Je Suis C...oncerned

The "Je suis Charlie" thing must have surely run its course. The issue has been debated, written about, conspiracised and generally chewed to a pulp over past days. There's little more that can be said on the events themselves. I feel a little uneasy (to say the least) about what could spring from them. Millions marching in Paris at the weekend?

There have been reports and commentary about a growing right-wing, fascist-like element in European politics for a while now, long before the Charlie Hebdo killings were international front-page news. I don't know which way Hebdo leaned politically. Those in the know claim it was well to the left. If this were so, though, wouldn't their satire have been more conducive to encouraging rank and file French people to support their Muslim neighbours and workmates? I cannot possibly see how the obscene caricatures of the Muslim religious figure head would help in that regard.

I don't for a moment think Hebdo was an outright fascist outfit, akin to Germany's Der Sturmer in the 1930s, whose anti-Semitic cartoons must have aided acceptance of mass deaths in Germany, and were preceded by the dehumanising of whole groups through caricature. What we've seen recently indicates that Charlie Hebdo has at least been lending a (possibly inadvertent) hand to the growing right's National Front party in France, led by Marine le Pen.

Bearing in mind how the world is now so easily connected, second by second, via internet's social media, it doesn't take much imagination to see how European countries, whose large immigrant Muslim populations are causing some native born individuals and groups to worry about losing their national identity in the future, might jump on the "Je suis Charlie" bandwagon. Their intent could be to infiltrate and use it, not to uphold free speech, but for their own political ends - to de-humanise, mock and pillory immigrant groups, deter further immigration, and in turn foster growth of what would become a fascist following. Things are not the same as events in the 1930s, fears and reasons for them are different. There was no fear of Jewish terrorism then. The "pieces" are different, but the "game" is related. I think the astrology is related also, as it happens - a time of Uranus-Pluto square aspects, the earlier one waning, current one waxing.

Whatever else most of the "Je Suis Charlie" mob with their constant, and no doubt well-meaning, emphasis on free speech want to see, one hopes fervently that they do not inadvertently become caught up in achieving the opposite, slipping into a new version of the Europe of 1937-1945, with Muslims as targets instead of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and others. A side effect of this would be to see free speech hurtling rapidly down the drain.

Slippery slopes are not always obvious - early on.

Another Tragedy...

Another year, another tragedy - and within a week! The shocking murders of twelve people, including four well-known cartoonists, at the offices of satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris yesterday was horrific and saddening.

From Huffington Post yesterday:

The attackers stormed Charlie Hebdo's Paris newsroom during an editorial meeting and began firing indiscriminately, police and prosecutors said. Witnesses told police that the gunmen shouted "we have avenged the prophet," according to Agence France-Presse. Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Corinne Rey said the gunmen spoke to her in fluent French and claimed to represent Al Qaeda, she told French newspaper l'Humanite.

I'm no great fan of satire when taken to extremes. To my taste satire works best when directed at one's own fads and foibles, or at the fads and foibles of one's own country and culture. When satire reaches beyond that it can rapidly flounder into the realms of questionable or downright bad taste. That was the problem I had with the recent media furor about the movie The Interview. The satirical cartoons featuring Mohammed carried by Charlie Hebdo didn't as much flounder into a similar bad taste realm as march directly into it, with provocation.

I guess I'm in a tiny minority (again) in my opinion on this. I surprise even myself - but I feel as I feel and cannot change it. I found just three comments, out of many hundreds I read yesterday, which aligned with my own feelings:

We live in treacherous times. Even though we have freedoms, it is imperative that we learn to exercise those freedoms with wisdom.
(Minnie Taylor)


You can have freedom of speech but, with that freedom comes responsibility. As the saying goes, if you keep poking the bear.... Condemning all Muslims because of radical extremists is ridiculous. While there is no excuse for such violence, we all know that there are extremists out there, and this type a "humor" provokes. Was the satire worth human lives?
(Isabella Kirchner)


Not at all condoning this violence or these crackpots, but this newspaper has had death threats from them before, because they re-published the inflammatory Danish cartoons and also other comments about Mohammed. Then they hide behind the free speech argument, so surely they have to take at least some responsibility. Its like antagonising fundamentalist Christians by insulting Jesus.
(Robert Forton).

Freedoms - all freedoms - carry with them responsibilities, especially for those with the power to incite and inflame. So what has been gained, at the expense of those 12 lives, and the agony of their families and loved ones? What - exactly? Have extremists been taught any lesson? Would they ever "see the funny side", get the message ? Don't we all know the negatives of fundamentalist religions already without benefit of satire? Maybe some of us don't, but was it worth the cost of human lives to highlight it yet again? Really? I feel very sad for the bereaved. I feel angry at the sheer waste that could have been avoided by the realisation of what can be seen from this event as the extremely serious levels of responsibility that come with free expression.