Mixed bag of ‘I’m Charlie’ and ‘I’m not Charlie’
YOURSAY ‘It is not about insult and disrespect but to rise above them.’
Haveagreatday: RK Anand, I, too, am not Charlie. But I support the right of those cartoonists to take the liberty of their creativity to poke fun at those holier than thou figureheads.
Sadly, many of them paid the ultimate price because there are these extremists who believe they can use violence to intimidate everyone else into silence.
The three million copies issue of the post-terror attack Charlie Hebdo is a very important statement to those extremists.
Unspin: Once you peel off the outer politically-correct layer, it is safe to say that while there are a billion people who are with “I am Charlie”, there is also a billion people who are with “I am not Charlie”.
We can debate whether the provocations justify the killings but let us not forget that the four Jewish patrons who were killed in the kosher supermarket did not provoke anybody.
We should all condemn the killings without any reservations, period.
Sali Tambap: It is not about insult and disrespect but to rise up above them. You kill them, you are perhaps worse than them. You commit a crime; you will pay for the consequence.
Thus there is no justification for such killing. Charlie Hebdo did not commit any crime as far as the local law is concerned.
Commentators trying to justify the killing in one way or the other miss this important fact - it is wrong to kill a person. Even if that person has committed a crime, one still cannot take the law into one's hands.
Abasir: If we were to apply Anand's facile reasoning to the Malaysian dilemma, it would appear he has inadvertently made a case for Malaysiakini to be, heaven forbid, banned.
Would we one day read the following? "Operating in a nation continuously governed by an increasingly right-wing Umno, knowing well that it could lead to a devastating backlash, Malaysiakini continued to dice with danger. Its staff were courageous no doubt. Then again, there is a fine line that separates bravado from stupidity."
Perhaps the young man fails to understand that it is precisely the freedom (including the right to offend) offered by countries like France that draws millions of Muslims away from their own Islamic, syariah-ridden lands.
And when arguable notions such as "respect" (which the writer touts) are demanded with force, you will start seeing teenagers being sent off for rehabilitation after a silly night out. Last words? Grow up, young man.
John Malott: I'm sorry, but the whole tone of Anand’s article makes it sound like "they had it coming to them" because "they offended Muslims" and "they should have known better."
I also found the cartoons distasteful, and I would never waste my money subscribing to Charlie Hebdo . But that does not justify killing people.
I have read your article three times, and I have not found any sentence where you condemned the killers. You are blaming the victims and not the murderers.
And it is doubly shocking because you work for Malaysiakini , which has always shown courage and a willingness to stand up for free speech.
Anonymous_1419577444: What can I say, Anand? From the comments you received so far, your 'experiment' is enlightening. Many condemned you in the name of ‘freedom of speech’ for exercising your 'freedom to speak' (interestingly including a former US ambassador).
Some supported your views. I hope you can summarise and share your thoughts about this interesting 'experiment' of yours.
The Hufftington Post has a thought-provoking article by Mehdi Hassan about this 'free speech' concept too, which many may disagree but makes sense.
All these serve to suggest that free speech is but a myth. For free speech to thrive, there must be mutual respect (as Anand suggests), hence some limits. The cruel acts of a few should not be the yardstick to measure the masses.
Anonymous #31685940: Where do you draw the line, Anand? Are you going to advise Malaysiakini to stop publishing Zunar's cartoons because they sure offend a lot of people who support a leader who is the subject of his cartoons?
In your own words, "Indeed, the retaliation should not include murder, but then again, radicals and lunatics exist in all faiths." And they do exist in all walks of life.
The Analyser: The author went wrong on two counts. He failed to include in his sentence the words "to my indoctrinated mind", that is, “to my indoctrinated mind, the cartoons were distasteful and disrespectful.”
The other area where he went wrong was to assume that as he didn't like the cartoons, then everyone else should find then distasteful too. Both errors were errors of Islam.
The three-fourths of the world who are non-Muslims feel no obligation to align themselves with Islamic standards and would assess the cartoons in the light of their assessment of the behaviour of Islamists in this century. In that case, they were fully justified.
Mat Lee: I am amused by all the comments of free speech which all in all are judgmental to Islam and not to the culprits that go on the shooting spree.
Charlie Hebdo is just another extremist in different form which provokes other extremists to act on, in this case Muslims and not Islam.
Mr KJ John: Well done Anand, I agree that decency must be shown by all sides, not just one or the other.
It starts with regard and respect for the other, regardless of who it is, even the environment; then it begins with learning to appreciate the thoughts and feelings of the adherents of the other worldview, and finally learning to celebrate with them when they celebrate, and disagree with them, when we cannot do so.
David Dass: We are so accustomed to a controlled press that we do not have the ability to understand and appreciate what freedom of expression means.
Many in France would have found the cartoons distasteful. These people will not subscribe to the magazine. They exercise their freedom to choose.
However distasteful we may find the cartoons - and the magazine lampoons all faiths - we have to accept that this is allowed in France. And the matter should rest there. Killing the editors is simply not an option.
Remember when Salman Rushdie published his Satanic Verses ? A fatwa was issued against him by some imam from Iran. What did the British government do? They provided him with security for years.
No government is going to allow pressure and threats from Islamic groups to change their laws - laws that reflect the values that underpin their society. This was the reason for their solidarity march last Sunday. Muslims in France appear to have unequivocally condemned the killings.
Spinnot: It's wrong to insult another person's religion. It's wrong to kill the person who insulted one's religion.
But is it about ‘free speech’? If the French really believe in free speech, why do they punish people who deny the existence of Holocaust?
(Wikipedia: The Gayssot Act of France sets a punishment of five years' imprisonment and a €45,000 fine for the public expression of ideas that challenge the existence of the crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany during World War II as defined in the appendix to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945.)
MinahBulat: France today is not like during the time of Voltaire. It is a cultural melting pot attracting people from various culture and religion. It is the same in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Holland, Sweden and almost all countries in Europe.
The liberal and open policies of the country allow each individual to practice their culture and religion freely.
With this present evolution, Europeans have to understand the religious sensitivities of the Muslim communities. Charlie Hebdo paid the price and there is nothing they can do about it save for killing the perpetrator.
Grissom: Anand, it takes great courage to swim against the flow. Keep it up Malaysiakini , I see from the comments here, how ironic it is, people who espouse freedom getting upset about opinions they don't agree with. Sigh.
My Opinion: Grissom, yes, many commenters disagree with Anand but you don't see them killing him and his family or the Malaysiakini staff. The commenters here use the same freedom of speech to express their displeasure.
4Malaysia: I think many failed to get the point made by the author. He made it very clear that the Charlie Hebdo massacre is wrong - no doubt about that.
But it was also disrespectful, reckless, ignorant and arguably arrogant for people to make extremely insensitive insults. Cartooning the prophet as a dog - indeed, not a good move at all.
Those comparing Islam versus Christianity/Buddhism/Hinduism, please understand that in the latter religions, it's acceptable to have images of the prophet/teacher/gods. But Muslims do not share the same belief.
So Charlie Hebdo could have been ignorant, arrogant, reckless or plain stupid. With the freedom of expression comes respect for certain sensitivities.
Kit P: You need to browse multiple weekly issues of Charlie Hebdo , not just the particular controversial cartoons, to understand what the magazine stood for.
Week after week the magazine dispensed satire, lampooning and disrespect pointed at all kinds of figures, including the Pope, George W Bush and Barack Obama. Many of the targets actually richly deserved the lambasting they received.
Having said that, they probably should have been more careful before proceeding to offend followers of an entire religion.
Nothing, however, justifies the brutal execution that occurred. In that sense, I am Charlie.
Telestai!: Anand, I am not Charlie too. The Paris attack cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination.
Was the publication of the cartoons distasteful? It is a personal opinion but I'll not write an article to discuss issues that I clearly cannot reconcile nor comprehend.
Satire is part and parcel of French culture and pretty much the Western society. It mocks everything with no particular political agenda. If one disagrees, ignore it.
Not Convinced: I support freedom of expression and yet I’m not Charlie. Take for example, the case of a man who scratches his crotch in public.
Many will disagree with such behaviour. Most will choose to ignore him. But he should not be carted off to prison, let alone sentenced to death.
Publishing lewd cartoons of certain personalities is plain rude. Yes, it is not against the law. But it is not a value I subscribe to.
So while I believe in Charlie Hebdo’s right to exercise its right to freedom of expression, I’m not Charlie. And I’m not the Kouachi brothers either.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
For more news and views that matter, subscribe and support independent media for only RM0.36 sen a day:
Subscribe now