Posted on 07/21/2015 4:28:56 AM PDT by markomalley
A short while after the Islamist terrorist attack in Chattanooga, it came out that the French magazine Charlie Hebdoits staff members the victim of an Islamist terrorist attack in Francewill no longer draw cartoons of Islams prophet, Muhammad. We have drawn Muhammad to defend the principle that one can draw whatever they want, Laurent Sourisseau, the magazines editor, said. Weve done our job. We have defended the right to caricature.
One can understand the impetus: Sourisseau survived the shooting after taking a bullet to the shoulder. When you just barely make it out of a slaughter in which 11 of your friends died, one imagines youd want to maybe cool off a bit, perhaps avoid the kind of confrontational material that nearly got you killed in the first place. Next time you might not be so lucky; next time they might bring more guys, or more guns, or bombs. Next time.
Weve done our job, Sourisseau saysand he is entirely correct. From the standpoint of free expression and free speech, the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo are unqualified heroes; a number of them are martyrs to the cause. They have done their jobs, and they have earned a respite, particularly given that the cowardly media abandoned them in the aftermath of the shooting. Who would want to go through the whole thing another time only to once again see the vast majority of newspapers and magazines too fearful and too pathetic to come to your defense?
So we should not begrudge Charlie Hebdo its retirement from the fray; the magazine deserves it. What is necessary now is to ask ourselves: how do we move forward? What is the future of Islam and free speech? Islam still has a violence problem. It is still a significant risk to draw Muhammad, made all the more significant because most people will inevitably criticize the artists rather than the murderers who come to kill the artists. Charlie Hebdo has defended the principle of freedom of speech, but that principle is still under serious threat around the world: from the murderous gunmen of radical Islam, to the fanatical hate speech laws of Western Europe, to a media class that responds to acts of terrorism by asking that we comply with the demands of terrorists.
In the face of these genuine threats to one of the most precious of human freedoms, it might not seem like such a big deal to give up a narrow segment of your free speech: who cares if you cant draw Muhammad, so long as it keeps the peace? That is obviously what Charlie Hebdo is betting onbut then, that is what the Islamist killers of the Charlie Hebdo staff were betting on, too. They bet smart: they won, and Charlie Hebdo lost.
So it turns out that one of the sharpest critics of radical Islam now shares one of the same goals as the clerics of radical Islam: namely, do not make fun of Islam. This is one way to keep the peace. This peace has no use for freedom of speech, but you will certainly avoid getting slaughtered in your magazine office for drawing a silly cartoon.
That is what everyone is hoping for, anyway, and perhaps it will pay off: perhaps if people stop drawing Muhammad, well have less Islamist terrorism to worry about. Then again, terrorists are never satisfied: once youve complied with one of their demands, they inevitably think of ten others. Perhaps next year theyll ask that people stop critiquing Islam so harshly. The year after, perhaps theyll ask that we stop criticizing it at all. Whats to stop them? We have defended the right to caricature, Sourisseau claimsshortly after announcing that he intends to no longer exercise that right. Whats next?
So perhaps the answer to the question aboveHow do we move forward?is this: we do not stop. We continue to draw Muhammad, or reprint the drawings of others. We do not give in. We demand that Islam be subject to the same standards as any other religion, and accept the same standards of criticism and mockery that other religions have endured for centuries. We do not give up our right to freedom of speech in order to placate the desires of madmen.
If we are to preserve our precious liberties, in other words, we must first refuse to surrender them. Sourisseau is right: Charlie Hebdo defended the right to caricature, and defended it well. Their job is done. Ours is not.
Shhhhh. She thinks she's a beagle.
Can't wait til she's done with the little ones and I can teach her how to chase rabbits and do the Snoopy dance.
Now it is Pamela Geller and other pro-freedom fighters job now.
Draw, Muhammed! Fill yore hand, you son-of-a-bi!ch!
I used to be able to do that.......:o)
Does fast-draw with a recoilless rifle count?
90mm not 57mm .....:o)
Depends on what you can find ammo for. Last time I was at Knob Creek, I ran about a dozen rounds through a pal's 57mm M18, and I loved it- much nicer than the Chinese copies I've previously fired. Ammo for the 90mm M67 is really hartd to find [the Ranger battallions were using 84mm Carl Gustaf M2s for a while, having burned up all the 90mm in the bunkers at Crane, and 90mm/M2 ammo being available from the Canadians at BATTUS. But my latest flashy fave is an M40A1 106mm, and there's more reloadable dummy rounds around for it than either the 57 or the 90. And 106 canister is fun and easy!
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.