would dare refer to Blacks as such.
By instructive contrast, it has been centuries since it was commonplace to publish images of the Prophet Mohammed. Therefore, by the same token, why shouldn’t we deduce that today, in light of changing religious mores, only Islamophobes and ignoramuses would dare not only publish such images, but do so in the form of deliberately offensive cartoons…?
Finally, there’s this: On the one hand, Westerners are implementing all kinds of police-state measures to prevent “lone wolf” attacks. On the other hand, they are leading mass parades in support of anti-Muslim cartoons, which will likely do more than jihadist propaganda to incite and recruit Muslims to carry out such attacks. Am I the only one who sees the self-defeating irony inherent in this?
Related commentaries:
Massacre in Paris…