Don’t let murderers pretend their crimes are about cartoons

[babylonsister]

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7509265/charlie-hebdo-cartoons


Don’t let murderers pretend their crimes are about cartoons

Updated by Ezra Klein on January 7, 2015, 2:10 p.m. ET @ezraklein



Yes, Charlie Hebdo was a magazine that delighted in controversy and provocation. Yes, it skewered religion and took joy in giving offense. Yes, the magazine knowingly antagonized extremists — Charlie Hebdo's web site had been hacked and its offices firebombed before today; French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius had asked of its cartoons, "Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?" And yes, Charlie Hebdo's editor said in 2012, prophetically, that "I prefer to die than live like a rat."

But this isn't about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, any more than a rape is about what the victim is wearing, or a murder is about where the victim was walking.

What happened today, according to current reports, is that two men went on a killing spree. Their killing spree, like most killing sprees, will have some thin rationale. Even the worst villains believe themselves to be heroes. But in truth, it was unprovoked slaughter. The fault lies with no one but them and their accomplices. Their crime isn't explained by cartoons or religion. Plenty of people read Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and managed to avoid responding with mass murder. Plenty of people follow all sorts of religions and somehow get through the day without racking up a body count. The answers to what happened today won't be found in Charlie Hebdo's pages. They can only be found in the murderers' sick minds.

Today is a good day to honor Charlie Hebdo and to share its work. It's a good day to do that because good people died today and we should remember them. It's a good day to do that because much of the work in Charle Hebdo was brilliant and any day is a good day to share it.

snip//

These murders can't be explained by a close read of an editorial product, and they needn't be condemned on free speech grounds. They can only be explained by the madness of the perpetrators, who did something horrible and evil that almost no human beings anywhere ever do, and the condemnation doesn't need to be any more complex than saying unprovoked mass slaughter is wrong.

This is a tragedy. It is a crime. It is not a statement, or a controversy.

[JI7]

1. what kind of mind gets so angry to murder over cartoons but when it comes to things like torture

and attacks on actual people there isn't the same level of outrage.

another thing is that these are usually not people who lack education and have been closed off in some backward village .

these are usually people born or raised with all the benefits of modern society like education, access to info around the world, travel etc.

hostages of ISIS have said the worst ones were often the British.

[msongs]

4. so its ok for someone to murder you and yours because they don't like your "free speech"? nice nt

[geek tragedy]

26. Sacrilege is not bigotry.

Showing Mohammed making out with another man is not bigotry--it's a poke in the eye of rightwing fundamentalists.

[randome]

7. Apparently it IS okay in a good part of the world.

Salmon Rushdie wasn't threatened by one or two lone gunmen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[closeupready]

6. I agree.

[Daemonaquila]

9. WTF?

Wow. Just wow.

The comparison is completely apt. Just because YOU don't see a woman offending anyone in her selection of clothing doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of pinheads who believe it's their business what she's wearing, and take offense at it. Or decide that she's a terrible (and highly desirable) slut who is "just asking for it," and they're the criminals to give it to her.

Free speech offends. Tough. Faux News is as offensive as hell. Rush is offensive. Alex Jones is offensive. Lots of speech even masquerading a "news," much less opinion, is offensive. But censorship is not the answer. What, a cartoonist can't make a point by saying something that's offensive to some people, in the universe of ideas that each offend some person or group? It's negligent to do so? Amazing.

You don't have to like the message. But it's a problem to assert that the publisher was in the wrong for publishing the message. That's just more victim blaming.

[Throd]

52. A Latuff cartoon? Really?

[philosslayer]

10. I agree; contrast the NY Daily News

If you look at the attached story, they pixilated a picture of one of the offending cartoons. In my opinion they exercised editorial restraint.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/1-killed-3-injured-shooting-french-satirical-paper-article-1.2068486

[geek tragedy]

15. Yes, they are in fear of being next.

No one has this fear when it comes to sacrilege against Catholics or Buddhists.

[closeupready]

24. ... signed, Martin Luther?

[geek tragedy]

27. Who died 469 years ago.

Not sure what your point is.

[closeupready]

32. lol, playing dumb - in light of your voluminous activity on DU -

is unpersuasive coming from you.

[geek tragedy]

33. Either that or your point wasn't expressed with sufficient clarity.

I do not see the relevance of Martin Luther, who died 469 years ago, of natural causes, to this discussion.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Gee, I've seen lots of pro gay cartoons from them, many of which mock the Pope and Christian

figures while advocating equal rights for LGBT people. I've never seen a comic from them I'd call homophobic. I've seen comics about homophobia. They are not homophobes.

[Lobo27]

39. So wtf do you mean by this?

Why bring this up when people are fucking dead. Senseless fucking deaths.

[tritsofme]

17. What some call restraint, others call cowardice.

[philosslayer]

41. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam

N/t

[Throd]

49. What the fuck?

[philosslayer]

51. Not my words

President Obama's words. Do you disagree?

[Throd]

54. I knew who said it.

That was when he was still pretending that the clusterfuck in Benghazi was caused by that shitty movie nobody saw.

[philosslayer]

56. So do you think he'd retract the statement now?

I think not.

[Throd]

59. He should rephrase the sentiment in the future.

and add something like "nor should it belong to fundamentalist whack-jobs who kill anybody who dares to criticize their imaginary sky-daddy". But more artfully than how I just put it.

[stage left]

61. The future must not belong to religious fanatics.

Neither the foreign ones nor the ones that are homegrown.

[Nye Bevan]

38. That's like praising a woman for dressing conservatively in an attempt to avoid being raped (nt)

[tblue37]

69. +1,000,000! nt

[staggerleem]

66. YOU call it "editorial restraint".

I call it "chickenshit"!

[babylonsister]

11. But they're entitled to freedom of expression.

Last edited Wed Jan 7, 2015, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Should all cartoonists now be intimidated and stop doing what they do?

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

[NYC_SKP]

19. I just don't know where the justification for the efforts are, beyond profit.

I don't see where any good whatsoever comes from the publication of these cartoons.

That something is done legally does not make it a good or a safe or an ethically sound idea.

Neither does it make it defensible.

It makes me very sad that so many seem to think that the cartoonists and publisher were doing good in any way.

[Throd]

23. A free society requires these kind of publications. You aren't required to like it nor read it.

[geek tragedy]

36. Speech needs to be justified? nt

[NYC_SKP]

43. Like anything, sometimes restraint is indicated.

I'm not familiar with the full range of their publications but as a general matter, sometimes silence is golden.

Sometimes it's critical, sometimes it's self-serving.

Where free speech is expressed AND said expression carries great risk, especially to innocent bystanders, then, yes, I think it should be justified in someway.

That's just me.

[geek tragedy]

45. So we should let murderers and barbarians define our

values regarding expression?

"Don't write anything that might upset some rabid fundyclowns."

[Flatulo]

46. I think it's absolutely necessary to regularly give the finger to intolerant religious assholes.

Otherwise they win.

[NYC_SKP]

60. I agree, but not at the expense of innocent standers-by.

At some point, I think it becomes reckless.

[Flatulo]

62. I understand and respect your viewpoint, but submission is just not in my DNA. I would

rather fight than self-censor.

[geek tragedy]

12. Who gets to determine what cartoons are offensive?

Adults and civilized people do not get outraged over cartoons.

The rape analogy is perfectly apt.

[WillowTree]

29. The other question, of course.......

.......is who ever said that anyone has some sort of right to never be offended? I get offended by something or other now and again, but I've never been under any sort of delusion that merely being offended, even seriously offended, would justify a violent response.

Yet, too many people do seem to think that their civil rights are being violated if someone offends them. Which, of course, it utter nonsense.

[ileus]

13. Bad BAD NYC

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am biased and voted to hide, since I've strong opinions on free speech that is not racists, which the cartoons were not imho.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alert....LOOK AT ME....MY opinion is important!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This poster is an idiot, but being an idiot, even on DU, doesn't rise to the level of the alert system. jmho
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: it's an opinion.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: disgusting post. ever stretching to blame the real criminals.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Oh, that was close.

I better go out for a walk!

[Throd]

18. "A woman is not offending anyone in her selection of clothing."

Bullshit. Ask any fundie.

You have disappointed me here. I expected better from you.

[MineralMan]

21. Do you? That's interesting.

That publication routinely skewers religious belief, political belief, and just about everything else some people believe in. It's their stock in trade. And yet, nobody offended by that has shot 12 people in retribution.

Satire is uncomfortable because it exposes part of the truth that is unwelcome by "true believers." There is more than enough room in the world for that kind of satire.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Ok. I am an artist who has worked in mass media. There are people who are wildly offended by

just about anything. There are also people, many of them, who are very offended by things that depict gay people positively or which portray or tell of positive relations between races or religious groups. What you are suggesting is that because we know there are violent racists, we should craft all art and culture to please their racist sensibilities. And also the homophobes, the people who hate various religious groups, and so on....
Would you be willing to revoke rights from people if those rights offend some fucks in other countries?

[MineralMan]

40. The poster has self-deleted his posts.

I guess he saw the error of his thinking, after being roundly criticized for writing what he wrote.

[Lobo27]

42. I have a friend who is an artist for Marvel/DC comics.

A few years back he tells me a writer called Brian Michael Bendis received death threats. Because he made a comic in an alternate universe where white Spider-man died, and latino who was black became the new Spider-man. The leading monger against the Comic was Glenn Beck.

People take shit to serious, or can't comprehend change.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

31. But the publishers satirized many topics,

including Christian and Jewish religions. It's satire!

Were the cartoonists supposed to ignore fundamentalist Islam? In other words, let the radical Islamists win the war on free speech?

I say "NO!"

[get the red out]

34. In many parts of the world

A woman can suffer greatly for choosing the wrong article of clothing. Does a publication have to be "enlightening" to everyone to deserve to be in print? If it didn't sell, it wouldn't stay in business.

What you see as "arrogant" can also be seen as standing on principal. Or perhaps the "greater good" is in kneeling?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

3. Well, based on what I've read so far ...

... I think that those who perpetrated these murders believed that they were making a "statement."

[polly7]

8. I think nearly every murderer believes he/she is making a statement of some kind.

Certainly, some will agree with it, billions will reject it as just what the author of the OP did - a twisted, sick mind that preys on his own faith and the billions who follow it (and will get the backlash) as an excuse to kill innocent people.

Charles Manson thought he was making a statement.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

25. I don't read what Mr. Klein wrote ...

... as his "rejecting" the perpetrators' statement. Rather, he stated explicitly that it "was not a statement."

I don't think that is correct.

[polly7]

70. I didn't express myself very well and apologize for that ....

Yes, they were making a statement for themselves, but as to it representing anything but their own twisted ideology and being a statement for anyone BUT themselves, they were wrong. Muslims across the world have loudly denounced their murderous rampage and don't associate themselves with that statement in any way - and they will suffer for it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. No, that's exactly what they were about.

The murderers come from a tradition where insulting Mohammed is a very, very big deal, and these murders were very much a statement.

[RadiationTherapy]

28. Nonsense. These murders were a religious statement and a religious threat to free speech.

It seems obvious to me, but I am open to hearing how what happened in Paris is not a religious expression.

[get the red out]

35. I agree

[Marr]

37. This lets religion off the hook.

Fundamentalist religion caused this.

[Flatulo]

48. Yeah, because Carholics and Bhuddists routinely call for the execution of anyone who insults

their Prophets.

Why the fuck can't we just say that the problem is Islam?

I expect this post to be alerted on by some cowardly fuck. And possibly hidden by some other cowardly fucks.

[Doc Holliday]

47. As Forrest Gump said:

"I'm not a very smart man..."

but......doesn't committing multiple murder in defense of a religious figure (whose religion supposedly is all about peace)
make about as much sense as screwing in defense of chastity?

[MellowDem]

50. The murders seem to largely be about religion...

This article tries to pretend it's not. Why? Religion is full of all sorts of terrible ideas, it needs more criticism.

[SoapBox]

53. "Religion" will be the death of this world...

That or pure greed for money...or power/control...or both.

Beware of Fundies.

[arcane1]

57. Should we ignore motive in every murder case, or just this one?

They committed this crime because of their stupid beliefs.

[The Wizard]

58. Legalize reefer and ban religion.

People who use reefer laugh and eat a lot of snacks, they don't go on murderous rampages. Reefer Madness is fiction. Religious madness is real.

[SCVDem]

63. When I saw this on the news

I flashed on the movie Three days of the Condor.

Deepest sympathy to all .

[yallerdawg]

64. I flash on...

[world wide wally]

65. So, if "God", Allah, Jesus, Muhammad, et al. Are offended.. Can't they just deal with it themselves?

Why do they need the help of mere mortals to dish out punishment?

[raging moderate]

67. I wonder whether a little change is needed in all of us?

Maybe there could be a little tiny change in Islam as well as in all the rest of us, just enough to let moderate voices have more influence? Just the little one we are finally cobbling together in our own motley-crew religion called Christianity? For many hundreds of years, most Christians believed they had to fight and kill and overrun and rampage to shore up the "Honor" of Christ, or rather of whatever picture they had of Christ. Just a few hundred years ago, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the new Protestant churches were beginning to feud. Then some leaders of the new different Protestant churches met, and each tried unsuccessfully to convince all the others of the absolute rectitude of his particular church. At length, someone said despondently something like "Then I guess we must war against each other as well." Fortunately, saner heads began to prevail more and more, for many reasons, not the least of which is the final realization that we are NOT God, that we cannot truly understand God, and that God is not in need of any protection by us. If I declare that the Moon is made of cheese, that doesn't change its composition. You don't have to kill me to save the Moon. You all know that. It has wide implications. True Honor is about your own self-control, and a desire to control others comes from Pride, which leads to destruction. Of course, Jesus actually issued a direct statement flatly forbidding anybody to administer punishment in His name. We are all broken, we are all scared, we are all lonely little creatures trying to make our way in the world. I think we all have to forgive each other. I feel that maybe we could say to these extremists, and to those of other faiths, sort of like that Judy Collins song, "Well, we've been where you're hanging; we think we can see how you're pinned. If someone's not calling you holy, your loneliness screams that they've sinned."

[staggerleem]

68. A woman I consider very wise once said to me ...

... "When someone tells you who they are, you should believe them."

Forgive me, sister, but who are you to say why or why not these sick individuals did what they did. One thing we can count on in this world is that radical Islamists take themselves and their religion WWAAAYYYY TOO SERIOUSLY! So, yes, I agree with you that they are sick, misguided, sociopathic mass-murderers. But if they say "We did this because your cartoons are an offense to us and to Allah!", then who are you (or me, for that matter) to say "NOPE! - That just ain't it!"?

Is their reason a good reason? Of course not! - there is no good reason to do what they did. but if they say "This is why!", then that's why. End of story!