Over the last few days, it has been encouraging to watch the mainstream international/western media debate. It appears as though the liberals are finally realizing that ignoring or dancing around an issue doesn't make it automatically go away. In fact, it can come to bite them (and all of us) as it did in France. The sad part is that it took out the bravest amongst the media.
There have been attempts to paint Charlie Hebdo as a racist, right wing organization. It was/is exactly 180-degree opposite - this group is so far to the left, it is actually one of the most trenchant critic of Marine La Pen and her right wing French party. The fact is that Charlie Hebdo is one of the few LIBERAL media organizations in the truest sense of the word - they regularly lampoon the powerful, and regularly challenge the authority of the most powerful opium the human race ever had - religion.
It hasn't even been a few days and there are already apologists popping up for the cowardly massacre. And this group is an eclectic one - from Financial Times to OutlookIndia columnists to the so-called (a few) religious spokespersons. Excuses vary but here are the major ones I have come across in media so far:
Excuse 1: Charlie Hebdo had it coming when it chose to publish beyond the boundaries allowed by religions. It is such a medieval argument, it almost seems like we still live in a theocratic society, not secular one.
Excuse 2: Charlie Hebdo murders are a result of Western invasion of the Middle-east, or segregation of minorities or something else, anything but what the murderers expressly said during the attack - they were avenging printing of cartoons (not fighting for Palestine, not fighting for better social conditions, nothing). We have to start challenging the victim-mindset put forth by the apologists. One can only blame the world so much.
Excuse 3: Charlie Hebdo is racist. No, it is not. Charlie Hebdo lampoons religions, not races (two entirely different things). It's cartoons are filled with caricatures of multiple religious figures. And while it is perfectly alright not to agree with them, to ignore them or to lampoon Charlie Hedbo in return, physically harming in any for, least of all by murdering their staff has to be criticized unreservedly.
The event is so appalling, it has been condemned by major religious leaders of all denominations, as it should. But my clearest ray of hope actually came from the President of Egypt, when he talked to the religious leaders about the need for a religious revolution, no less. He gave that speech before the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Alas! His message didn't reach the French brothers soon enough. Here are some excerpts from his speech
Freedom of Expression is not and cannot be a grey area. Putting it in a grey area harms not the powerful but the very weak. Answer to a satire is another satire, answer to a book is another book - not guns, machetes or bombs. Charlie Hebdo is a grim reminder - we must all defend our freedom of expression actively and not leave it to just the few among us to carry the weight for all of us lest we want them to keep getting buried under that weight.
There have been attempts to paint Charlie Hebdo as a racist, right wing organization. It was/is exactly 180-degree opposite - this group is so far to the left, it is actually one of the most trenchant critic of Marine La Pen and her right wing French party. The fact is that Charlie Hebdo is one of the few LIBERAL media organizations in the truest sense of the word - they regularly lampoon the powerful, and regularly challenge the authority of the most powerful opium the human race ever had - religion.
It hasn't even been a few days and there are already apologists popping up for the cowardly massacre. And this group is an eclectic one - from Financial Times to OutlookIndia columnists to the so-called (a few) religious spokespersons. Excuses vary but here are the major ones I have come across in media so far:
Excuse 1: Charlie Hebdo had it coming when it chose to publish beyond the boundaries allowed by religions. It is such a medieval argument, it almost seems like we still live in a theocratic society, not secular one.
Excuse 2: Charlie Hebdo murders are a result of Western invasion of the Middle-east, or segregation of minorities or something else, anything but what the murderers expressly said during the attack - they were avenging printing of cartoons (not fighting for Palestine, not fighting for better social conditions, nothing). We have to start challenging the victim-mindset put forth by the apologists. One can only blame the world so much.
Excuse 3: Charlie Hebdo is racist. No, it is not. Charlie Hebdo lampoons religions, not races (two entirely different things). It's cartoons are filled with caricatures of multiple religious figures. And while it is perfectly alright not to agree with them, to ignore them or to lampoon Charlie Hedbo in return, physically harming in any for, least of all by murdering their staff has to be criticized unreservedly.
The event is so appalling, it has been condemned by major religious leaders of all denominations, as it should. But my clearest ray of hope actually came from the President of Egypt, when he talked to the religious leaders about the need for a religious revolution, no less. He gave that speech before the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Alas! His message didn't reach the French brothers soon enough. Here are some excerpts from his speech
Freedom of Expression is not and cannot be a grey area. Putting it in a grey area harms not the powerful but the very weak. Answer to a satire is another satire, answer to a book is another book - not guns, machetes or bombs. Charlie Hebdo is a grim reminder - we must all defend our freedom of expression actively and not leave it to just the few among us to carry the weight for all of us lest we want them to keep getting buried under that weight.
