Pretty much all the public discussion of the [Charlie Hebdo] incident centres around a series of premises that, as far as I can see, do not withstand logical scrutiny. They include:
The premise that it is some kind of "core western value" to insult other people's religious beliefs.
If the "Je suis Charlie" crowd is to be believed, my right to draw a cartoon portraying the Virgin Mary as a street whore and her son Jesus pimping her, is of paramount importance, no matter how offensive other people find it. However, it is not important to be able to:
(i) have a public discussion of the implausibilities of the official story of 9/11
(ii) have intellectually honest discussion of the events of WW2, in particularly the atrocities in which Jews were the victims, i.e. the “Holocaust”.
(iii) even mention the power or organized world Jewry (and I mean, even mention it without bothering to say whether you think it is a good or bad thing, it is simply taboo to mention it.)
(iv) have serious discussion of issues like gender, ethnicity, race outside the imposed straight jacket of "political correctness”.
Why are the above topics of discussion taboo? Apparently, it is because such speech offends people. It is hurtful to them!!!???
This is a bizarre paradox and it baffled me for the longest while. Finally, I did resolve the conundrum. Apparently, in France, and in the West generally, unrestricted free speech is only important in the case of people, who, like the ageing hipster cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, actually have nothing to say!
Read this article by Jonathan Revusky in full as published by the Saker.
Related:
Vinyard of the Saker: We Are Not Charlie: A millon Muslims and Christians in the streets of Grozny
iPolitics: France’s free speech controversy lands in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Moon of Alabama: Liberté D´Expression?
Olga Chetverikova: Charlie Hebdo Slaughter: Tragic Lesson for Europe to Learn
John Chuckman: The Extremely Dark and Unexamined Underside of the Charlie Hebdo Affair
Why are the above topics of discussion taboo? Apparently, it is because such speech offends people. It is hurtful to them!!!???
This is a bizarre paradox and it baffled me for the longest while. Finally, I did resolve the conundrum. Apparently, in France, and in the West generally, unrestricted free speech is only important in the case of people, who, like the ageing hipster cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, actually have nothing to say!
Read this article by Jonathan Revusky in full as published by the Saker.
Related:
Vinyard of the Saker: We Are Not Charlie: A millon Muslims and Christians in the streets of Grozny
iPolitics: France’s free speech controversy lands in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Moon of Alabama: Liberté D´Expression?
Olga Chetverikova: Charlie Hebdo Slaughter: Tragic Lesson for Europe to Learn
John Chuckman: The Extremely Dark and Unexamined Underside of the Charlie Hebdo Affair
No comments:
Post a Comment