First the correction when writing my post yesterday about the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices I neglected to include any of the images that they had previously published that allegedly led to the attack. Please accept my apologies for this oversight. I’d rather not behave in as gutless a fashion as the mainstream British press, who unlike their European counterparts have all failed to reprint any of their cartoons on the front page, and only one (the Sun) ventured to publish some tamer cartoons on the inside pages. In the main they all preferred to splash with pictures of the attack thus giving more publicity to the attackers. At the time I’m writing this there are reports of further violence in France against both the police and allegedly against a mosque. These are as yet unconfirmed and I hope that they turn out to be false and that no further violence on either side occurs.
Already apologists and quislings have started appearing explaining why the attack was the fault of Charlie Hebdo and the west – due to the racism of the cartoons and how it’s bad to offend Muslims. The problem with these excuses is that they are making a special case for Muslims as they had no problem with Charlie Hebdo cartoons about Jews and Christians – which does make one wonder why Islam is a special case. It can’t sure be because they go round killing people – after all we’re told that’s not real Islam. The response from some of the left has been very telling with the like of guyfawkesrevolt on facebook making no comment except to link to a Huffington Post article about Britain first producing keyrings and hoodies (much like the Guardian). Whilst that is tasteless it would have been nice if they’d found time to also condemn the actual attack. Likewise I’ve seen people who in the past have been quite happy to tar all Tories, Christians, Chavs, and loads of other groups with the same brush following some event in the press calling for us to remember that it’s “not all Muslims”.
Any road, here’s a round up of some of the better articles including from some of the apologists with the odd bit of commentary. This is mainly so I have a record as twitter history isn’t so useful for such things and it’s good to know who stood up for free speech and who didn’t.
- Je Suis Charlie (Until Je Get Scared)
Foreign policy have no time for those that claim there are limits to satire or that it’s your own fault if you “provoke” Muslims. Though as sympathy for those parts of the press such as the Jewish Chronicle who have good reason to be scared of putting their head above this particular parapet. - For the UK media, the terrorists have already won
Talking about our spineless press a guest post over at old Holborns has no time for our gutless press who talk about defending freedom of press but continue to refuse to take any action to back up those words. - RiP Western Freedom Of Speech
Ambush predator has a perfect summary of the response from our left wing media. - Satire and Terrorism Drawing blood
The Economist is cautious over accepting the narrative that the attack was carried out by Muslims but is strong on the need to publish the cartoons:
“To describe the cartoons, and not show them, is essentially to do the bidding of the terrorists.” - Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris
Juan Cole seems to think that the attack was along the lines of a four lions plot, piss off the general populace so they attack normal Muslims thus radicalising them. But then they also seem to think that Muslims are singled out for special demands by the west saying
“For those who require unrelated people to take responsibility for those who claim to be their co-religionists (not a demand ever made of Christians)”
Obviously for instance never having spotted how the media responds to some historical clergy abuse story tarring at least all current members of that sect with the same brush if not all Christians. Christians do of course have a better track record, and arguably more practice, of condemning their nutters and no-goods. - End times for Islam
LegIron thinks that too few Muslims have condemned the nutters in their midst and far too slowly, and that a fuse is now lit that will burn short and not end well for Muslims moderate or extreme - Charlie Hebdo: the truths that ought to be self-evident but still aren’t
Nick Cohen over at the Spectator write a very good article listing some very key points that need to be remembered. However the Spectator rather holes it’s own article as it says:
“I may be wrong. Perhaps tomorrow’s papers and news programmes will prove their commitment to freedom by republishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.But I doubt they will even have the courage to admit that they are too scared to show them.”
However the article doesn’t include one of the cartoons. - Many Outlets Are Censoring Charlie Hebdo’s Satirical Cartoons After Attack
Buzzfeed covers the craven attitudes of the main stream media with a round up of the censored cartoons they’ve run to avoid people taking offense. - Charlie Hebdo massacre: how the West will respond
A damning and I fear all too accurate prediction of how the west and especially the British media are going to respond over the next weeks and months. I’d keep this one to hand to check off each point as it plays out. - Je Suis Charlie
When I’m king asks how long we can keep being told it’s just a tiny minority that have nothing to do with Islam carrying out these attacks and why don’t the moderate Muslims who presumably know these nutters turn them in? - Charlie Hebdo: This Attack Was Nothing To Do With Free Speech — It Was About War
I hope you have a strong stomach before reading this one. Asghar Bukhari claims that the attack was all the fault of racism and white privilege. Satirical cartoons being a form of extremism. Though I can at least agree with them that the chances are our leaders will use the attack to curtail our freedoms even further. - That Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore
Sigillum thinks that discounting the impact of terrorist attacks because of their rarity and the few deaths caused is mistaken and that in the case of Islam the attacks can’t be taken in isolation. - How should we respond to the foul terrorist attack on a French newspaper?
Harry’s place has some excellent ideas on peaceful ways to respond to the attack, such as subscribing to Charlie Hebdo even if you can’t read french. - Muslims Around The World Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack
The huffington post has a round up of Muslim statements of condemnation of the attacks, shame they aren’t getting the same level of press attention as condemnation of racist attacks normally gets, that might actually help calm things down - Unbelievers and non-believers must be free to blaspheme with impunity
Archbishop Cranamer defends the right to blaspheme, and bemoans out gutless leaders and press:
“it is more painful to read government platitudes of the need for “respect”, and media assertions about the “unacceptable” lampooning of religion (ie Islam). “It is Channel 4 policy to never show these or similar cartoons,” they boast, seemingly oblivious to their censorious submission to sharia precepts of blasphemy.” - Clegg has said that the right to offend people is essential in a free society.
The Guardian Nigg Cleg LBC round up reports Mr Clegg standing up for freedom of speech:
“At the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend. We have no right not to be offended. That fundamental principle, of being free to offend people – I’m not saying that you have somehow a right not to be offended in a democratic, open society such as ours – is exactly what was under threat by these murderous barbarians.”,/cite>
I’ll believe this when he also defends Old Holborn and tells the police to stop policing twitter for people being nasty.
I’m sure there may be more articles that will be worth keeping note of and also what our politicians say so we can hold them to their words during the next twitter storm or offencegate.
