I thought about writing a response to the murder of Charlie Hebdo journalists and the police who protected them yesterday, but it felt almost too soon to do so. Silence appeared to be an appropriate response out of respect for those who died and their loved ones.
There is little more to say now. Nothing could ever justify what happened. No religious faith of worth could ever condone such actions.
I have never read a copy of Charlie Hebdo but I do write for a living, and am considered controversial by some. That gives me a small insight into what it feels like to be vilified for holding honest opinion. But all socieities are dependent upon those willing to challenge the status quo if change - including the acceptance of difference - is to take place. Suppress that and we are nothing.
That is why we must all say "Je suis Charlie".
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Dear Richard,
I read many of your articles, finding them a very valuable counter balance to mainstream views. It is strange to be saying that it is courageous of you to publicly state your views – such is the discouragement to dissent from a narrow orthodoxy.
Many times in my life I have given thanks in my mind and heart to all those who write so that we can all read, share thus adding to the sum of our knowledge and being together in a communal story. It is at times like this that it seems to be important to acknowledge the debt of gratitude to all writers and I am happy to do so – thank you.
Thank you
I can assure you, on occasion it has taken courage
I am aso aware I will be mocked for saying so
“That is why we must all say “Je suis Charlie”.”
You should publsih a copy of the cartoons to show the strength of your support.
That is an absurd argument
First I would have had no reason to publish them before this attack, so I do not now. In other words I would be responding to terrorism and I see no reason to do that: indeed I do not think we should
Second, the cartoons do give offence. I respect the right to give offence, but I chose when to do so. I would not do so in this issue. A terrorist will not change my view on this.
Third, defending free speech is within this blog’s remit. I do not promote my own faith here. I have no intention of changing the remit to offend other’s faith.
Many blogs and newspapers have published the cartons to show that they ‘stand together’ with those who died. An action rather than mere words.
Clearly I misunderstood what you meant when your headline said “we stand together”
There is a great tradition in France in the principle of always holding authority to account. I think the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were part of this and their shocking murder reminds us of the fragility of these freedoms. The fact that the Arabic name for God was abused in this terrible act is indicative of how hideous, unexamined, psychologically driven motives can hide behind a mask of religious verbiage.
Any so-called faith that cannot take criticism, stand up to intellectual investigation or just plain laugh at itself now and again has lost its humanity.
I think one of the murdered cartoonist went on record saying that he would never cringe before authority (I paraphrase) – I applaud his courage-we live in a world full of bogus authority and (to use Elias Canetti’s phrase) ‘choking on power’-it must be resisted in all forms.
let’s hope love and solidarity prevails as we say ‘Je suis Charlie.’
Well said, Richard.
There is an argument that freedom of speech carries a right to offend. I only go along with that up to a point. I find it difficult to justify anything Katie Hopkins says, for example. Though I think the solution there is to ignore her.
Leaving aside gratuitous and deliberate unpleasantness, anyone writing anything that challenges the status quo is going to offend someone. It is no answer to any offence flowiing from an actual or perceived slight to shoot those whom you perceive to be the offenders. It does nothing to address injustices experienced by French nationals of Algerian descent, which contributed to the perpetrators’ radicalisation.
Je suis Charlie.
I hope another response addresses this
I think we need to ask the question WHY do young men feel such a level of resentment that they can dehumanise the other. I think the answer might well be multidimensional. Perhaps factors such as:
1) Experiences of racism combined with historical injustices
2) difficulty in finding meaning and purpose in the society around them
3) Lack of real opportunity due to austerity policies where peoples real needs can’t be met and which disproportionately affect poorer communities.
4) Personal issues which are then projected onto a ‘holy’ cause seen as an indubitable truth providing certainty an psychological security.
I think this issue is multi-faceted and we need to look into it.
Simon
I agree. We also need to look, urgently, at the quite poisonous influence of ‘our’ (in reality rich people’s) great ally, Saudi Arabia. It is the Saudis who, in pursuing their rivalry with Iran, have paid for thousands of Mosques, Madrassas & other establishments that teach the extreme fundamentalist Wah-habi version of Islam.
Religion, even fundamentalist religion, can be a positive influence. I’ve known someone that was embroiled in Birmingham’s gangland culture & got out through evangelical Christianity. The fact remains that fundamentalist religion teaches an alarmingly black & white view of the world & if you are convinced you’re on the side of good it isn’t hard to convince yourself that your opponents are evil.
A lot of the young men who’ve ended up killing themselves, & many others, seem to have been drifting until a preacher gave them a clear narrative: Islam v heresy, good v evil, spirituality v vulgar materialism, martyrdom v a life of pointless consumerdom.
The problem is that no-one much wants to hear the message “it isn’t that simple, life is complicated”.
I do know who I’ll be voting for for Sports Personality of The year in 2015.
Amir Khan’s actions in going to Peshawar & actually condemning the actions of the Taliban were phenomenally, almost insanely, courageous.
That man has guts in & out of the ring.
What a strange world we live in.
A bunch of irreverent satirists get mown down for using humour to criticise radicalism in Islam.
Yet very few if any CEO’s or members of Boards in the financial sector who were part of the probably the biggest banking failure in history are actually held accountable for destroying millions of lives worldwide through stupidity and greed.
Mark,
in fairness, I wouldn’t want the likes of Fred Goodwin or that tripe hound that used to run (i.e. ran into the ground) Northern Rock to be shot dead.
I wouldn’t want anyone to be killed, even if their behaviour was utterly beyond & below what might be expected of a reasonable human being. We all do terrible things & if the neo-cons do worse things than anyone else then the more reason to pray for their souls.
It isn’t for me to judge “the living & the dead”. Its for me to pray to our blessed Virgin Mary to intercede.
‘Eriugenus’
I am not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that anyone should be shot dead at all – even in the banking sector!! Those responsible in the banking sector should be made accountable by the rule of law – not the gun.
What I’m commenting on really is how the many other things that members of a society find important can get in the way of the issues that ARE actually more important to us all (like what is happening in the fields of economics, politics and taxation at the moment).
The fact that a group of extremists have killed the members of a minor satirical publication seems totally out of proportion to me and is proof that a lot more needs to be done to help people see what is going on – what is important.
Others in this blog also mention the effects of austerity and poverty brought about by unfairness – or what I like to call ‘economic terrorism’. I think they are right – but those affected by it look for other avenues to vent their frustration.
A minor satirical magazine was the wrong target.
Using guns and murder was the wrong method.
I ask the question, ‘How can we channel this frustration and pain towards the right target and in an acceptable way?’
The right method should be democracy. The right target should be the neo-lib rubbish like ‘trickle down theory’. But it needs more of us to be there and say ‘Enough – or else’.
All very well said.
I now regret arguing with you on the “This is our focus for 2015 …” thread.
My argument, with which you were so patient, was essentially about minor tinkerings for a little more “fairness”. Yours was that only a total solution would do, for total fairness. No compromise.
“No compromise” requires Courage and Fearlessness, but you never stumble.
Je Suis Richard
Thank you
But I cannot be compared to Charlie Hebdo
It was a man who had called for an alternative to capitalism who would subsequently put the case that other people matter into the context of tackling terrorism. In 2003, he reflected on what he had warned the US Presisent, in a development proposal in which reasoned for helping communities where poverty could provide a seed bed for terrorism.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tackling-terrorism-through-compassionate-economics-jeff-mowatt
Geoff
Your posts are, simply, not wise.
If anyone who had not wanted to tweet a picture of the prophet were, now, to tweet the picture, then they would be responding to terrorism.
The only possible answer to terrorism is to continue as though it had not happened. This is the only thing they fear,
I think there is an insight in what you say. I can remember that after the 9/11 attacks the fact that were some weeks of silence before the bombing began started to destabilise the Taliban who were expecting (and at a deeper level wanting) the assault. Silence is often more destabilizing than predictable reaction which keeps conflict alive.
I’m abit worried about Western leaders hijacking the expressions of public solidarity in France on Sunday -as many of them are responsible for undermining many of our freedoms in favour of corporate and money management power.