Do I think yesterday’s mass murder was a despicable act? Of course. Do I feel great anger and sadness for those who lost their lives and loved ones? Naturally. And it goes without saying that no cartoon can justify violence, EVER. But still, I am not Charlie Hebdo!
In western Europe, the freedom of expression is an absolute right, an untouchable, ‘holy’ principle. It can be limited by criminal law only; we are not allowed to call for genocide or violence, etc. Anything else goes. For many, that’s the end of the story. For me that is where the story starts.
Many people have given their lives for our right to freedom of expression, my freedom of expression. I have traveled and lived in countries where there is limited freedom of speech. There, I’ve seen how a lack of that freedom impacts lives and societies. I consciously cherish my freedom of speech, every day. Because of my freedom of expression I can live my life freely. I can be who I am.
I am aware of sacrifices made for my freedom of expression. That is exactly why I don’t feel the need to use that freedom to consciously hurt and insult others, who have in no way done me wrong. It would be an insult to those who sacrificed their lives for my freedom. Those who were members of resistance against the nazi occupying power, and the women who accepted being outcasted for claiming their voices; what were they fighting for? The right to hurt? I believe they fought for the right to be. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Yes, it is everyone’s legal right to make cartoons that ridicule someone’s religion. Just like we have the right to tell our grandmother that we find her religion retarded, Mary was a hooker, and praying is for clueless, ignorant people. Of course that is our right. But why would we want to?
To prove that we can? To say ‘my atheism is superior to your religion’?
It seems like the majority feels the need to tell religious people (mainly Muslims) – through cartoons and otherwise – that they’re ignorant because they have a God and a prophet. In that lies a self-centered, supremacist attitude that seeks to shove atheism down the throat of people who are religious.
Is that out of fear for religious people, especially Muslims, living in Europe? Are we afraid we’ll wake up tomorrow and are forced to become Muslim? Have we allowed ourselves to be brainwashed by islamophobic speech?
What would happen if we didn’t ridicule people’s religion? Probably nothing.
I feel like we have adopted a fundamentalist way of thinking around the right to freedom of expression; you are either for it or against it. It is all or nothing. A generally white, atheist majority has decided that the right to freedom of expression is an absolute and ‘sacred’ part of our society that has no social nuance whatsoever.
Cartoons ridiculing Islam (or any other religion) are not an embodiment of tolerance and liberal thinking. They’re an expression of intolerance and judgement towards a religion and its followers.
Islamophobic cartoons do not get published in a vacuum. They are part of a larger context of intolerance and hostility towards Islam and Muslims in Europe. Muslims have to prove they are good people, ‘despite the fact they’re Muslim’. Moslims and mosques are targets of attacks. They have to defend their religion against accusations and insults from people who have never even seen a Quran. And more dangerously, many expect Muslims to distantiate themselves from murders carried out by people shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, only because they are Muslim. If we connect these heinous killings to all Muslims by default, then we have let the murderers win. Then we have given up on our common humanity, and given in to the violence of a lunatic group.
No one said coexistence in a multicultural society was going to be easy. On the contrary; it can be far from easy, for everyone. But in western Europe there are only two options now. Either you walk the – sometimes bumpy – path, involving dialogue based on equality and mutual respect, that eventually leads to a more harmonious society. Or you militantly defend your right to ridicule other people’s beliefs, in the hope that they will one day think like you.
I am not religious. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect religious people around me, and respect their feelings regarding their religion. Respecting someone means to also show respect for something that is very important to that person, even if that is something I cannot relate to, personally.
In a society where beliefs and world views can be so different, the freedom of expression comes with responsibilities and complications. Our western European multicultural society comes with questions and challenges. I don’t have the answers, but I know that there is a dialogue worth having. Not because mass murderers are using violence to silence others, but because we want to live together. Because we want a society in which people feel free and respected.
A SECOND GLANCE 
RJ Pate
January 8, 2015
This is honestly my exact feelings of why #JeNeSuisPasCharlie. I believe it’s getting us no where fast as a society to be belittling others for the sake of the possibility or the sake of no progress.
If Charlie Hebdo was trying to raise their voice through cartooned constructive opinions for open conversation, this would be a completely different story.
Rob Groenhuijzen
January 8, 2015
Lydia
Thanks. Brave. I think it is more complicated. Everyday the West kills journalists. After so many centuries of killing people, there will be an opponent who starts killing back. Moreover the West said: if Palestine wants to become a state it has to fight fot its freedom (at the UN security council). Violence is the only worthful means the West had en has since 1300.
Freedom of speech is a Western invention. It was invented because the financial rulers must have all the information they need. In other countries (China) you have to respect the state because the financers are under Chinese law. In the West the financial elites are autonomous
Stormageddon
January 8, 2015
I’ll let the late, great Christopher Hitchens do my comment for me.
Harry
January 9, 2015
Ah yes the perfect example of a self-centered, supremacist attitude that seeks to shove atheism down the throat of people who are religious
Art Klep
January 11, 2015
nice retort
Renate
January 9, 2015
You seem to miss the point of journalism. It is not about one man trying to hurt another through print. It is a magazine, informing, making people laugh. And if you have not noticed, it is not just about islam, or any religion for that matter. It is about adressing political and public matters in a humourous way. That is the journalism of Charlie Hebdo.
Tess
January 15, 2015
I don’t understand why you stick with the freedom of journalism. Maybe the cartoonists did not intend to hurt muslims by their drawings in the first place, but they did hurt them. Charlie Hebdo is considered funny by some people, but is their laughter worth more than other people’s dignity and feelings? What Lydia is trying to tell is that freedom in journalism is important, but perhaps it is not as important as the insult of a religion (for the record, religion is one of the most important things in the lives of many, it’s part op people’s identities). This is something that needs to be discussed. Freedom of speech is found important by many western people, but right now we have to live together with people who have other principles. This means we might have to restrict freedom of speech a little, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It will probably lead to a more peaceful, tolerant and respectful society.
Piter
January 15, 2015
haha restrict a little they said. Next thing in line was deciding which words and pictures were considered insulting and then we realised we couldn’t speak at all anymore because someone somewhere always finds it insulting. Freedom of speech doesn’t come in different grades, its all or nothing. I agree with respect and am definitely not one to hurt people just to hurt people, but the occasional insult is the price we pay for the ability to question everything and anything with power. And also it is in the law of the western countries. I can definitely get with respect, but adjusting your laws because of principles of a religion we don’t do since the enlightenment movement. I can’t believe so many people don’t see this a defining quality that in fact brought about tolerance in the west.
On a different note. I definitely don’t want to judge Muslim people, but if a certain aspect in the Koran causes so much anger and revenge acts, then maybe it is time to change this interpretation. The bible also says idoltry is forbidden, thank god that is not enforced by some religious police. Jesus and Muhamed were kind, loving people, do you think they would themselves be forgiving or planting the seed of hate and revenge. I’m not a theologist or Muslim, but if a religion is the cause of so much anger than I dont think that will bring anyone closer to God or Allah. I would prefer to be more in peace and forgiving and understanding that the depiction of Muhamed by non-Muslims can in no way hinder your own personal spiritual quest.
Winston
July 30, 2015
what about these, piter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France
the fact that the charlie hebdo cartoons weren’t considered hate speech the first time the staff received threats underscores the prejudice and disregard with which westerners treat Islam and its followers. if someone went around burning photos of Jesus, surely they would be criminal offenses under such law.
as the author says, we have the legal right to say anything we want, but should we use that right to insult others? especially if the targets of ridicule are well-known to have extremely violent members among them.
the only reason why you feel certain Muslims are being overly sensitive is because you don’t find the acts offensive. but you probably didn’t grow up where they did, and you probably did not study or practice Islam in the way they did. you are unqualified to say what should or shouldn’t be offensive to them.
freedom of speech and martyrdom for its sake are romantic, but honestly, not worth the immediate violent backlash and ongoing galvanization of rabid Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East. every time we offend them, we just energize their hatred and feed them ammo to recruit for their cause to harm and kill others.
Lydia de Leeuw
January 9, 2015
In response to comments here and on Facebook:
– Islamophic cartoons in western Europe do not get published in a vacuum. They get published in a context of islamophobia, hostility, and attacks against Muslims and mosques, and systematic discrimination of Muslims based on their religion. Therefore, there is some nuance in comparing cartoons ridiculing Islam/Muslims vs cartoons ridiculing Christianity / Judaism.
– Let’s recognize the obvious double standards here: Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for allegedly producing something antisemitic (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html), an accusation later dismissed by the court. And where was France’s freedom of expression last summer when protesting against Israel’s massacre of civilians in Gaza was categorically prohibited?
– In no way am I arguing for a legal limitation of the right to freedom of expression (besides the currently existing legal limitations). This piece is about overthinking the social and moral aspects of the freedom of expression. I believe it is an overdue dialogue worth having.
– Finally, I find the parallel’s with the ‘Black Pete’ / ‘Blackface’ discussion in the Netherlands striking. A white majority has decided that the Black Pete character is not racist or offensive, and that they should be free to celebrate Saint Nicholas holidays including that character. A black (and white) minority has voiced their grievances over the Black Pete character, but just like now ‘freedom’ is used as an all-overpowering argument against social respect and considerate behavior.
Alberto (@quarzorosso)
January 10, 2015
Faith is no science and you have to be open to humor. For you cartoons were an insult, this is an opinion. Nice to pretend ignoring islamic country do no admit democracy and sentence to death by law people for issues much less serious than a cartoon about Mohamed
Mur Öz
January 13, 2015
That islamic country is ruled by the people, chosen from the least respected among other clans in 19th century by british and french.
Clarity
January 10, 2015
A very good writing. However, nothing can justify a killing, especially the taken of life of innocence people. When a person took a life of another, the person not only robbed the right to experience live, the dreams of the victims but also the happiness & the dreams of their family. All these people have nothing to do with whatever the subject of matter was. Islamophobic is wrong, however taking life of innocence is not justifiable in any sense of any sanity of mind.
There must be a clarity between crime & religion. Crime is an action by individual or a group of people. Religion is a belief by, if not all, most of us of the existence of higher beings or whatever we’d like to call it. Terrorism is a crime & the terrorists should be treated & seen as criminals. We all, Islam or non-Islam, should unite & stand up & act against any crime. Saying & doing nothing, just simply because they have the same religion, only makes us the same criminal. Please use our very own sanity mind & beautiful sense of a human to see the things clearly.
Clarity
January 10, 2015
#JeSuisCharlie or #JeNeSuispasCharlie should have a more universal meaning “I stand up against crime & not religion!”
Noc
January 10, 2015
I am free to say that you are an asshole and an ignorant.
Subzero
January 10, 2015
Exactly my point! I guess the writer missed the public execution of an police man on the street…who did not draw any cartoon or whatsoever, just fullfilling his duty as policeman
Maybe take it one step further….. If there should not be religion violent acts, perhaps there should not beany cartoons of it…….probably that is the proper order
NoNameHereInCaseOfRetaliations
January 12, 2015
Same thought here. This article is completely stupid…
#JeSuischarlie is just here to show that you are with the victimes… It does not mean you have the same idea as shown/drawn in the magazine…
You are exactly the people we do not want to be : make a long speech for nothing…
And if you know the content of this magazine it’s not at all link to some religions in particular because all religions are, in fact, stupids.
There is no god. END. You are just free to think there is one but keep that for you and stop bothering other people with your belief.
You speek about tolerance, but the less tolerant are the religions (all the rules you must obey to, there is no more stupid thing than obey to something not real…).
So I don’t see the point of the #JeNeSuisPasCharlie…
Anon
January 15, 2015
So because a police officer got shot by a muslim terrorist, it’s OK to insult the other 2 billion muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism?
mieta
January 10, 2015
Exactly how I feel. Thank you.
Laura
January 10, 2015
Oh my god my poor Lydia, you didnt understand anything about what happens in France and about the Charlies cartoons, of course you’re not french! But you still pretend possess the right answer cause you have travelled, meeting people in country were the right to speech is trampled. You are far from the subject and from the reality of what happen in my country… this is making shortcuts and it’s not beeing smart as you try to do here
In any way Cabut, Charb, Volinsky, Honoré, Tignous critized Islam or Judaism or Christianity, they only critized extremisms, all the extremisms whatever the religion.
If you had a better look at these cartoons, all the cartoons they made since ages, you would notice that… but you’re not french so you don’t understand neither the french humour nor the smoothness of the french language, you only translated stupidily from your dutch point of vue, you are as ignorant as the terrosits who made this atrocity.
The matter is not about how you should aprehend the liberty of expression or the respect of religion as you explain, it as nothing to do with that concerning Charlie Hebdo and its crew. You only don’t understand in the right way theses cartoons. The French government would have never accepted that the second religion of France could undergo such haste if it was the case
For your guidance, the morning they got shooted it was, as every wednesday, the meeting of the week and they were talking about the way to fight against racism, they were politically engaged, engaged against all form of social terror.
Before writting such text, and spreading subtantial doubts in weak-minded heads, you should get informed and not pretend to be a smart person.
Alberto (@quarzorosso)
January 10, 2015
totally agree with you. Very scaring to hear politicians from the French PS party talking about some individuals and not a clear organized islam backed initiative against the values of the western society
kyle
January 10, 2015
“…but you’re not french so you don’t understand neither the french humour nor the smoothness of the french language, you only translated stupidily from your dutch point of vue, you are as ignorant as the terrosits who made this atrocity.”
Did a human of planet earth really type this? If so then we are surely doomed!
Laura
January 10, 2015
What a comment. We all enjoyed jour lack of arguments. Thank you for coming!
kyle
January 10, 2015
That was satire Laura. According to this article which is written by somebody “just as ignorant” as those murderers (in your opinion), I could have used my time better. Do you agree or was my satire satisfyingly smooth enough for your nationally superior taste? I’m not going to attempt to argue or change your mind. Just think before you type. Just a tip 😉
Laura
January 10, 2015
So Kyle, here is a typical case when a language is not your mother tong you can misunderstand the real meaning. I’m used to think before I talk and so type and despite a correct english i’m certain you will excuse my french 😉
kyle
January 10, 2015
I’ll concede your point about the nuances of comedic translations. Will you then accept that in order to use our freedom of speech to spread the word of peace and love, rather than violence and hatred, it would be more productive to accept people’s religious views and counterproductive to insult said beliefs? Your french and your excellent english are very much excused!
Jur
January 10, 2015
HEAR HEAR!
desireyavro
January 10, 2015
I’m sorry Laura, but don’t pretend to stand before all the French and/or french speakers just because you believe having the ownership of humor, satirical drawings (I do have a high respect towards Le Canard Enchaîné) and 2nd/3rd degrees jokes — especially when it targets everybody else but the commonly accepted white-christian/athee-middle-class. World has shades of grey nowadays.
I myself am like you a native french speaker, nevertheless I share somehow the same view than Lydia.
She lives in a country that, like Belgium and unlike France — except the ‘Zwart Piet’ situation — has an history of questioning their approach with integration/induction/acceptation of the ‘invisible minorities’. People are asked ‘Who are you?’ before ‘Where you’re from?’. Therefore, according to what I understood from her essay, she shares our concern / empathy towards recent terrorist attacks and the use of religion as an excuse for it. However, like her, I believe that this is not a justifiable reason — unless providing relevant explanation — to use the freedom of speech argument to justify most of the disrespectful and even insulting caricatures advertised since then — and the hiring of Caroline Fourest following 9/11.
Fyi http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous
http://www.panamza.com/141214-mis-en-examen-fourest
Almost none of the hundred thousands of new ‘Je Suis Charlie ‘ have ever read the satirical paper nor have any idea about the ‘smoothness’ of its art and the Langue Française depth. ‘Pardon’ them 😉
For my part, I did my homework, understand and speak my mother tongue, and, hopefully, caught up the bigger picture.
Not everybody in France — and abroad,
Fyi http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?referrer=
(I doubt the NY Times, Washington Post or Associated Press are biased information channel. But again, maybe I’m wrong, they are not native french speaker :-/…)
http://www.dn.pt/inicio/tv/interior.aspx?content_id=4331683
— share your view, your fellows from French suburban area even less as they are the result of a long tradition of none / lack of social commitment from politics and inclusion of lower classes mainly immigrants (north and sub saharian Africa, Italy, etc.) in the 5th Republic, which resulted in gentrification, high unemployment rates community-based, feeling of being ‘sub citizens’. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Also, the tone used in your response sounds a bit (unnecessarily) pretentious and pedantic towards the writer. Not in my/our name my friend.
To conclude, here are wise words I believe we all sincerely share:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Voltaire)
Laura
January 11, 2015
I never pretended to stand before all the French, read me again, but i can see today where most of the French are this sunday : in the street to defend the freedom of speech and against barbarity.
Whatever has been drawn in Charlie’s cartoons, IT IS a right in the Western countries to do so and WHATEVER the suject, and it doesn’t matter whether most of french people had already read the Charlie Hebdo or not.
Moreover the problem is above this simple statement, it is above the liberty of speech, this attack has only been a justification for the extremists to interfere in our population, our civilization, to interfere between the Franco-French and the Muslim-French, with a view to establishing a climate of xenophobia and fear of others, as you can read in this article i have already linked below and as i’ve just heard on the news 5 minutes ago :
http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html
As you can see in this video from Turkey as well linked by another person in this same thread
I respect what the writer write above cause it is her freedom to do so, but it is my freedom to answer to her, in any way i want even if you don’t appreciate it, when i think that her article is dangerous and yes it is. Indeed her writting has been relayed on the social medias several times and not by the more clever persons as you can see here :
https://twitter.com/hashtag/jenesuispascharlie I invite you do read it totally
THAT is criminal cause it has been construed the wrong way : “Look a western girl says we are right”
Not beeing Charly today is against all for what we fought for centuries, terrorism, obscurantism, freedom of speech, equality of gender, liberty of our civilization that we cherish today and other french-muslim cherish as well cause they don’t have that in their countries of origin
Friday one minute of silence has been done by children in schools everywhere in France, only for the memory of 17 persons who died in the name of Barbarity and whatever their religious beliefs (those 17 were agnostics, muslins, jews and christians by the way).
But, a lot of kids in sensitive districts from 7 to 15 years old refused to do so : ” My mother said they deserved it” or ” i won’t stand a minute of silence for this kind of persons” or “they drew the prophete, they shoudn’t have”
You can’t neither make “good” cartoons nor “satirical” cartoons, you CAN’T according to this young girl. That is not acceptable in our Western civilization.
The parents are responsible for their children through education, thoses words are not acceptable, they are criminal in my opinion in our countries, in the country of this mother who enjoy the freedom she coundn’t have in Saudi Arabia for instance, not more than this article above spreading on the web and in weak-minded heads as it is a tool to accentuate the fear of others and steer to a massive vote for the populism as Le Pen in France
I only wanted to make a point concerning the above writing cause it shocked me, and not let it spread that way with no answer, I did, so it will be my last message
Nevertheless, I join you concerning the lack of social commitment from politics in our suburban areas which gave rise to the lack of education and confinement into traditions towards integration.
A part of Islam is unfortunatly dangerous today, i think about extremism of course and the Sharia particularly which has nothing to do in the modern world.
Here is a french writing (sorry for the english speakers) from a Muslim philosopher Abdennour Bidar who is an authority in his field, which explain this and the need of a profond reform of Islam in our modern society.
Je suis sure que tu l’appréciera à sa juste valeur, c’est certainement le texte le plus interessant qu’il m’ait été donné de lire ces derniers jours
http://blog.oratoiredulouvre.fr/2014/10/tres-profonde-lettre-ouverte-au-monde-musulman-du-philosophe-musulman-abdennour-bidar/
desireyavro
January 10, 2015
I’m sorry Laura, but please do not pretend to stand before all the French and/or french speakers just because You believe having the ownership of humor, satirical drawings (I do have a high respect towards Le Canard Enchaîné) and 2nd/3rd-degree jokes — especially when it targets everybody else but the commonly accepted white-christian/athee-middle-working-class. The world has shades of grey nowadays.
I myself am like you, a native french speaker. Nevertheless I share somehow the same view than Lydia.
She lives in a country that, like Belgium and unlike France — except the ‘Zwart Piet’ situation — has an history of questioning their approach with integration/induction/acceptation of the ‘invisible minorities’. People are asked ‘Who are you?’ before ‘Where you’re from?’. Therefore, according to what I understood from her essay, she definitely shares our concern / empathy towards recent terrorist attacks and the use of religion as an excuse for it first; However, she believes that this is not a justifiable reason — unless providing unbeatable explanation — to use the freedom of speech argument to justify most of the disrespectful and even insulting caricatures advertised since the roundabout of 9/11 and the hiring of Caroline Fourest.
Fyi http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous
http://www.panamza.com/141214-mis-en-examen-fourest
Almost none of the hundred thousands of momentary ‘Je Suis Charlie ‘ have ever read the satirical paper nor have any idea about the ‘smoothness’ of its art and the Langue Française depth. ‘Pardon’ them 😉
For my part, I did my homework, speak and understand perfectly my mother tongue and, hopefully, caught up the bigger picture.
Not every one in France — and abroad,
Fyi http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?referrer=
(I doubt the NY Times, Washington Post or Associated Press are biased media. But again, maybe I’m wrong, they just do not speak French perfectly, do they?)
http://www.dn.pt/inicio/tv/interior.aspx?content_id=4331683
— share your view, your fellows from French suburban area even less as they are the result of a long tradition of none / lack of social commitment from politics and inclusion of lower classes mainly immigrants (north and sub saharian Africa, Italy, etc.) since the 5th Republic that resulted in gentrification, high unemployment rates community-based, feeling of being ‘sub citizens’. Please correct me if I’m wrong, I do not intend to pretend being a smart person.
Also, the tone used in your response sounds a bit (unnecessarily) pretentious and pedantic towards the writer. Not in my/our name my friend.
To conclude, here are wise words I believe we all sincerely share:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Voltaire)
Laura
January 10, 2015
desireyavro
January 12, 2015
Je suis d’accord avec toi sur ce point: JeNeSuisPasCharlie ne devrait pas être détourné de son sens et employé par les “mauvaises” personnes. Cela est regrettable.
I agree with you on that point:such message shouldn’t be taken out of its context and used by wrong people to justify their crime. This is just wrong, and sad.
Laura
January 10, 2015
Another text made by people who “think” and which explain to you that the attack against Charlie Hebdo has not much to do with their cartoons. Read it and get smarter!
http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html
Lourens
January 10, 2015
Not only did you get the whole satire wrong, as Laura above pointed out, you also don’t have a clue about history. Freedom of speech isn’t an atheist invention, it’s an invention following the enlightenment in which different Christion groups sought ways to live together without killing eachother.
You claim we can’t ridicule Islam, but muslims are free to ridicule atheists, christians or what have you as that’s freedom of speech, whereas those poor muslims may get offended. The whole idea about freedom of speech is that you can speak your mind. I’m highly offended by your post, but instead of killing you, I’ll post my thoughts.
Your ‘parallel’ with black pete is utter rubbish. How many anti-black-Pete people have been killed? exactly. It’s a heated discussion where both sides have the right to say what they want, if they’re black, white, green or yellow. But you think that only black people have the right to speak their mind if they feel offended because they are a minority and thus right. The majority of white people (men) are by defenition wrong in your eyes. In the end, you’re the racist here, claiming everyone else is. You’re the one making the distinction.
When it comes to Gaza, was it forbidden for those who oppose Israel to speak their mind? or did they just get a lot of opposition in doing so? It’s the same story as with black pete. You want freedom of YOUR expression, no-one elses.
Allard
January 10, 2015
It’s not about ridiculing the muslims or whatsoever. It’s about making jokes about anything as long as it is a joke. It’s like we can make fun about our president in a funny way. So that nobody is worth more than anybody else. That everything is alleviated so more things are negotiable and nobody is limited in expressing their opinion. Ofcourse their opinion must not offend a group in a way that they live worse than other people.
Daniel
January 10, 2015
What a load of tripe. That’s all that can be said about this pretentious, ignorant article, filled with double-standards and a clear agenda.
Job
January 10, 2015
I have but one thing to say (it’s dutch but has subs) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86KllYhG-s
Bulent
January 10, 2015
As a muslim only thing i can say noone can take the life which God gave , only God himself ( not Jesus ). But the comments that defends journalists over here , i do not think they were here to defend Nicholas Anelka or the other French cartoonist i do not remember his name. Freedom of speech is only good until you get into my personal space. Killing is not the way though but make them respect to yourself by explaining what is all about is what needed. And if these people were thinking they killed in the name of God ( Allah ) then they were wrong and not my decision to make but they will end up right by devil in hell.
Clarity
January 12, 2015
You must speak up against something that you disagreed on. If most of the innocent Muslims didn’t speak up, they simply let those criminals acted in the name of their religion & themselves. It’s just wrong. The criminals or terrorists are using religion, in this case your religion, to justify their act & to create fear among Muslims that their lives would be attacked by non-Muslims. Because of such fear, more & more Muslims would feel symphetatic & join the criminals. Besides creating fear among Muslims, it also creates more dislikes on Muslims by the non-Muslims. It is my deepest sincerest hope that most Muslims could stand up & speak up as loud as they could to go against those criminals. Crime is crime. Religion is religion. Religion is not crime. Crime is not a religion.
desireyavro
January 12, 2015
I’m Christian, nevertheless here is an interesting article on that matter I think should be interesting to acknowledge
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/charie-hebdo-danger-polarised-debate-paris-attacks?CMP=share_btn_tw
“Muslims can no more be held responsible for these atrocities than Jews can for the bombings in Gaza. Muslims do not form a monolithic community; nor does their religion define their politics – indeed they are the people most likely to be killed by Islamic extremists. The Paris killers shot a Muslim policeman; the next day a Muslim shop assistant hid 15 people in the freezer of a kosher deli while the shooter held hostages upstairs. (….)”
Jur
January 10, 2015
I am curious who draws the Comics in Nigeria.
What a fucking bullshit story.
Religion is a disease. I hope 1 day we Will find a cure
The Adept
January 10, 2015
Charlie Hebdo is fake ; they sacked a cartoonist for an anti-Semitic cartoon. Holy cows; one way sign?
Piter
January 10, 2015
One thing I always miss in these discussions, probably due to all the unrestrained negativity and name calling that seems to happen when people are not face to face, is an open and honest question towards people who are religious and feel offended by cartoons and such. Correct me if i’m wrong, but in the end one of the main goals in religion is to be at one with the world and give and share love right? I mean, killing the ego, and ending you own selfish actions is pretty high on the list. The key figures such as Jesus and Mohammed were kind, loving and giving people right? The note of being offended is usually reserved for when an image you hold dear eg your ego is trampled upon. What i mean to say is if you are confident of your religion, and feel the urge to pursue a higher or purer self, or even no self, how can a cartoon hurt you so much? Wouldnt learning from your hurt and understanding that apparantly you still have attachments to these images be the main goal? How is it ok for everybody to focus on the hurting aspects and stop focusing on true purpose of religion and enlightenment? Sometimes these discussions feel so absurd and so far from whats really happening. Who’s war are we even fighting?
m.boer
January 11, 2015
I totally agree! And tot be honest… I was shocked about how many negatieve reactions i received on my statement, whitch is the same as yours.
des
January 11, 2015
Guys, you need to watch this. It sums up well my own point of view and demonstrates how you can disagree with the contents of a magazine such as Charlie Hebdo and yet STILL claim “Je suis Charlie” as I do.
Andrei (@quietobserving)
January 11, 2015
“But why would we want to?” well, here’s where my views diverge from yours. I don’t care why. There will always be a reason, whether it’s cheap supremacist views, a moment’s desire to lambast someone else or a valid debate in the middle. It doesn’t matter.
But my view is that the reason is behind the point. Before any of these ‘freedom-of-speech’ scandals, few people were bothered. Cartoons were published, some people were offended, some laughed and vast majority shrugged and moved on.
Carlie Hebdo has a long and colorful history of poor taste satire and struggle. Struggle because people generally didn’t care about them. Charlie Hebdo spent a lot of time without activity because the niche they have doesn’t really pay.
I really don’t want to be Charlie because right now the danger is a shift from “I sometimes use my right to free speech to mock when I see a reason to” to “I have an obligation to constantly use my right of free speech to mock just to prove that those who disagree with me can’t silence me”.
In my opinion there’s nothing to prove. Our rights are guaranteed by law. This attack doesn’t hurt our freedoms in itself.
The only people who can hurt our freedoms are our leaders trying to use the attack as an excuse to further military occupation in the Middle East or to expand indiscriminate and uncontrolled electronic surveillance.
Right now, the single top danger to freedom of speech is copyright law that allows anything to be deemed intellectual property with few limitations and that allows rich entities to drive into the ground satirists via abuse of the legal system.
Even Charlie Hebdo was a victim last spring when they had to let go a cartoonist that lampooned extremist zionism because the jewish lobby in France threatened a never ending legal battle that Charlie could have won yet couldn’t afford to wage.
Two extremists killed people and still failed to prevent the last drawings of the dead from being published, which was a predictable outcome. Yet abuse of the law ensures true censorship and chilling effects.
Herbert
January 11, 2015
I am sorry not to agree with you. You say that the cartoons mock religion. You are wrong. The cartoons mock the people who missuses religion. If you look at the cartoons you see terrorist with guns in one hand and a board in the other hand with alla, mohamed or god in the other hand.You see that the pope is mocked because of a lot of wrongdoings in the catholic church.
You see cartoons mocking Marielepin because they don’t agree with her way of thinking. All these cartoons are against extremists and their crazy indeas in the world. The moslim himself don’t condone the people who uses their religion to instigate others to do wrong, I am sorry for these poor illaterate bastards. Sorry, but if we do not speak up, your children or grandchildren will not have freedom of speach in the future.If we don’t condone these things. There are a lot of jokes about jews. Who cares. And there are still cartoons mocking zionist in the world. If Charlie Hebdo had to secumb to extremist zionism, the more we have to be CHARLIE. If we do not protest and defend free speech or religion in all the world our children or grandchildren are lost. I we did not fight Hitler were would the world be today. Hope your grand children have a pleasant life with free speach because others had died for your and their free speach. Think about it. Thank you.
R
January 11, 2015
omg! You seriously think the friggin’ attack was about cartoons? These people want to lay theyre laws HERE so any excuse for havoc and destabilisation will be gladly turned into some attack.. Go hug a fucking tree you piece of garbage
Souma
January 11, 2015
Reblogged this on Thoughts of a Girl Living in a Complicated World and commented:
Another great one!
A. Brink
January 11, 2015
It’s shocking to read about people here to write “Oh, these terrorists are bad, but yes: they are al litte right”. Shocking. Freedom has its own limits and nobody has the right tot limit others there-in. For whatever reason. Everybody is master of his own freedom in the free West. And main reason why people are now into the “je suis Charlie”-hype is that these Islamists want to force their theocracy on our society, and if you don’t agree: you are dead or should be killed. Stay home and kill your own people if you feel the need, (which they do btw): it’s all about ignorence, illeteracy, hate en teaching to hate. Can’t you see?!
Shosh C
January 11, 2015
Well, did you ask resistance people what they’re thinking about this? My entire family was in the resistance, quite a few alive and well. Regardless age very update to worldly events. So update in fact that they have #jesuischarlie hanging in their window. I printed it for them on demand and brought it them the past days and I also told hem about your article curious about their opinion, also in the retirement home it was printed by staff. Why? Because they understand the fundamental value and necessity of satire. You see, as they feel and is written by several philo’s and they got the value of it as a peacekeeper. It not only reps freedom but has value to artistically expres frustration in a non violent way that is healing, just like in music. It’s hypocritical to say your not a Charlie when you’ve probably never demonstrated against songs? Are you not just hopping aboard this discussion with a counter bunk for attention? Because at this point it’s about stating your Charlie, and if not, no questions asked, you’re considered not to be a Charlie. Fine. Yet you climb your high horse called “morality” and put the spot light on yourself when it’s really not about you or not being Charlie. That overstating the obvious at this point. So hurray you managed to get views on your page doll! And on behalf of the older generation in my family that where in the resistance: who gave you the right to speak for them? Or are you also using them to get more attention for yourself? They said this about you: learn about the world without your blind spots (they called it moral superiority actually), learn about fundamentalism, learn about terrorism from early 1900 in the Middle East, learn about the opinions of the ones you (ab)use in your article, learn about getting your hands dirty for freedom instead of being a spoiled kid behind a computer, read more about the history of satire and old philosophy instead of writing privileged non valuable stories, and then come back when you actually have something to tell. You can tell, they don’t really appreciate you dragging them into this. LOL
Sacha
January 11, 2015
I agree with Hebert.The sole purpose of those cartoons was NOT to be racist, against Islam and it was NOT putting all the Muslims in one bag. It was simply mocking the people who misuse their religion. Furthermore, they wanted a reaction from these drawings and see if hate and violence would rise from this. By doing that they proved their point with their drawings… Some people use and ABUSE religion and hide behind it in order to fulfill their hateful crimes. As a French person i have been brought up thinking that my freedom of speech is one the most things that I have. People are now walking all together in every city in France PEACEFULLY and altogether, Muslims, Christians,Jewish, atheists etc…
They do not protest and surely they do not hate each other. They simply pay their respect and show how important freedom of speech is and will always be.
This shows the defeat of those attackers.
So turn on your TV and see for yourself if these attackers got what they wanted ( they failed to bring up hate and turn people against each other…). I therefore will not support this “I am not Charlie” thingy.
Andy
January 11, 2015
If you did not wear that mini-skirt you would not have been raped. If you were not gay you would not have been bashed on the street. If you were not black you would not have been object to racial discrimination. The responsibility of what happened, my dear victim, is yours.
Go democracy.
Aenea
January 11, 2015
I wonder…have you ever actually read Charlie Hebdo? Read it before judging it – pretty sure you would change your stance.
depubliekeruimte
January 11, 2015
Thank you for explaining my thoughts
Djn
January 11, 2015
“Either you walk the – sometimes bumpy – path, involving dialogue based on equality and mutual respect, that eventually leads to a more harmonious society. Or you militantly defend your right to ridicule other people’s beliefs, in the hope that they will one day think like you.”
Just plain biased thinking. Playing down one side of the coin while making the other seem much worse. Calling multiple big incidents directly related to religious extremists a ‘sometimes bumpy path’ is just a sad euphemism. I am not Charlie in a way that I personally don’t feel the need to make fun of other religions. But the possibility that we can say what we want in this part of the world without censorship is a value I hold in very high regard. Just because you don’t feel the need to execute your given rights of free speech that doesn’t mean it should be toned down.
Karin
January 12, 2015
thank you… And this makes this blogger another ‘Charlie’!
I am another you, you are another me 😉
irishgelin
January 12, 2015
Interesting, good to hear different perspectives on this story!
Henning
January 12, 2015
Ik ben het hiermee niet eens, mevrouw de Leeuw. Sta mij dan ook toe u in mijn eigen taal van woord te dienen, om zeker te zijn dat ik met de geschikte woordkeuze een gepaste nuance kan leggen. Het zijn mooie praatjes als u aan de linkerzijde van het politieke spectrum carrière wilt maken, maar zo simplistisch zit de wereld of (laat ons zeggen) het grootstedelijk milieu niet in elkaar. Zoals “Djn” terecht aanhaalt, is er geen eenduidige ingesteldheid waarmee je de multiculturaliteit benadert. Want zo vertaal ik uw keuzes: ofwel ben je een argwanend persoon ofwel ben je gewoon naïef. Als criminologe zou u m.i. moeten weten dat er niet slechts 1 waarheid bestaat, maar dat een cocktail afhangt van velerlei factoren.
Om te beginnen zegt u dat u in vele landen hebt gereisd waar de vrije meningsuiting (gedeeltelijk) afwezig is en dat de inwoners van die landen erdoor lijden. U maakt ook gretig gebruik van de verwijzing van het naziregime om ons een schuldgevoel aan te praten mits de daaraan gekoppelde eigen causaliteit. Want volgens uw denkwijze maken we ons allemaal schuldig aan het naziregime als we niet meegaan in uw denkkader, dat erop zou neerkomen dat vrijheidsstrijders, gericht tegen dat regime, zich in hun graf zouden omkeren, mochten zij weten dat we met religies spotten. Tussen die vrijheidsstrijders zaten immers ook wel mensen die graag met de alledag wilden spotten. Tenzij u mij natuurlijk socio-psychologische statistieken kunt voorleggen waarin die vrijheidsstrijders op humor worden geijkt. Nee? Jammer dan. Want ik wil hiermee maar zeggen dat u zich in het grensgebied zit van het moreel-deontologisch aanvaardbare qua woordvoerderschap namens het verleden. Het is wel een teleurstelling om zo’n nazi-verwijzing aan het begin van een gedegen opiniestuk te lezen, want meestal is een dergelijk non-argument een laatste stuiptrekking van mensen met wie ik over het Vlaams zelfbeschikkingsrecht en mijn daaraan gekoppelde waarden in debat treed.
Ridderlijk herinnert u de lezer aan zijn ongeschreven samenlevingsplicht om de andere met fatsoen te behandelen en hem te laten geloven waarin hij zin heeft. Geen probleem, ik zou het ook niet willen mocht iemand van de Jehovabeweging voor mijn deur staan om mij te dwingen mij te onderwerpen aan een onzichtbare messias die Filip en Alexander van hun tronen zullen stoten en het duizendjarig rijk zal stichten. Je zou zeggen: God ja, een spontane tenhemelopneming… waarom ook niet? Mag ik echter dan nog steeds menen dat zulke mensen beter niet aan het bewind komen van een lokaal bestuur, regering, welke gezagsinstelling dan ook? Mag ik dan volgens u niet meer denken dat een zionistische jood of een jihadstrijder liever geen subsidies ontvangen voor het belijden van hun dogmata?
Vervolgens is voor u de sleutel van een verdraagzame maatschappij een onvoorwaardelijke omarming van de multiculturaliteit, die u als “een hobbelig pad” kenschetst en daarmee de complexiteit ervan erkent. Dan komt die frappante tweekeuze: je kiest alles of je kiest een atheïstisch, onverdraagzaam discours. Weet u wat? Een antwoord op de complexe multiculturaliteit kan ook alleen maar complex en afgewogen zijn. Alleen kies je zelf of je er een halfslachtige afweging van wilt maken, of net een afweging waarin je heel duidelijke accenten legt vanuit je eigen maatschappelijke beleving. Vindt u dat te bekrompen en verkiest u liever de waarden van de Dalai Lama? Perfect. U hebt zo veel rondgereisd, dus keuze genoeg om uit een amalgaam van waarden wat te selecteren. Ik kies heb echter twee landen nodig om zowat te kunnen bepalen wat Vlaanderen en Nederland nodig hebben: een open en eerlijke visie die op de meritocratische waarden teruggaat. Ik ben opgegroeid in Noorwegen en Vlaanderen. Ik geloof overigens dat iedereen ter wereld als enige basiswens heeft om goed en gezond te willen leven. Dan zoek ik welke succesfactoren een goed en een gezond leven in de hand werken: bewegingsvrijheid, vrije markt en goed bestuur (=gezonde economie). Als ik zeg dat moslimextremisme een gevaar is voor de samenleving, dan zeg ik niet omdat ik daarop wil focussen of populistisch ben (noem eens wat verwijten?), maar ik zeg dat omdat 1 van die 3 peilers dreigt aangetast te worden.
Eens een goed bestuur een slecht bestuur wordt door een status-quo in het vreemdelingenbeleid te handhaven, door mensen niet meer toe te laten om vrij te denken en te uiten, zullen de terroristische intenties toch niet stoppen. Want weet u wat? Sommigen stoppen niet voordat ze hun kalifaat hebben opgericht of voordat de bank geplunderd en het kapitaal gelijk verdeeld is of voordat alle vreemdelingen de gaskamers in zitten. Zulke doemscenario’s zijn helaas waarschijnlijk als de overheid niet teruggaat op een concreet en standvastig normen- en waardenkader dat voor mijn deel best wel iets conservatiever mag worden ingevuld. Ik vertrek immers niet van een positief mensbeeld, want waar mensen dicht opeen gepakt zitten, heb je een coördinerende, preventionistische overheid nodig die in de mate van het verantwoordelijke kan ingrijpen wanneer het zou misgaan. Zonder de maakbaarheid als doelstelling te willen hebben uiteraard. En wilt u nog eens iets weten? Vele moslims bij mij in de straat zeggen wat ik eigenlijk ook stiekem denk: ons rechten- en plichtenverhaal of normen- en waardenkader is compleet aan het vervagen, omdat we veel te veel uitgaan van een positief mensbeeld, genre: mensen weten zelf wel wat mag en niet mag.
Dus, meer concrete normen, waarden, rechten en plichten: JA graag. NEEN tegen onvoorwaardelijke omarming van de multiculturaliteit…
SmarterFool
January 12, 2015
As a Muslim – I give you my heart-felt thanks – for writing this article as a non-muslims… It stands as a shining example for me to share and show to those muslims that may have just started believing that everyone in the world has it out for us… I refuse to believe that such a thing should or could ever be possible
Jurriaan
January 12, 2015
Ouch…
It’s a shame that this kind of debate tends to degenrate into mud-slinging, because the subject itself is certainly important enough.
I can’t help but agree that freedom of speech was never intended to be a license to insult. Having said that, insulting someone doesn’t justify being put to death. I tend to believe that nothing justifies being put to death.
I am convinced that the vast majority of humans all over the Globe, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, from any other religion or atheist, believes this as well.
But there are religious, ethic and/or cultural minorities who think otherwise and claim to speak and act either in the name of the majority or in the name of a greater authority that has the right to overrule the majority.
There is such a Christian minority in Africa. And a Buddhist one in Sri Lanka. You could claim that killing 100.000 Iraqi’s during the 2003 invasion falls into the same category and it wouldn’t be easy to argue against.
My point is that extremist minorities do not only exist in Islam.
These extremist minorities often use arguments that resonate with the majorities which they claim to represent: Do Western powers use double standards when adressing Muslim communities ? Of course they do ! Do Western powers support oppressive regimes to protect their own interests ? Of course they do ! Is is hypocritical to then claim the moral high ground regarding human rights and freedom of speech ? Of course it is !
The fact that the Muslim majority supports some of the arguments used by extremists without approving of their methods feeds the conviction with Westerners that, deep down inside, all Muslims are terrorists. That they have easy to recognize physical, ethnic and cultural features further whips up the frenzy.
What is the answer ? I don’t know. Discussions such as these, maybe.
I hope we can recognize that people who support mainstream arguments used by extremists are not extremists themselves. There is no such thing as “Either for or against”. We also need to recognize that at the root of the issue lies the level of huge economic inequality that we have in the world today. It is this inequality that has fostered resentment, that has brought huge numbers of people to leave their homes and look for a better life at the other end of the planet only to be met with hostility and contempt.
China is the only post-colonial country in history to have succeeded in substantially reducing its level of poverty.The situation there is far from ideal, but for that fact alone, it deserves our admiration. And it has prevented millions of Chnese from seeking their fortunes in the richer parts of our planet.
People tend to have much more of a sense of humor if they are not victims of exploitation, discrimination, poverty and random violence from either authorities or rogue minorities. They might even laugh at cartoons intended to insult them.
Rodolfo99
January 12, 2015
I didn’t see your name nor address, afraid?. One ot the details you miss is the following: who is going to censor some else his/hers ideas? What is hurting or offending for one person is not the same for someone else. On the bottom of the article I saw ‘related articles’, All about Gaza and Israel. The only important issue of what happened is that some people killed other people doing what they would find just. This is TERRIBLY WRONG, all the rest is bull shit, Just as your article (I won’t kill you for that though, I am not an extremist islamist).
Voltarian (@philositect)
January 12, 2015
Your article shows two things very clearly: first you appear to fail to understand what the values of a free society actually are and that you are antipathetic to them anyway and secondly it is a thinly veiled pro-Islamic puff. Freedom of speech is but one of the founding tenets of an open and free society, there are many others and in identifying this singular freedom as the apogee of western civilization – as your piece does – is to intentionally misunderstand and distort the import of Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite.
Islamic thought has consistently shown itself to be anti-freedom. It does this in its preferred system of law – Sharia – which only this week has sentenced a Saudi native to 1000 lashes AND imprisonment for the heinous crime of writing a blog. It does it in its attitude to women whom it wishes to cover up to a lesser or greater degree. It does it in its espousal of female genital mutilation. It does it in its antipathy to education, especially the education of girls. It does it in its avowed intent to wipe out Israel. Etc., etc.
For years the Moslem world has denigrated ‘the west’ for being amoral and degenerate and in its place it proposes Sharia and the religion of a man whose book contains numerous death threats to apostates, infidels, homosexuals and others EVERYWHERE. Yet by its actions it condones the murder of schoolchildren in Pakistan, the massacre of whole villages in Nigeria, the kidnapping of 200 schoolgirls and the excesses of Al Shaba in Somalia and Kenya.
Was it not Jesus who said ‘By their fruits so shall ye know them’? The fruits of Islam are currently disgusting. And yet the Moslem world was completely different 700 years ago when the Christian world was undergoing the sort of internecine strife we are now witnessing in Islam. Where are the Moslem Nobel Prize winners? Conspicuous by their absence, that’s where.
Moslems blame all their woes on ‘the west’ and its ‘imperialism’ and in response it proposes the vicious hegemony of Sharia. This tendency to ‘blame’ others for one’s own woes shows intellectual and emotional immaturity. Until Moslems and Islam can demonstrate that they are able to take their place in grown up, adult, intellectually liberal and ontologically secure western societies then the ‘Islamophobia’ of the more illiberal aspects of free societies will grow to the point of armed conflict. Is that what you want?
For this and many other reasons I am proud to say JE SUIS CHARLIE.
kitpowerwriter
January 12, 2015
Where your argument completely falls apart, for me, is here:
“No one said coexistence in a multicultural society was going to be easy. On the contrary; it can be far from easy, for everyone. But in western Europe there are only two options now. Either you walk the – sometimes bumpy – path, involving dialogue based on equality and mutual respect, that eventually leads to a more harmonious society. Or you militantly defend your right to ridicule other people’s beliefs, [in the hope that they will one day think like you.]”
Leaving aside that the part I have bracketed ascribes a monolithic motive to what is often a far more nuanced and complex set of reasons people may decide to use satire to comment on religion, there is no reason at all that someone may not simultaneously ‘walk the – sometimes bumpy – path, involving dialogue based on equality and mutual respect’ and at the same time ‘militantly defend your right to ridicule other people’s beliefs’. In fact, I would argue it’s vital for the health of the former that people be free to do the latter.
Hadrien
January 12, 2015
Kind of amazing to justify the attacks like this. I did not really like Charlie Hebdo (I am French) and some of these people where my political opponents but bloody hell, they had a right to express themselves ! What were their weapons?? Pens, and you think it’s justified to use real weapons against them?? Because that’s what you are saying between the lines, that freedom of speech should not be used to insult people and political beliefs but who is the judge of what is an insult or not? The man with a gun??? If tomorrow extremist Islamists say women should wear a burka otherwise it’s an insult to their beliefs, shall all women wear a burka? Yes freedom of speach is all or nothing.
AConcernedMoroccanDutchie
January 12, 2015
But why would we offended by cartoons. I think you totally miss the point of satire. Satire has always mocked authority. Mocked people who think they are in possession of the absolute truth. It is only insulting to those who cannot relativate. And that’s good. For me as a believer the whole cartoon does not do anything to me. Yet I feel insulted by people chopping heads off, denying women their rights and abusing people of other sects, all in name of our beloved Prophet more insulting. If I want respect I will earn it to stand up agains those insulters of our religion, not to some cartoonists drawing a picture. By the way, these kind of statements make me actually sick. Because it is always: I condenmn this and that, but….There is no but, it was wrong, period.
Hans Rombouts
January 12, 2015
‘………Met Charlie uit ‘Je suis Charlie’ is het net zo: een niet bestaande figuur wordt de symbolische uiting van verdraagzaamheid, afwijzing van geweld, en meer in het algemeen protest tegen de loop der dingen. De afgelopen dagen kon je steeds vaker lezen dat iemand zich ‘geen Charlie voelde’ omdat hijzelf óf geen affiniteit voelde met Charlie Hebdo, óf juist vond dat zijn mede-‘Charlies’ dat te weinig hadden.
Zulke kritiek getuigt van fundamenteel onbegrip voor de werking van de leus: in de objectieve betekenisloosheid ligt de kracht. Charlie bestaat niet, laat staan dat iemand Charlie zou zijn. Daarom juist is de slogan een effectieve symbolische getuigenis voor het behoud van belangrijke waarden: vrijheid, tolerantie, afkeer van geweld in het maatschappelijk en politiek debat. ‘Charlie’ is, net als Walter, een ideëel standpunt, geen programma…….’
citaat uit stuk van Raymond van den Boogert, NRC 12-12015.
Die snapt het wat mij betreft een stuk beter.
Esmeralda
January 13, 2015
mooi geschreven
Stekel Baars
January 13, 2015
There is no BUT in the case. Bottum line: people were killed for a cartoon.
Off couse you are not Charlie. Charlie is een magazine. You problaby cannot draw, do not have the talent to simplify and are not brave enough.
This is not about really being Charlie. This is about standing up for people killed and in danger.
This is a historical line. Kennedy didn’t seriously think he was a Berliner. People who had badges with “touch pas a mon pote” didnt all have a “pote”.
But yes if you really think that killing had a small ligitamate right, than you are indeed not Charlie.
dingdong
January 13, 2015
Why would people need to respect (and consider) religious believes more than any other fairytale? People should be free to believe in whatever beautiful Santa Claus story they want but why do others also have to respect that? On top of that, if you respect all of these ways of living and believing, why do you exclude these ISIS type Sunni Muslims? They believe the infidels should be killed, show them some respect too. Or … Where does respect for other people’s believes end??
marko
January 13, 2015
Where do we end up if you say drawing cartoons about your relegion is not okay and hamrs you (besides there might be a huge difference between harming and killing …) and it should not be done or allowed. Then I say making jokes about Germans is not okay and harms me and shouzld be forbidden. Then your neihgbour says making cartoons of politicians is not okay and should be forbidden … who will you give the power to decide all that?! A dictator telling you and us what to say and not to say, what to believ and what not to believe, what to do and what not to do …. I dont want to live in such a system. After years of evolution we have a modern state in which everybody is free to have his religion and there is secularism – the seperation between religion and state – namely it is there for a reason, cause of the bad experience people had with a too close connection of any ideology and state power. I love Europ, I like the variety, the mix of cultures, the mix of religions, and my freedom. And in fact everybody ahs his own freedom, to decide if he lieks and shares the values of the European society, if not, then there are enough countries that do not put much priority to freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the rights of humanity on this earth, maybe its worthwile trying this for some time and then I would like to know, whether – after living in a rather free society, you would still say you are NOT Charlie!
Michelle
January 13, 2015
I’m so happy that I’m not the only one who thinks like this. I tried to explain it to a friend today but she wouldn’t listen to me and then I thought that I was the only one who thought that the JeSuisCharlie trend was going overboard. But then I stumbled upon this article and now I’m writing this comment XD I just wanted to say that nonethless there are people who will call you retarded or being wrong. There are always people that will support you ^^ keep on writing articles because if you don’t step up then who will.
chocochic
January 14, 2015
Dear Lydia, thanks for writing. I believe you wrote this in the spirit of understanding and respect to a belief that you yourself are not believing, and I respect that. My comment here is offering a different view. I am a Muslim myself, yet last week after the incident, #JesuisCharlie. Not because I agree with what Charlie Hebdo drew (and probably still drawing), but because I condemn the atrocity. As I am sure every sane human being would (condemn the atrocity I mean, not necessarily saying that they are Charlie, which is fine, too). In my own country, Indonesia, a lot of my friends agree with you. I know this because they’ve expressed similar thing in person or in social media. The difference is for me personally, I don’t feel ‘mocked’ or ‘insulted’ by what Charlie Hebdo drew. I am intrigued to see how people see it from the outside, but that’s the keywords for me: they are seeing it from the outside. They are making fun of the religion – as I understood, of a lot of other things as well – but I don’t think the religion worth any less because of it. It doesn’t shake my faith, or make me feel lower. If I don’t find it funny (which most of the time, I don’t) I simply won’t buy the magazine or share the cartoons. Yes, many Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad PBUH should never be visualised, but I learned that the very reason for this is to prevent idolatry. The way I understood it, the ban applies to Muslims if it would lead to idolatry. That’s why I don’t feel offended if people who are not Muslims think it is funny to use him in cartoons. Having said that, I know I am a rather privileged minority. I’ve lived in different parts of Europe myself (including Paris, just three metro stops away from where the incident happened). I am not of Arabic descent, which spares me from the prejudice. I’m not wearing a headscarf, which also ‘hide’ my Muslimness even more. So maybe it is easier for me to say. I always try to be open-minded which results in me being fascinated by different points of view even when it is exactly the opposite of mine or even thinks what I believe in is inferior, knowing that it does not make me less of a person. I refuse to be defined by what others think about myself or my faith, I define myself by my reaction to it.
Maarten
January 14, 2015
Dear Lydia,
Thank you for writing this article, and especially for the reactions you evoke with it.
I personally think you are wrong and you have the right to be, just like me.
No, I DO NOT think it is okay for people of any faith, to be forced to defend themselves against suspicion, be it Muslims and atrocities in Africa, Europe or the States, Jews and Israel’s shameless policy towards Palestinians and the Gaza, or Christians and Western self-centered engagement in other countries (especially those rich in natural resources).
Yes, I DO think you have the right to say your atheism is superior over other views. It wouldn’t make you right, but you DO have the right. (This, of course, goes for any religious faith as well and most religions make use of this right.) Even if we would have absolutely no common ground, I believe you should be free to express your opinion (Voltaire quote earlier in these comments).
With all its faults, Western society is based on values such as the freedom of speech. With this freedom comes the obligation to accept contradiction. It is a two-way function based on equality. Some people (and some views and faiths) are more ‘sensitive’ than others, which means their feelings may be hurt sooner and more often. This heightened sensitivity should never be a reason to limit the freedom of speech, as this would impair the two-way function.
That said, I think it is fair that Muslims get their share of questions about the Paris attacks. People are generally poorly involved about others, so in this case, non-Muslims will have questions when cartoonists are murdered in the name of Allah.
I think we should be worried if Muslims did NOT get any questions. Wouldn’t that just mean people have their minds made up, silently convicting their neighbors? Please, let there be questions and people who answer them. Let there be people who keep in touch, even when the going gets rough.
Adrian
January 14, 2015
Quote from your blog: “That is exactly why I don’t feel the need to use that freedom to consciously hurt and insult others, who have in no way done me wrong”…Interesting, as with your ‘I am not Charlie’ sign, you may have insulted millions of ‘I am Charlie’ supporters in France and around the World who use the slogan to condemn these terrorist attacks on free speech/press. You also say, and I quote: ‘I feel like we have adopted a fundamentalist way of thinking around the right to freedom of expression’ and ‘In western Europe, the freedom of expression is an absolute right, an untouchable, ‘holy’ principle’. Reading your blog, I couldn’t help noticing that you’re using these principles quite liberally (sic!), AND THAT IS JUST FINE. What I think is questionable is that you seem to ask others to limit these same principles, that you so freely use.
Gwen
January 14, 2015
Hoooold it. You’re saying with many words; “not because we can we should”. True. But the magazine aims to make everyone think about stuff going on in society and they use cartoons and ridicule. It makes you think and forms opinions. I want that … And therefore I am Charlie. Do I want to hurt people? No. You’re mixing individual with society…
Richard
February 23, 2015
Freedom isn’t doing all the things you are allowed to, but choosing not to, even when you can!
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, I don’t know the true reasons of publishing these ‘satiric’ tabloids, it could also well be that they were trying to deliberately hurt people who practice religion, because it’s ‘stupid’ to be religious. They point always is, how do we know if these comics etc. are made for fun and satiric info to see things in another perspective (everyone needs to be able laugh once and awhile about themselves) and not to hurt people who think differently? So it’s really hard to say for me, if I am or not am Charlie.
Hairstyles
December 11, 2020
I like the helpful info you supply on your articles. I will bookmark your blog and check once more here frequently. I am rather certain I will learn many new stuff proper right here! Best of luck for the next!