Nick Cohen in the Spectator quotes the (paywalled) Financial Times on Charlie Hebdo:
Charlie Hebdo is a bastion of the French tradition of hard-hitting satire. It has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling Muslims.
Two years ago the magazine published a 65-page strip cartoon book portraying the Prophet’s life. And this week it gave special coverage to Soumission (“Submission”), a new novel by Michel Houellebecq, the idiosyncratic author, which depicts France in the grip of an Islamic regime led by a Muslim president.
This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims.
This is not to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion, it’s merely to say that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. Or, to put it another way, it’s not to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion, it’s merely to say that no one should actually use that freedom of expression. You can have it, if you insist, but you can’t avail yourself of it.
Nick’s comment is acidic:
Does the Financial Times have subeditors? Did no one spot that, having begun by saying that it does not want to condone murder, the Financial Times moved in two sentences to saying that Charlie Hebdo’s satirists have provoked their own deaths. Apparently, they ‘purport’ to believe in freedom of speech – the hypocrites. If only they had had the ‘common sense’ not to ‘provoke’ clerical fascism, then clerical fascists would not have come for them.
Surely that’s enough “freedom” for anyone.
“This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that if freedom of expression is used to portray religion satirically, we’ll chide you for your lack of ‘common sense’ because what did you expect?”
The last thing we need is appeasement and the softly softly approach, which only whets the appetite of the violence-prone ‘extremist’ for more.
There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. The problem is the Islam that certain Muslims have been raised in, and believe in.
Islam is a terrible religion. It can convince far too many of its sleepwalking believers that it is OK to kill in its name.
So, according to that Dhimmi writer, Muslims ultimately have the veto over freedom of expression.
The Sydney Morning Herald makes a stand on principle:
Likewise Murdoch’s Fox News:
.
However The Australian is from Murdoch’s stable of right-wing rags. It ran cartoonists’ responses to the Islamists’ outrage, but not any of the offending cartoons themselves.
.
And so, like Trappist monks, they shuffle towards their separate vows of silence, and all make their timid progress towards their separate intimidaria.
.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-media-around-the-world-chart-different-courses-20150108-12k90p.html
https://proxy.freethought.online/butterfliesandwheels/2015/01/still-drawing/
Nick Cohen writes in the UK media, the same UK media which, without exception, bravely refused (and still refuses) to publish the Danish cartoons, not because they’re scared of Charlie Hebdo-style reprisals by enraged Muslims, oh no, but actually because… erm…
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie-no-youre-not-or-else-you
“You didn’t deserve to die for printing a cartoon but since they got angry and shot you, you kinda had it coming.”
…what were you wearing?
Jeremy, you win the internet for today!
I’ve been recommending the film It’s Hard Being Loved by Jerks since 2011. (I hope Sundance decides to rerun it if they can.) It’s about Charlie Hebdo’s publishing the Mohammed cartoons and the court case that followed. The portrayal of the paper as lacking common sense, thoughtfulness, and judgment raises my hackles. As I argued yesterday, they didn’t just set out to poke Muslims in the eye or to bait Islamic fundamentalists. They continued to take a brave stand for the right to blaspheme, while being careful to avoid as much as possible contributing to the marginalization of Muslims. In fact, their argument (including in court) was that by making Islam a target of blasphemous satire they were working to include Muslims in French society, as part of the cultural community rather than standing outside of it.
The FT article isn’t just terribly victim-blaming – it’s ignorant.
I’m sure he would feel the same were the poorer segments of society rise up against the 1%ers, right?
If we could just keep those uppity niggers from ‘offending’ the Klan, wouldn’t it all be lovely?