If it thought it could poke the bear, score some cheap publicity and escape a mauling, it was a sad miscalculation. The beast attacked... and it was costly.
The front page of this week's edition of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, featured a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, accompanied by a word bubble that read, "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter." It sported the headline "Charia Hebdo", in reference to an article on Shariah law that the paper joked was guest edited by the prophet himself
The edition hit the streets Tuesday. Wednesday, two Molotov cocktails lit the paper up... Fortunately, no one was injured.
Like most of us, the good people at Charlie are well aware of the fact that any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is considered blasphemy by many in the Muslim world -- not just militant wackos, but moderates as well. And recent history shows that those who violate this belief do run the risk of being 'bullseyed' by Muslim extremists.
Until it finds new quarters or rebuilds, Charlie has taken up residence with the French daily Liberation, which by the way, has reprinted the offending cartoon, along with the headline "After their office blaze, this team defends the 'freedom to poke fun.'"
In a free society, few will argue that Charlie, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't have the right to poke fun and freedom of expression should be defended. But having the RIGHT to do something doesn't always make it right. And it's certainly no shield against retaliation. Right, Charlie?
While this 'in your face,' 'ain't we brave' cartoon was meant to rile up the militant whack-jobs, it also, needlessly, offended a great many law abiding, peaceful Muslims.
But obviously, Charlie doesn't care. From its temporary home, it plans to pump out 175,000 copies of the offensive article, which I'm sure many will see, as a courageous, defiant move in defence of freedom of expression!
Sorry, Charlie. Ain't buyin' it. You wanted attention... you got it!
For the mentally stable, maligning Muhammad is no justification for violence. However, these extremist cats are anything but. Odds are good they'll strike again.
Maybe the guys at Charlie should pray to THEIR gods... so that they're still around to write about it.
Qasim Rashid: Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know
Romina Ruiz-Goiriena: Charlie Hebdo, Firebombs and the Role of Satire
Tarek Fatah: Sharia Comes to Libya (Thank You America)
Charlie Hebdo, Firebombed French Newspaper, Starts Blog, Fights ...
French newspaper Charlie Hebdo reprints Mohammed cartoon ...
Charlie Hebdo, French Magazine, Firebombed - NYTimes.com
Firebombed French magazine Charlie Hebdo to reprint Muhammad ...
Is this a double negative? Having the right to do something means you have the right to do it. If someone wants to have fainting spells over it, that is fine, but that doesn't somehow change the question of "rights".
Not that it would matter one way or the other, as far as I'm concerned, but I find it amazingly ironic how often it is offered as an example, when it was meant to call out false piety by someone that considers themselves a christian.
How does that sound for a tasteless Satire Charlie Hebdo~!!!!
Irony abounds.
~ Henri Frederic Amiel
It's never cool to have to expect violent retaliation from any group. "Did they get what they deserved"? What, that's a legitimate response to criticism or even mockery? Since when does any group get a pass on violence just because they didn't like someone else's opinion? To pose a question like that is to equate the perpetrators with animals who act on instinct and not as thinking humans who knew exactly what they were doing and why.
'Deux œuvres dont "Pιss Christ" détruites dans un musée d'Avignon
Le 17 avril 2011 à 12h35
'Deux œuvres, dont Pιss Christ, la photographie controversée de l’artiste new yorkais Andres Serrano représentant un crucifix plongé dans un verre d’urine, ont été détruites ce matin au musée d’art contemporain d’Avignon où elles étaient exposées.'
-- http://www.franceinfo.fr/culture-medias-art-et-spectacle-2011-04-17-deux-oeuvres-dont-piss-christ-detruites-dans-un-musee-d-avignon-530599-36-40.html
But the police should be. As Hannibal Lector asked in the film 'Hannibal Rising': 'Where were the police?'
Get your facts straight:
1. The arson occurred BEFORE the issue was sold
2. The cause of the arson is under investigation. There's no proof that any Molotov cocktails were used to set the blaze.
I hope the French Authorities will apprehend and punish the culprits, there is NO excuse for such behavior.
http://theweek.com/article/index/201550/israels-stunning-censorship-case
http://www.forward.com/articles/127130/
Do you think the israeli Press ought to have had the opportunity to write about Anat Kamm, instead of being silenced by the Israeli Military Censors?
Perhaps grant her an interview to tell her side of the story?
Do you think the film "Jenin Jenin" was rightfully banned by the Israeli Film Commission on the (political) grounds that it "might offend people"?
And what do you think about the assults on journalists covering the operations on the Mavi Marmara, who saw their material stolen or confiscated? Why confiscate cameras and recording equipment if Israel had nothing to hide?
Or do you think that "freedom of speech" is only a right when the target of this Freedom are Muslims?
The editors were bombarded with death threats and considering that there have been murders ( Theo Van Gogh) and attempted murders, those threats are more than credible.
Bad taste is not against the law---assault, arson, murder, are....in civilized nations.
As usual, the reaction to the cartoons is the ultimate in irony. Anyone who dares to portray Islam as violent can can expect a violent reaction from muslims---the ultimate irony.
When Theo van Gogh said about the Jews: "It smells like caramel here ... are they only burning diabetic Jews today?" he was sued, tried and initially convicted of libel.
When he said about Muslims that "all Muslims are goat sh***rs, he was heralded as a gladiator of free speech.
Would you mind awfully if he said the same thing about Jews, or are there different rules for different people?
Now let's agree to stick to the issue... if I find either offensive or not is NOT the issue... the issue is if he had a right to his Free speech or not....
Amazing how there is only ONE result for a search of that comment and the libel trial
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=Theo+van+Gogh+said+about+the+Jews:+%22It+smells+like+caramel+here+...+are+they+only+burning+diabetic+Jews+today%3F%22+&pbx=1&oq=Theo+van+Gogh+said+about+the+Jews:+%22It+smells+like+caramel+here+...+are+they+only+burning+diabetic+Jews+today%3F%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=1290l1290l0l4511l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=fbcdc165a55e0304&biw=1016&bih=606
Well---at least you are creative in lying.
Every body has the right to be offended. They don't have to find it funny either... but to resort to violence over this... it's not acceptable.
If any other groups would use such violence to make their point, they would be hunted down by the government... Why should it be different for this group?
The moderate Muslim will have to speak up (and take side) sooner then later... otherwise they will become irrelevant... Just like the moderate Germans became irrelevant in WW2.