Posted on 01/12/2015 3:46:57 AM PST by Altura Ct.
It’s so often the case that the best thing a person can do to improve his reputation is die. John F. Kennedy is now a legendary president, but would he be estimated so highly if he’d been able to end his political career as a man and not a myth? Ah, the power of martyrdom.
And so it is with the editors and cartoonists of French magazine Charlie Hebdo (CH). In the wake of the Jan. 7 attack on its offices, millions are showing their support, heroicizing CH and saying “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie). On the other hand, there are a few lonely voices, such as Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who have some less than flattering things to say about the magazine. After unequivocally condemning the killings, Donohue called CH’s late publisher, Stephane Charbonnier, “narcissistic” and said that the journalist “didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death.”
While I usually agree with Donohue, I do part company with him here — somewhat. First, the tone of his statement is a bit too deferential toward Islamic sensitivities. Second, I’m not so sure Donohue himself truly understands the role Charbonnier played in his tragic death. As to this, make no mistake:
Charlie Hebdo was an enemy of Western civilization.
Question: Did the people at CH ever oppose the Muslim immigration into France that, ultimately, led to their deaths?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m willing to go out on a limb and guess they didn’t, that they were rather more inclined to call those who did inveigh against it “racists,” xenophobes and intolerant bigots. And this certainly was reflected in an interview CH cartoonist Bernard Holtrop gave to a Dutch newspaper Saturday. He didn’t say much, it seems, ...
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/je_ne_suis_pas_charlie_im_sane.html
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I'd add: How about all those 'leaders' marching yesterday?
Any reason for not naming the author?
“Charlie Hebdo was an enemy of Western civilization.”
I alluded to this on another thread the other day & got flamed. While I mourn the deaths of those who were murdered & I do not support Islamic freaks, I also find very little about CH to be supportive of.
Western Civilization recognizes free speech pretty strongly, even when the speakers hate us.
That’s why we’re different. We don’t want to lose that, even though it’s clearly been eroding here in the US.
Probably a slip. It’s Selwyn Duke.
Yes I get the free speech stuff. Did you read the article?
I'd like to see the magazine's defenders go out and publish all of their most offensive material, not just the things that motivated the attackers last week.
P.S. -- "I'm not Charlie Hebdo."
"CH [Charlie Hebdo] is the Air(head) America of print."
LOL.
Sure, but we don’t arrest or shoot abusers of free speech.
We (civilians) didn’t shoot the “piss christ” guy, although he did get death threats.
Then again, he was paid by our own government...
“I’d make the case that Charlie Hebdo was engaged in what I would call an “abuse” of the right to free speech.”
Excellent point! No one here is saying they should’ve been murdered for their trash talk, by I certainly don’t support what they’ve said. I think that’s the point so many FReepers are missing.
My fav quote from this:
“We fought with the besieged Soviets to defeat Hitler, but we never said “I am Stalin.” I’m certainly as opposed to Muslim jihadists as anyone, but I’m proud to say je ne suis pas Charlie.”
I have a right to free speech here in the U.S. But if I go up to a random stranger on the street this morning and call him an "@sshole!" to his face, I'll have nobody but myself to blame if I get beaten to a pulp. Sure, I would be "free speech advocate" and he would be a criminal ... but I would ultimately be responsible for my troubles.
Excellent essay.
Not the same as murdering a bunch of folks who print/say offensive stuff, imo.
I agree that you would deserve a punch in the nose, and if I were on a jury, I would go easy on him for punching you.
If he shot you, I would not agree that you deserved it, and I would not go easy on him at trial.
“They got what they deserved” is a slippery slope, imo.
I'm not suggesting that these folks "got what they deserved," but there's no question that they (at least the leadership of Charlie Hebdo) were instrumental in their own demise. If the leadership of my company conducted business the way the leaders of Charlie Hebdo did, I'd be working somewhere else.
I guess it would be too much for secular leftists to understand what the virtue of prudence means.
What they create is still 100% protected by free speech. That is why I would say je suis Charlie. What Stalin did is not equivalent in any way to creating edgy cartoons. Stalin murdered millions. They put pen to paper.
If they cannot do that by free will. We can’t make our political views known as a free man either. Someone else will be equally as offended by a statement here about limited government as one might be offended by a cartoon ripping Islam or Christianity.
Or as Jim Croce sang...
“ Yeah you don’t tug on superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off the old lone ranger
And you don’t mess around with muSlims”.
From all I have read, which does not include Charlie Hebdo itself, it is a vile publication, pretty much devoid of any true value, dedicated solely to defaming and inflaming others.
Yet it should be protected, and those responsible for these killings ought to be made to pay— and that included persons other than those directly involved in the killings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.