Translation: Mohammed overwhelmed by fundamentalists
Bubble: It’s hard to be loved by idiots
Two of the cartoons on this page are caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. Before yesterday, I couldn’t imagine circumstances where I would publish them, both because this blog doesn’t deal with religious issues and because such caricatures are offensive to Muslims.
I just don’t run around looking to insult the religious beliefs of others. To each their own, so long as it doesn’t impact others.
But I also write and publish and enjoy the magnificent freedom of speech. I’ve been discussing that subject a lot recently, though that was due to attempts to silence by force of law, not guns.
There’s no doubt that the horrific assault yesterday on the sharply satiric French political magazine Charlie Hebdo is not just an assault on all writers, but an assault on all that believe in free speech.
It doesn’t matter if we approve or not of the content of the magazine’s speech. That has nothing to do with the right to publish it.
What if we allowed ourselves to be intimidated into silence by force of guns on the subject of religion? What other subjects would be next? And who gets to make those decisions?
If we do not stand up to people now that wish to take away the fundamental right to express opinions, then when will it happen? And if not us, who then?
The answer to speech with which we disagree is more speech, not less.
Translation: “I am the prophet, asshole!” “Shut up, infidel!”
I think that the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by what has been done in their name. And now, because a small group of people have bastardized their religion, they see these depictions getting widespread dissemination.
We must, however, choose between the lesser of two evils. Do we remain silent in the face of violent attempts to censure, or do we speak out and insult perfectly innocent people in the process?
But there seems to me to be little alternative other than to stand up to evil, and the sooner the better. I suspect that those innocent Muslims know this all too well, as the militants within their religion may have killed thousands of Jews, Christians and Hindus around the world, but mostly they have killed their fellow Muslims. And done so by the millions.
The slaughter yesterday, and the need to respond, reminds me of a poem:
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.
Let’s hope that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword. You can see a wide selection of cartoon responses compiled here and here. But this is the one that I will close with, from Philadelphian Rob Tornoe:
Well said, Eric! We have it very easy here in the US, and it’s easy to forget that elsewhere, even in the West, even basic freedoms are far from assured. The journalists at Charlie Hebdo knew the risks they were taking and bravely took them anyway.
JeSuisCharlie
Pingback: Being Charlie Hebdo | RHDefense: The Law Office of Rick Horowitz
To paraphrase a famous writer, whose name escapes me for the moment, “I may hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
I’ve often found myself angry and disgusted with
remarks on the media from those on both the right and the left politically. But I have the choice to simply switch to another channel, or read another columnist, and listen to those who I consider more intelligent and thoughtful in their views. The fact still remains that we live in a country that stands for freedom of speech — without the fear (until recent years) of being killed by mindless terrorists.
There are some ironies involved here.
I have friends in France and have a sometime passing acquaintance with the language.
Until this incident, although somewhat well known in France as a minor cultural touchstone, Charlie Hebdo had a miniscule readership and had even begun asking for donations in order to keep publishing. Most French people were of the opinion that its content was “over the top”, however much they might snicker at the cover, as seen on the newsstand. But they rarely would buy one to read it.
What Charlie had going for it was that its prime artists (now dead) were much more famous for other things that they did. So, if nothing else, Charlie got some name recognition by association with these famous cartoon folk. It’s as if Charles Schultz had drawn for South Park.
So, the irony is, that by attacking Charlie, a relatively obscure satirical rag that few took seriously, the terrorists only gave its content, often rude, crude and vulgar, far more exposure than it ever would have gotten otherwise.
In the US, we refer to this phenomenon as “shooting one’s self in the foot.” I’m sure there’s a French equivalent, but I don’t know it.
@Helen — this quote is often attributed to Voltaire, but it seems to have actually come from one of his biographers.
So, the irony is, that by attacking Charlie, a relatively obscure satirical rag that few took seriously, the terrorists only gave its content, often rude, crude and vulgar, far more exposure than it ever would have gotten otherwise.
a/k/a: The Streisand Effect
Pingback: A Lawyer’s Duty – Lawyers Respond To #JeSuisCharlie | Associate's Mind