The story that has been shaking the world these past two weeks is the hateful, racist, and overall shitty movie called "The Innocence of Muslims," and the resulting uproar which has led to the death of at least 30 people, including the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens.
These events were tragic enough on their own, but on Wednesday, French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo decided to publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. This is not the first time this publication has targeted Islam. Their offices were bombed a year ago in response to an issue they had renamed "Sharia Hebdo," and the infamous Danish cartoon also graced its pages in 2007. To say that Charlie Hebdo is no stranger to controversy is quite an understatement, but this instance smacks of gross opportunism and recklessness.
Free speech is an inalienable right; no one should be forbidden to be offensive or just plain stupid. No one deserves to be harassed, hurt or killed for being a particularly shitty douchebag or sharing a nationality with one. But freedom of speech does not mean your speech is free from criticism. Brandishing the excuse of humor does not mean that others must find what you say funny. Freedom of speech does not give you a pass from having to think about the consequences of what you say or from examining your bigotry and ignorance.
The editors of Charlie Hebdo have seen what has happened to embassies and schools around the world because of the movie. They know that their caricatures have a high chance of sparking similar anger. French embassies in at least 20 countries will be closed on Friday, out of fear of reprisal. Is this publication's desire to shock and offend so strong that they are willing to put the lives of other human beings (or, more chauvinistically, fellow citizens) in danger in the name of provocation?
I am not saying I wish Charlie Hebdo could have be legally barred from publishing these stupid caricatures. But I wish they had had the better judgement to realize that they are contributing to a constant, global culture of alienation against millions of Muslims worldwide, helping to propagate a vicious circle of hatred and gross misunderstanding instead of sparking dialogue and opening minds. This is a cheap shot that they had a right to take, but I regret the narrow-sightedness that made them believe they should.
Some good reads on the topic:
- A great map of the ongoing events
- "US media angrily marvels at the lack of Muslim gratitude" by Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian
- "The innocence of white people" by Michael Muhammad Knight in Vice. A fantastic read that does a great job at tearing down the insidious and pervasive view of one person's negative actions as representative of their minority community.
- "Charlie Hebdo caricature Mahomet : pas du courage, mais du pur opportunisme" by Pascal Boniface in Le Nouvel Obs. This article really hits the nail on the head. For those of you who don't speak French (and I strongly suggest you learn it just for this piece), here is what I found to be the strongest quote:
These events were tragic enough on their own, but on Wednesday, French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo decided to publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. This is not the first time this publication has targeted Islam. Their offices were bombed a year ago in response to an issue they had renamed "Sharia Hebdo," and the infamous Danish cartoon also graced its pages in 2007. To say that Charlie Hebdo is no stranger to controversy is quite an understatement, but this instance smacks of gross opportunism and recklessness.
Free speech is an inalienable right; no one should be forbidden to be offensive or just plain stupid. No one deserves to be harassed, hurt or killed for being a particularly shitty douchebag or sharing a nationality with one. But freedom of speech does not mean your speech is free from criticism. Brandishing the excuse of humor does not mean that others must find what you say funny. Freedom of speech does not give you a pass from having to think about the consequences of what you say or from examining your bigotry and ignorance.
The editors of Charlie Hebdo have seen what has happened to embassies and schools around the world because of the movie. They know that their caricatures have a high chance of sparking similar anger. French embassies in at least 20 countries will be closed on Friday, out of fear of reprisal. Is this publication's desire to shock and offend so strong that they are willing to put the lives of other human beings (or, more chauvinistically, fellow citizens) in danger in the name of provocation?
I am not saying I wish Charlie Hebdo could have be legally barred from publishing these stupid caricatures. But I wish they had had the better judgement to realize that they are contributing to a constant, global culture of alienation against millions of Muslims worldwide, helping to propagate a vicious circle of hatred and gross misunderstanding instead of sparking dialogue and opening minds. This is a cheap shot that they had a right to take, but I regret the narrow-sightedness that made them believe they should.
Some good reads on the topic:
- A great map of the ongoing events
- "US media angrily marvels at the lack of Muslim gratitude" by Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian
- "The innocence of white people" by Michael Muhammad Knight in Vice. A fantastic read that does a great job at tearing down the insidious and pervasive view of one person's negative actions as representative of their minority community.
- "Charlie Hebdo caricature Mahomet : pas du courage, mais du pur opportunisme" by Pascal Boniface in Le Nouvel Obs. This article really hits the nail on the head. For those of you who don't speak French (and I strongly suggest you learn it just for this piece), here is what I found to be the strongest quote:
There is a big difference between mocking De Gaulle's death in Gaullist France, when the political opposition was weak and freedom of the press was not as strong as it is now, and mocking Muslims today, when they are not in a position of power in France, do not have a strong backing in the media, are singled out and experience difficulties integrating. In other words, taking a swipe at the strong or at the weak are not the same. The first case is courage, the second is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment