Dhimmitude abounds… However, some common sense in the Indy.
Apparently, Charlie Hebdo is Islamophobic. Islamophobia is a term invented by fascists to silence the free thinkers and is taken up by the useful idiots on the left. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. And having a healthy dislike of Islam is not racist. Never was, never will be, no matter how much these creatures point the finger and screech it.
Charlie Hebdo has good reason to dislike Islam. Indeed, a fervent dislike is perfectly rational. Oh, but, but….
Charlie Hebdo’s latest editorial has given rise to a new wave of public outrage, with esteemed writer Teju Cole comparing the magazine’s satire to Trump’s rhetoric and Nazi logic.
As Julia Ebner points out, this is absurd.
Whether one agrees with the latest editorial or not, drawing this historical parallel is far-fetched. The difference is threefold: first, Charlie Hebdo’s mockery is targeting abstract concepts, ideologies and powerful elites rather than vulnerable individuals. Second, the goal of the journalists is to incite laughter, not hatred or fear. Third – and most importantly – the satirists are not abusing freedom of expression for the sake of politics; they are abusing politics for the sake of free expression.
Quite so.
What Charlie Hebdo – in, I admit, a clumsy way – was saying in its editorial this week is that we must foster an environment of open discussion, courage and free expression to overcome these fears and taboos, which are easily exploited by extremists.
Precisely. The best weapon we have against the Islamofascists is to maintain our way of life, to indulge in Western freedoms, to speak openly, to criticise, ridicule and poke fun at the nonsensical belief systems of the primitive shit-hole dwellers.
Charlie Hebdo’s latest editorial does therefore not depict Muslims as enemies, but as necessary partners; it does not view them as the problem, but as the solution.
Er, well, actually…
They want more debate, rather than less, and more tolerance, rather than less – by using pens instead of guns and laughter instead of tears.
Well, yes, quite.
This being said, Charlie Hebdo cartoons have become cruder, more vulgar and less trenchant in the last year, probably owing to the fact that most of its leading cartoonists were shot dead.
Understandable, no? And, yes, that atrocity had everything to do with Islam.
According to a ComRes poll, 27 per cent of 1,000 Muslims polled admitted that they had sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
I make no comment other than to refer to the previous comment about not being the problem. Ahem.
Charlie Hebdo’s response strikes me as very, very generous, considering….
“What Charlie Hebdo – in, I admit, a clumsy way – was saying in its editorial this week…”
‘Clumsy’? It’s extremely difficult to translate French into English without causing some damage to the message en route. There’d be rather fewer wars and the like if more people realised that translation is inherently imprecise.
Christ, you can easily details and nuances when working with different dialects of the *same language*.
I don’t particularly like the French, but at least I don’t go around shooting them.
I’d be a pissed off with Islamists if they’d murdered a bunch of my friends and colleagues too…
I was rather encouraged when the Guardian’s (inevitable) article written by a Muslim decrying the Islamophobia of the Charlie Hebdo article was shot to pieces in the comments, which had to be closed after only a few hours as far too many BTLers were wandering off the message of ‘Islam is ALWAYS good and all the problems in the Middle East are caused by Western foreign policy’ and into the realms of what we would consider the sensible angle of ‘Islam is a religion, an idea – we must be able to criticise it because that’s the only way the Muslims of the world are going to wake up to the fact that their religion is barbarous, ridiculous and completely unsuited to secular society and is preventing pluralism throughout the world.’
I know that this is an angle which you have been promoting for years LR, but I have been very encouraged recently to see that many US thinkers and media types have become awakened to the ‘useful idiots’ who they deem ‘the Regressive Left’. As well as targeting the ideology itself more and more people; Bill Maher & Dave Rubin for example in the media, Sam Harris and Gad Saad from academia, and Majid Nawaaz and Sarah Haider who are reformist or apostate Muslims, are also going up against the morally relativistic attitudes of the Left itself and challenging them to not only justify their position as enablers for Islamists but standing against the fact that their refusal to criticise Islam is leaving the far right as the only people who are actually talking about the problem. I find the fact that there are people, not least the upper echelons of Corbyn’s Labour along with US liberals, who can justify the growth of Islamism as a political movement and offer comfort to these enemies of freedom, in positions of power and influence throughout the world far more frightening than any fool with a suicide vest.
Yes, it is gratifying. The CIFers are generally secular and atheist so when push comes to shove, that wins out.