Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Luz
with the controversial issue of Hebdo
Photo: Franck Prevel / Getty Images
Once again a media organization is under attack from Muslims who object to something that they find personally offensive. This time Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly publication in France, was firebombed because it printed a cover with a drawing of Muhammad saying "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter." They also claimed that Muhammad had agreed to serve as a guest editor for that issue.
Stop and think about it for a couple of minutes. It's admittedly not the most respectful handling of Muhammad, but it's also a far cry from anything approaching an attack on the figure of Muhammad personally. Situations like this lead to few other conclusions but that some Muslims are incapable of having a sense of humor about themselves or their religion -- and being able to laugh at yourself and your ideology is a sign of emotional health as well as psychological maturity.
The main representative body of the Muslim faith in France, the French Muslim Council (CFCM), denounced the attack while also faulting the satirical publication. "The CFCM deplores the deeply mocking tone of the newspaper toward Islam and its prophet, but reaffirms with force its total opposition to any act or form of violence," it said in statement. ...
Tareq Oubrou, head of the Association of Imams of France, also condemned the attack. "This is an inadmissible act," he told French TV station i>tele. "Freedom is very important. It is nonetheless important to underline the sensitivity of the situation we face today. I call on Muslims to treat this lucidly and not succumb to what they consider as provocations regarding their religion ... I personally call on Muslims to keep an open mind and not take this too seriously."
Source: Reuters
Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Charb
Shirt: 'God is Love'
Photo: Franck Prevel/Getty
The newspapers was effectively destroyed. The firebomb attack destroyed all their equipment and all their supplies. Nothing was left for them to work with. Nevertheless, they are doing everything possible to continue putting out a paper -- delayed a week or two, perhaps, but they will persevere.
Other publications in France have come out strongly in support of Charlie Hebdo, which is remarkable because this newspaper has deliberately cultivated something of a negative reputation. They have been willing to satirize everything and everyone -- but in France, satire has a long, strong, and positive history. Even those who have been the target of satire recognize it's importance and will defend those who do it well.
This includes many in the government -- and you know that most if not all of them must have been targets of this publication on multiple occasions:
"Freedom of expression is an inalienable value of democracy and any incursion against press freedom must be condemned with the utmost force. No cause justified violent action," French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said in a statement.
French Interior Minister Claude Gueant told reporters at the scene of the blaze that everything would be done to find the perpetrators of the attack. "You like or you don't like Charlie Hebdo but it's a newspaper. Press freedom is sacrosanct for the French," he said.
Also:
Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, minister of economy, said: "Those who did this designate themselves as enemies of democracy. You don't negotiate the freedom of the press with bombs...If you are not happy with what's in a newspaper, you take it to court."
Xavier Bertrand, the labour minister, said he was "deeply shocked" while Jean-Fran�ois Cop�, head of the ruling conservative UMP party said if the fire was linked to this week's issue, "it serves as a reminder of what kind of acts can be committed by fundamentalists who manipulate religion for political ends".
Jean-Luc Melenchon, presidential candidate for the leftist Front de Gauche party called the attack "repulsive", and called on the French "to the have the intellectual discipline not to confuse a handful of imbeciles, numbskulls who will severely punished, I hope, with the vast majority of our Muslim compatriots who practice their faith perfectly calmly".
"Blasphemy doesn't exist as a crime, this is the French Republic; that's the law (on freedom of the press)," he said.
Source: Telegraph
Unfortunately, not everyone involved in the press agrees that press freedom is sacrosanct. One in particular Bruce Crumley, who wrote an editorial condemning the attack but only after he first blamed the victims of the attack for daring to publish things that might be offensive to someone:
Sorry for your loss, Charlie, and there's no justification of such an illegitimate response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of "because we can" was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring. ...
Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response--however illegitimate--is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it's pointlessly all about you.
What price would Bruce Crumley pay for free speech and a free press -- any? I doubt it; for that you have to believe in free speech and a free press and for that one has to believe that the freedoms apply to everyone, not simply to those who are inoffensive. It's noteworthy that Crumley changed the title of his editorial. Originally it was "Firebombed French Paper: A Victim of Islam, Or Its Own Obnoxious Islamaphobia?" but it was altered to "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr".
So what evidence does Bruce Crumley have that the paper was a peddler of "Islamophobia"? I doubt Crumley can even produce a coherent definition of the term, never mind evidence that someone is guilty of it. In his editorial, the concept has no function but to poison the well against the satirical publication -- perhaps because Crumley is unable to offer any sort of substantive argument against what they've done or what they've published.
And that's exactly what you'd expect from someone who is opposed to broad free speech and free press rights. It's just such a shame to see such a position being peddled by someone who is part of the free press. Even more depressing is that despite writing a tirade against the free press, Time will continue to employ him as a "journalist."
No comments:
Post a Comment