Salman Rushdie: ‘I Stand With Charlie Hebdo, as We All Must’

[ellenrr]

Salman Rushdie, whose book “The Satanic Verses” prompted Iran’s Ayatollah to issue a fatwa on him in 1989, responded to Wednesday’s shooting attack at the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. His statement:

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/01/07/salman-rushdie-i-stand-with-charlie-hebdo-as-we-all-must/

[NYC_SKP]

1. I don't stand with Charlie Hebdo. Same with Rushdie.

Fighting fire with fire burns everything up.
An eye for an eye leaves both sides blind.

There have to be better ways.

[upaloopa]

2. I don't think he is saying that

He is saying we need to challenge religion and with satire also. That is not fire with fire.

[NYC_SKP]

4. A picture of Mohammed on his knees being raped anally is not productive speech. (nt)

[geek tragedy]

6. Sorry that offends your sensibilities. The solution for you

and everyone else whose precious minds can't handle such vulgarity is to not look for it.

It is not your place to enforce your aesthetic quibbles.

[Shivering Jemmy]

8. You don't get to decide that

[NYC_SKP]

9. Nor do you, nor did Charlie.

[upaloopa]

11. We all decide for ourselves it is called freedom

We may not like it but we are better for having the freedom to express it.

[Alittleliberal]

28. So what is your point?

[Throd]

12. So what? Who says speech has to be productive? Who declares whether it is or isn't?

[Coventina]

15. I've seen many cartoons from Charlie today, but none I saw included a rape of Mohammed.

Do you have a link for that?

I did see many cartoons with various religious figures engaged in sex, but no rape.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Link.

I won't post the worst, but some disgusting ones can be seen here:

http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

If I posted the very worst I'd get the reply hidden.

[Coventina]

18. Thanks!

No question that it's very offensive stuff, although I still don't see any rape images.

They seem to be equal opportunity offenders of all the Abrahamic faiths.
Wouldn't buy or consume it myself, personally, but I find the idea that members of their staff would be targeted and murdered deeply disturbing.

Being outraged at something like that is like NK getting their panties in wad over a vulgar movie.

Says more about them (much more) than it does about the offenders.

[CrawlingChaos]

20. I can't help but notice

That the worst of the cartoons, by far, were directed at Muslims. Really hateful stuff.

Which does NOT justify mass murder, if I have to state the obvious.

[NYC_SKP]

22. No, it doesn not justify murder at all, not even a little.

But it doesn't advance the discussion, either.

[MADem]

26. Here, sadly, you do have to state the obvious--and even at that, people

still won't take your point, and say things like "So, you MUST be an APOLOGIST for mass murder!!!!"



I take your point entirely. The stuff in that magazine is designed to be offensive, the Catholic stuff is offensive, too, but Catholics aren't a marginalized and discriminated religion in Catholic France. Muslims are a minority, and they are pushed into ghettos, last hired/first fired, and they often have a tough time making ends meet.

And of course, I'll have to join you in repeating "but that doesn't justify murder" because I'll get a "So then you MUST..." comment as well.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

17. Y'know, I don't think a cricifix in a jar of pee is productive speech, either

The difference being that those here outraged by it simply threaten to defund the N.E.A.

Those outraged by offensive portrayals of their faith the same legal recourses as the rest of the word: outraged LTTEs; buying advertising time to make their point; getting officials friendly to their POV elected; boycott; or starting their own magazine. What they do not have the right to do -- ever -- is resort to violence to express their discontent.

As I've posted elsewhere:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/theo_van_gogh/2.html

Anger against Van Gogh reached its pinnacle on August 29, 2004 with the airing of the television film Submission on Dutch television, which was the creation of Van Gogh and controversial Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The film depicted four partially nude women in long, dark transparent veils, who had texts from the Koran written in calligraphy on their bare skin. Some of the women appeared to have reddened whip marks on their backs and legs, on which the texts were written that described the physical punishments, sanctioned by the Koran for disobedient women. Not surprisingly, the highly controversial 10-minute film sparked outrage from the Muslim community.

Not long after the release of Submission, Theo began to receive death threats. Concerned for his welfare, his colleagues urged him to hire a bodyguard for protection – a suggestion which Theo initially entertained. Yet, eventually he brushed it off because he didn't believe anyone would want to target him.

At approximately 8:45 a.m. on November 2, 2004, an unknown assailant dressed in a traditional Moroccan "djelleba," brutally attacked Theo outside of a city council building as he bicycled to work in central Amsterdam. The attacker shot Theo Van Gogh and stabbed him repeatedly in the chest, callously disregarding his victim's pleas for mercy. Despite his life-threatening injuries, Theo was able to gain enough momentum to stumble to the other side of the street but by the time he made his way across, his attacker shot and stabbed him again. He then slit Theo's throat with a butcher knife as onlookers gasped in sheer horror.

In a final assault against his victim the attacker lodged his knife, which had a letter attached to it, into Theo's chest. The assassin then ran off through the neighborhood and into the nearby Oosterpark, where he and police exchanged gunfire. During the shootout, a motorcycle police officer and an eyewitness were seriously wounded.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/post_518_n_719682.html

Molly Norris, an American cartoonist who proposed "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," has gone into hiding and will change her name after the FBI weighed in on threats to her safety.

The Seattle Weekly announced Norris' decision to abandon her identity in a post dated Wednesday, Sept. 15:

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. ... She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program--except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.

So I stand with Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, Larry Flynt, Molly Norris, Theo Van Gogh, Kurt Westergaard, and all others who've pushed barriers in the name of satire and free speech.

[Lobo27]

23. So getting offended means you can go and kill?

[calimary]

25. Hey, I went to a Dodger game some years back, not long after 9/11, and we had to sit

behind this asshole who was proudly wearing a t-shirt whose cartoon on the back proudly showed Saddam Hussein being anally raped by Uncle Sam. The Saddam figure was calling "Allah!" The Uncle Sam character had the response "You're gettin' 'Allah' ME!" My son was about 10 or 11, then. I kept hoping he'd been too busy watching the game to notice. Made me cringe! So those cartoons taking liberties with Mohammed are not the only ones who can come up with something pretty damn yucky. Our side of that equation can come up with some funky stuff, too.

[on point]

27. I'm sorry, I find your thinking disgusting. You are forbidden from it

See how it works? If you don't have freedom of thought and speech then anything can be suppressed. Please revisit the Enlightenment to learn how this is supposed to work. Stop off at the constitution to discover why suppressing your disgusting thinking hurts us all, including especially you!

[NobodyHere]

29. You can go bury your head in the sand if you want

at least until all this blows over

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Yes, it's very productive speech.

It is defending the right to display such images, which is currently under serious attack.

If that right is ever fully secured, then it will stop being necessary. But we're demonstrably a long way off that point, and scum like you are keeping us further from it.

[geek tragedy]

5. This is really idiotic false equivalence.

To the point of being repulsive.

Standing with victims of terrorism is not fighting fire with fire.

Fighting fire with fire would be gunning down worshippers at a mosque.

Jesus. You are very close to condoning the attacks.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

10. What bullshit

Drawing a cartoon or writing a book is not the same as murder.

[seveneyes]

13. Solve, resolve or dissolve into atomic dust

Good and evil, sweet and sour, there will always be an opposite force to counteract the forces you are with.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Still at it?

Creating a false equivalence between a cartoon and a mass murder is really, really vile.

[Codeine]

21. Well then you're just plain wrong.

Drawing naughty pictures isn't "fighting fire with fire", it's just naughty pictures. Those drawing didn't hurt anyone, and the magazine had an absolute right to publish them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Shame on you. N.T.

[dissentient]

3. Great statement. And from a guy who knows very well about this

kind of thing.

[Ykcutnek]

7. Any decent human being stands with Charlie Hebdo.

There's no nuance at all to this, no matter how much the POS "leave them alone" choir sings their sad, disgusting tune.

People were murdered for expressing themselves. It was wrong. And the kind of people who did it represent a threat to the civilized world.

See how easy it is to be on the right side of an issue?

[CrawlingChaos]

24. I denounce the crime but I don't stand with Charlie Hebdo

Charlie Hebdo was putting out hate speech.

[melman]

30. Then you stand against freedom of expression

[CrawlingChaos]

31. non sequitur

Major fail

[Algernon Moncrieff]

32. Not a non sequitur

It's not hate speech. It's provocative satire.

Besides - hate speech is protected in a political context.

[Union Scribe]

33. +1

[closeupready]

34. No. You should be able to stand with the families and loved ones of those

who were murdered, but you should be able to oppose the garbage that CH published.

As you put it, you sound like George W. Bush - you're either with us, or the terrorists.

[cemaphonic]

35. The thing that I find interesting about "The Satanic Verses"

is that while it is indeed very critical towards the violent, politicized strain of Islam that started cropping up in the postcolonial era, it is every bit as critical towards the culture and government of the UK in the 80s.

One group called for his blood, and the other went to a fair bit of expense and trouble to defend him.