Charlie

Jan. 8th, 2015 08:39 pm
avevale_intelligencer: (self-evident)
[personal profile] avevale_intelligencer
Never, never, never blame the victim. That's what we're always told. And most of the time it's absolutely right. No woman should ever be blamed for being raped, or for daring to seek an abortion. No gay or bi or trans person should ever be blamed for being assaulted or bullied or driven to suicide. No one who belongs to an ethnic minority should ever be blamed for the insane acts of racists, and no atheist or member of a different religion should ever be blamed for the hate crimes committed against them by extremists of any religious stripe. The people who commit these atrocious acts are simply and solely to blame for them. Nobody else, and least of all the victims.

But. The Charlie Hebdo case is not entirely like that.

Let's take this a step away from reality. Suppose you are Commander Vimes of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch, and young Captain Carrot brings you a report on the clacks from Quirm. A gang of dwarfs have stormed the offices of a satirical magazine and butchered the entire staff plus several innocent bystanders. Nobody knows which dwarfs they were, but there's been bad feeling among the more extreme grags and deep-downers ever since Koom Valley failed to turn into a war. Nonetheless, dwarf communities in Ankh-Morpork and all across the Disc have declared their sorrow and outrage at this terrible crime, while of course lamenting the fact that they don't know who did it either. Seems a simple enough issue.

And then you discover that this particular magazine made a habit, indeed a feature, of publishing offensive caricatures of dwarfs, and trolls, and vampires, and werewolves. (Hardly ever humans.) You find that they put on their cover, for instance, a picture of Tak, the dwarf god, being buggered by a troll. You discover that, in the wake of this incident, various groups of humans are saying that well, it's the principle of the thing, innit, if you can't say things like that about the rocks and the gritsuckers what's happened to freedom of speech, eh?

Now, you're Vimes. You're used to seeing offensive caricatures of yourself in the Times, and mostly you pay no attention. But maybe you think, just for a moment, that if they printed a picture of you being buggered by Lord Vetinari, you might just get a trifle irritated yourself, as indeed might he. Not that they would, of course. But maybe you think, just for a moment, that while a terrible crime has most certainly been committed, perhaps the issue isn't quite as simple as it at first appeared, and perhaps there's such a thing as taking a principle too far. And you wonder what Vetinari would have done if such a magazine had been started up in his city.

But then, this is Ankh-Morpork, where no-one would think of suggesting that a person who stood on top of a tall building in a thunderstorm wearing a copper helmet and shouting "All gods are bastards" was not, in point of fact, asking for it.

Maybe I'm wrong. But maybe I'm not. Those people should not have been killed, and the people who did it (whether Islamic extremists or not) are cowardly murderers trying to incite hatred and division and start a war. But it's arguable that, in their non-lethal way, the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were doing exactly the same. And some of the responses I have seen to this crime have been deeply alarming.

Freedom of speech is not just a right. It's also a responsibility.

That's what I think, anyway.

EDIT: interesting. Only one commenter seems to have noticed my repeated statements that the crime (a) was a crime, (b) was perpetrated by murderers, (c) should not have happened, et cetera et cetera. Apparently, not condoning either the cartoons or the murders is not an option. Sides must be chosen and nobody is excused. Oh well.

FURTHER EDIT: and when I said they were trying to start a war, this is what I was trying in my fumbling way to hint at. I think this writer is correct; the thing was done entirely to polarise people and "sharpen the contradictions," and I have seen too many on the net who seem all too willing to allow themselves to be polarised.

Date: 2015-01-08 09:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dickgloucester.livejournal.com
This time, Zander, I can't agree with you. Sorry.

Date: 2015-01-08 09:09 pm (UTC)
billroper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] billroper
However, your analogy is flawed.

Charlie Hebdo, from examples I've seen online in the last day, skewered everyone, so the equivalent to the hypothetical cover with Vimes and Vetinari exists.

And the Charlie Hebdo folks were not massacred by the emissaries of some political figure that they skewered, nor by someone with a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

The people who did this are not trying to start a war.

They are trying to win a war.

It would appear that the situation, from their point of view, would be "So far, so good."

Date: 2015-01-08 11:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lexin.livejournal.com
I can't agree with you, either, I'm afraid. All stripes of opinion can be criticised, but criticism does not include killing people.

If you dislike something a magazine has printed, whinge on your blog, start up an alternative magazine, tell your significant other, write a stiff letter to the Times, but do not - do not - kill people in retaliation.

Killing people is wrong.

Date: 2015-01-09 01:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jahura.livejournal.com
Religious zeal as a political motive is still a political motive. Terrorism is terrorism. They may have, in your opinion, asked for it, but the very foundation of the concept of free speech is the idea that what one expresses in public may be offensive to some but should not give reason to anyone that they should die for saying it. They bore a reasonable expectation from their society that the worst punishment they would need to endure is ridicule - not death. Challenging a subculture that puts people to death for far lesser infractions shouldn't have to bear any weight on that expectation as long as their on their society's home turf.

Subsequently, passing out copies in Medina would be a different matter entirely and more in the neighborhood of "asking for it".

Date: 2015-01-09 03:02 am (UTC)
batyatoon: (the world is quiet here)
From: [personal profile] batyatoon
Having seen some of Hebdo's cartoons, I believe this time I am pretty close to entirely of your mind, Zander.

The "Je suis Charlie" meme going around is pretty damn upsetting. If one is a vile little racist ass, one doesn't become less of a vile little racist ass by virtue of having been murdered by far viler individuals than oneself.

Date: 2015-01-09 08:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] harvey-rrit.livejournal.com
Islam is not a race.

It is, however, the religion of the people who hit upon the idea of the racist slave trade. (Previously slaves could be anybody.) Enslaving only people with very dark skins ensured that any escapees would be unable to disappear into the crowd.

Of course, the Koran says that no Moslem may keep another as a slave, and that any man who utters the proper words is officially a Moslem... but Shari'ah law says that a eunuch is not a man. So they castrated the male slaves they kept. Including their own sons by the female slaves they raped.

Je suis Charlie.

Tu ne suis pas vrai.

Date: 2015-01-09 09:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eintx.livejournal.com
I've seen the fashion to call CH "racist" on Twitter, and it's not true.
They ridiculed French intellectual writers (whose sales went through the roof afterwards) and the Catholics and the government and everybody.
Which is why I don't necessarily believe the killers were Islamists (and when they announced that one of them lost his identity card in the getaway car this was the moment when I really felt taken for an idiot!). There are lots of people with a motive.

It's totally possible that the journalists who got killed were personally unpleasant people.
They certainly enjoyed stirring things up a bit, and you might even say they did not shy back from trouble.

But never, under no circumstances, "trouble" may equal "murder".
At least that's what I believe.
I could say "Oh well, you're not that innocent" if someone had slashed the tyres of a journalist's car or so. Perhaps.
But what happened is not justifiable.

Re: Your edit

Date: 2015-01-09 10:46 pm (UTC)
billroper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] billroper
I saw your statements about it being a crime perpetrated by murderers and how it shouldn't have happened. All of which I agree with.

I just dipped my oar in to point out that your analogy had a hole in it, because the Charlie Hebdo people were equal-opportunity offenders. I'm quite of the opinion that you aren't required to condone the cartoons, but I'm always in favor of people making the strongest arguments that they can (in a logical sense, not in the sense of being strident).

Re: Your edit

Date: 2015-01-09 11:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zanda-myrande.livejournal.com
Hm. I'm not sure being equal-opportunity offenders makes the offence any less, now I come to think about it.

And the point of the analogy, I think, is that the Vimes/Vetinari cartoon would not have happened in Ankh-Morpork (or, if it did, would not have been followed by anything further in that line--tyrants can do that sort of thing) but that the freedom of the ordinary person to speak would not thereby have been in any sense curtailed, and that, Vetinari being Vetinari, the artists responsible would in all probability have still been alive. As these would have been if Charlie Hebdo had been shut down by government order, and not by a gang of (as [livejournal.com profile] eintx points out) unidentified thugs with guns.

Freedom of speech is a basic human right and must be defended. No-one should be allowed to murder anyone for offending them. But it has to be recognised that there are people who will push and push and push till something like this does happen, for no better reason than that they enoy shocking people. And that's no crime, but it's not heroic either.

Date: 2015-01-10 04:16 am (UTC)
howeird: (Satan Claus)
From: [personal profile] howeird
I see your point:
You don't tug on superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger
And you don't mess around with heavily armed, fanatic murdering scum bent on martyrdom.

But I disagree with you from two directions. First, they had been bombed before and knew the seriousness of what they were doing. Second, there was a police guard responsible for protecting them from further assaults who did not do their job.

Date: 2015-01-10 12:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zanda-myrande.livejournal.com
From this article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/09/trolls-and-martyrdom-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie.html):

"I’ve already seen what happens when you get a culture that, rather than asking to what end we defend free speech, valorizes free speech for its own sake and thus perversely values speech more the more pointlessly offensive it is—because only then can you prove how devoted you are to freedom by defending it.

When the only thing you’re reverent of is irreverence, when the only thing you hold sacred is the idea that nothing is sacred, well, you eventually get chan culture, you get one long continuous blast of pure offensiveness and taboo-breaking for taboo-breaking’s sake until all taboos are broken and there’s nothing left to say. You get people who shout racial slurs in unbroken succession all day and think they’ve accomplished something in the name of “free speech” by doing so."

Date: 2015-01-10 06:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alun dudek (from livejournal.com)
Wasn't sure I should join in this, but found http://www.stephenfry.com/2015/01/10/you-must-mock/ which sums up my personal feelings petty effectively. And a hell of a lot more eloquently than I could.

Though I probably would have mentioned off-switches in there somewhere.

And also the massacres currently being carried out by the killers' "co-religents" in Nigeria.

Profile

avevale_intelligencer: (Default)
avevale_intelligencer

April 2019

S M T W T F S
 123456
78 910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 15th, 2025 03:02 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios