http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168
http://archive.is/kXW0S
Here is a reader comment to the gawker.com article above, that nicely sums up one of the more typical reactions to the mocking humor of 'Charlie Hebdo', and the obscene violence that has been committed in response to that humor —
http://gawker.com/i-know-a-lot-of-people-are-jumping-on-the-free-speech-1677979891
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168#replies
I know a lot of people are jumping on the "free speech!" bandwagon, but this really has to be into context. It's not really so much about free speech and "blasphemy." The discourse in Europe towards Muslims/Arabs/immigrants/etc. (they're all the same for many Europeans) has taken a very uncomfortable turn for the worst and we're seeing a strong backlash against Islam and immigration in many places in Europe. Islam/Muslims/non-withes/immigration are represented are being a "problem." This is in spite of the fact that Muslims/non-whites/immigrants will face intense discrimination and lack of opportunity from the broader (white) society. So you have millions of Muslims/Arabs/Turks/immigrants/etc. seeing that the political discourse has turned to them "being a problem" when they know that a huge part of it is that they really aren't being allowed to integrate by the broader society.
Those cartoons aren't simple drawings of Muhammad. There is a distinct political message behind them, and they border on being outright racist (the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Muhammad are). It really doesn't matter that the magazine is an "equal opportunity" offender, Catholics aren't a disenfranchised minority in Europe. The cartoons just added flames to an already very volatile fire. They are being willfully and purposefully offensive to an already marginalized and disenfranchised group of people in Europe.
When this reader claims that immigrants 'really aren't being allowed to integrate by the broader society', is she referring to the regular protests by Muslim immigrants in Europe for the imposition of Sharia law? —
Or perhaps she is referring to those brazenly irrational Muslims who wander the streets of London at night, harassing others to follow some of the dictates of Islam — as if attempting to control the behavior of others, who are in no way affecting you, is an expression of religious freedom. Oh yes, it is our old friend the Orwellian double think again — my freedom requires your oppression —
Or perhaps she is referring to the notorious Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, which involved the abduction, rape, and torture, of over 1,400 children, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men, for well over 10 years (1997 to 2013) —
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/rotherham/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963
And regarding the reader's comment on the cartoons contained in the gawker.com article ― of course, there is 'a distinct political message behind them' ― that is, that people cannot control what others write or draw because they do not like it, for whatever reason, even if they can prove it is offensive. That is a basic requirement of life in a free, civilized society — you do not get to play dictator, and control the behavior of others, simply because you are upset because they disagree with you, or because they mock you. That is the whole point — when you make brazenly irrational demands for the special treatment of your belief system — that it must be exempt from any kind of criticism, or that certain pictures cannot be drawn regarding it — you have explicitly announced your ignorance regarding freedom of expression, and that you are a danger to any free, civilized society. Just as the Muslims in the videos above have done.
So, if you are sympathetic to the reader's comment quoted above, how would you defend her claim that it is the immigrants who 'aren't being allowed to integrate by the broader society'? Good luck with that.
In parting, here is a little more of the same. There is one quote from the article at the link below that must be repeated — an absurd analogy between the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoonists and a fascist group that would like to exercise widespread dictatorial control, in much the same way as Islam — neo-Nazis. Once again, you could not make this up — a professional journalist makes a comparison between the exercise of free speech by a fascist organization, and the exercise of free speech by a satirical periodical which regularly mocks those who wish to establish a religious theocracy —
http://www.theguardian.com/.../2015/apr/28/i-admire-charlie-hebdos-courage-but-it-does-not-deserve-a-pen-award
...
But that is not the same as feeling that Charlie Hebdo deserves an award. As a friend wrote me: the First Amendment guarantees the right of the neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, but we don’t give them an award. The bestowing of an award suggests to me a certain respect and admiration for the work that has been done, and for the value of that work and though I admire the courage with which Charlie Hebdo has insisted on its right to provoke and challenge the doctrinaire, I don’t feel that their work has the importance – the necessity – that would deserve such an honor.
...
Some may have the impression from what I have written defending 'Charlie Hebdo' that I am a great admirer of their work. I am not. But I know that 'Charlie Hebdo' displayed rare courage — a character trait that is in terribly short supply today — and for that, 'Charlie Hebdo' deserves to be defended.
No comments:
Post a Comment