The cold blooded murder of the Editor of Charlie Hebdo, Stéphane Charbonnier, seven of the editorial staff including world renowned cartoonists Georges Wolinski, Jean Cabut, Bernard Verlhac and Philippe Honore, two police officers, a guest at the editorial meeting and a maintenance worker at a nearby office, is much more than political terrorism.
Charlie Hebdo is a creature of the popular uprising in May 1968 that convulsed France. First published in 1970, a relatively small magazine with a circulation of about 30,000-50,000, it, unlike the corporate owned media and government owned and gelded media around the world, understands the importance of a vibrant fearless fourth estate to the democratic process.
Charlie Hebdo took the anarchist mantra of No God, No Master seriously and did its best to puncture the pomposity and highlight the stupidity and hypocrisy of those elements in society who exercise power at both a secular and religious level. It's no exaggeration to say the liberty, equality and fraternity Charlie Hebdo promotes is the very antithesis of the medieval methods their murderers use to justify the creation of a theocracy based on brutality, misogyny, homophobia, intolerance, fear and unquestioning obedience to autocratic religious leaders who believe they, and only they, have the keys to the Kingdom of God. For every one of the eight Charlie Hebdo editorial staff slaughtered, thousands will take their place to ensure religious based inquisitions will never again become a feature of any civilised society.
Comments
Hebdo
They were offensive, provocative and asked for what they got. I'm not a Muslim and no religion would want me either. Still I found them offensive. I'm offended by little clever dicks who go round mocking, humiliating and ridiculing others' beliefs because they think they can get away with it. You push and you poke and eventually you get bitten. What did they think would happen? Did those cartoonists want to be martyrs to free speech or were they the puppets of some other order? Some financier for their hitherto obscure rag which stroked their little egos and let them feel protected and that they could get away with anything?
If we can set aside the supernatural fear mongering common to religion in general Islam has a few things to recommend it. Potentially more tasteful dress sense for one. A man said to me "I want to be able to see the woman I'm talking to" My reply is it could be a good thing if you couldn't look and had to listen and learn the cues of subtle body language. Above all: listen. I've worked with young women who 'covered up' and they were exceptionally tolerant and easy to get on with.
The financial system, at least in theory, seems less vicious too.
Back on Hebdo: the sight of all those world leaders marching through Paree arm in arm was not something to delight my heart.
I do accept some beliefs are deserving of criticism because they are stupid and/or dangerous. But that is not the same as mockery designed to hurt, not enlighten.