Now: A
Shameful Backing Away from Freedom of Expression (News, Switzerland)
"Charlie Hébdo and Titanic
are magazines that dare to mock dangerous ideas. They are the provocative
vanguard of free expression with content that irritates and is therefore
absolutely debatable. But no one is forced to read Charlie Hébdo (which regularly decimates
right-wing extremists, causing old-time Franco-Nazi Jean-Marie LePen to
comment that he was definitely not Charlie),no one is
forced to look at its cartoons. Because we and every damned
Salafist have the right to look away. Loud protests are what give the
cartoons their raison d'être in the first place. … That we have as a senior
representative of state who is a member of the appeasement block, for which
free expression is labeled with a 'but,' is itself enough to make one want to vomit."
Almost a week has passed since the attack on the editorial
offices of the satirical magazine Charlie
Hébdo with twelve victims and the taking of
hostages in a Jewish supermarket in Paris with four. It has been a week that has
produced unexpected heroes, and a week in which many others have been exposed.
Swiss Federal Councilwomen Doris Leuthard: after appearing
to blame those killed at Charlie Hebdo for provoking the attack
that killed them, she is now one of the most unpopular
leaders
in the Swiss confederation.
It began with “the unspeakable” Doris Leuthard.
The federal councilor should have her Twitter account blocked and her access to
communications limited to a Hermes
Baby typewriter and two pieces of paper - without a ribbon, of course. Her incredible
first Tweet following the massacre bean with “Satire is not a free pass,” which
was then of course followed by a condemnation of the killings that began with “but.” For an official representative of a country in which
freedom of expression exists, this is unacceptable.
When a shit storm began to brew following her comment, her
public relations officer was trotted out to claim that Leuthard
had been misunderstood and that her Tweet had been a hasty, initial reaction.
All of which is complete bull, of course. For one thing, her Tweet was posted
at 4:16 pm, more than four hours after the killings took place. And even her
spokesperson couldn’t interpret her “free pass” comment in any other way than
it was originally intended: that these "idiots" are to blame for their own deaths
because they took “free expression” too far.
This view has been expressed in a few places - also here at News.ch
- and that's legitimate: We have freedom of speech and so here it is permitted
to assert just about any piece of rubbish that comes into one’s head. None of
which changes the fact that it’s rubbish.
In particular, it has been argued that the cartoonists were
racist because they depicted Islamist terrorists and Mohammed as well as the clichéd
and exaggerated attributes of North Africans and Arabs. Yes, that’s true. But it
is also racist when skinheads are invariably depicted as pale Europeans. In
addition, they have mocked murderers and wannabe killers led by the idol they
have invoked - and not the residents of outlying suburbs of Paris who are
fighting for their livelihoods, so therefore, not the weak in society as had
been claimed.
For these and many other reasons, some decided to counter
the many “Je suisCharlies” with a loud “Je ne suis
pas Charlie.” Because the free expression of the Charlies
and Charlie Hébdo
just wasn’t their free expression
(for example, one commentator said she just doesn’t like satirical magazines
like Charlie Hébdo
and Titanic ...)
Really? Or rather: You can’t be
serious? Charlie Hébdo
and Titanic are magazines that dare
to mock dangerous ideas. They are the provocative vanguard of free expression
with content that irritates and is therefore absolutely debatable. But no one
is forced to read Charlie Hébdo (which regularly decimates right-wing extremists,
causing old-time Franco-Nazi Jean-Marie LePen to comment that he was definitely not Charlie), no one is forced to look at its cartoons. Because we and every damned Salafist in Switzerland has the right to look away.
Loud protests are what give the cartoons their raison d'être in the first place.
But let’s suppose that the wish of the “not Charlies” were granted and that truly cruel satire were eliminated
out of consideration for the feelings of mentally unstable religious freaks. Then
someone else would suddenly be pushed to the provocative vanguard.After all, anyone who wants to know what the
Salafist interpretation of free expression looks like can take a glance at Saudi
Arabia, where blogger RaifBadawi
was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam.” He
just received the first 50 of his 1,000 lashes as with all due mendacity the
hypocritical Saudi government condemned the Paris attacks.
I would bet that in a Salafistic state,
for many of the things they do on a daily basis most of the not-Charlies would receive similarly harsh or harsher treatment
than RaifBadawi. Of course,
following a forced closure of Charlie Hébdo or Titanic,
our society wouldn't immediately mutate into Saudi Arabia or the Islamic State.
But fear would constantly force us further and further into a corner - a corner
of adaptation and conciliatory kowtowing to those threatening us with violence.
What was acceptable yesterday would suddenly be reckless today, and provocative
and un-conducive to peace tomorrow. Appeasing radicals
means only one thing: giving in to them, from whatever direction
they may come.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
That we have as a senior representative of state who is a
member of the appeasement block, for which free expression is labeled with a “but,”
is itself enough to make one want to vomit. That wishy-washy posturing like
this plays into the hands of both the Islamist fascists and domestically-produced
right-wing nationalist fascists (albeit with Indian Facebook “likes”), makes
one want to weep.
And no, even after Charlie
Hébdo, the author doesn’t believe that the
Islamists alone are our biggest threat. Rather, it is the combination of religious
mania, the surveillance mania of the intelligence services, mixed with the
ever-increasing social hardships caused by unbridled capitalism and associated
concerns for one’s livelihood, as well as the oversimplification of the world
into 30 second sound bites in which there is hardly enough time for the
complexities of reality.
Thus, for example, Muslims were not only bad guys in these
two Parisian dramas. One man, policeman Ahmed Merabet,
died trying to stop the terrorists from entering Charlie Hebdo's offices - was more or
less executed. The other, supermarket employee LassanaBathily [video, right], saved six customers from the hostage takers
and possibly death by hiding them in a cold storage unit (after which he escaped
in a supply lift and was initially arrested by police as a suspect). In part, they
are unfortunately tragic heroes of those terrible events.
The author is therefore of the opinion: Yes, I am also Charlie, because I love freedom of expression, even if it
allows opinions I detest and combat. He also hopes never to have to be someone
like Lassana, because he questions whether he would
be able to do what this young has done. And yes, to get back to the beginning: If
Ms. Leuthard were to hand in her resignation, it would
at least be a consolation prize for Switzerland after this horror.One must hope.
