Wednesday, April 1, 2015

CHARLIE HEBDO SACRIFICED THE DEATH OF SOME OF THEIR CARTOONISTS AND STAFF TO PROVE A POINT THAT THEY BELIEVE IN THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

– BY THEIR OWN WEIRD DEFINITION WHICH IN THE PROCESS ALSO HELPED TO DESTROY WHAT FRANCE STOOD FOR. IT IS DEFINITELY A STUPID WAY TO PROVE A POINT, AND DEADLY TOO.  
By Mansor Puteh


Those smart and confused people at Charlie Hebdo should have known better. The French and their president, too should have known better, not to be misled by what they think is right, which could create unintended consequences.

Maybe the issue or controversy surrounding Charlie Hebdo had died, but it is also good to bring it to life for just a bit or while more, to nail an interesting point that had not been raised when the issue was hot.


First, no one is the whole of France is saying, ‘I am Charlie Hebdo’ anymore. And no one is wearing a tee-shirt or patch with such words.

The French and the supporters of Charlie Hebdo now know better and have grown wiser that the freedom of speech, of expression and of the press can be proven and used in many other different ways, instead of defaming anyone especially the prophets of Islam the results of which could be deadly.  

Sure, it was such a stupid way for anyone to prove that he supports the Freedom of expression and also the Freedom of the press, i.e. by sacrificing one’s life, giving some cartoonists in Paris too much leeway to get their way, until some of them to literally had to sacrifice to prove their point, like the other French people who are not cartoonists cannot define them, themselves, that they had to be misled by some cartoonists.

Even the French President Francois Hollande was misled.

He and the other French people chose to blame those who reacted over the drawings made by the cartoonists instead of the cartoonists and their magazines, which had sparked the controversy, one which is not on the Freedoms as mentioned above, but by stupidity – the stupidity of some cartoonists and their so-called satirical magazine.

This is the real issue which was not discussed then but can be discussed now.    

It is strange if not weird for the French and their government to allow some cartoonists to define what their Constitution is when it proclaims, ‘Equality, Fraternity and whatever…’ to themselves and to the world like they are also what all the other countries agree and stand for.

It is indeed weird for the French government to be proud that the cartoonists could be given such a right, which should also be given to those who did not support them, and who had other ways equally weird to prove that they did so.

What do those cartoonists, now dead, know about human rights? They only knew cartoon rights.

There is now silence in Paris and in the whole of France and much of Europe. The silence is deadly.

Who are buying the Charlie Hebdo magazines now? And what are the cartoonists producing?

They tried to demean other religions especially the Catholic Church but failed to attract much attention with their sales continuing to slide, even with the Church suing them in the courts in France.

They knew they could not defame other beliefs, especially Buddhism or Hinduism.

They thought they could gain much if they defamed Islam. And they paid their lives for that mistake.

Their logic is that if they cause some Muslims to be hurt by what their did, they can then blame Islam for the actions of the few Muslims.

This is such a sick logic that the Charlie Hebdo did not know could be deadly.

And where did they get this logic from?

From the belief that they can go behind the national French slogan or philosophy only applicable to the French and only in France which is – Freedom, Equality and Fraternity.

The French including their President Francois Hollande know that they cannot export their national philosophy elsewhere including to their neighboring countries, much less to the Arab and Muslim countries.

And what the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo also did not realize that they could also not use or rather misuse the national philosophy or slogan elsewhere and on the others.

They can only use it on themselves, their mothers, ancestors and the other French men and women and institutions and accepted religions, but not those of the others, especially the Muslims, unless if they wanted to get some unusual reactions which they did.

A dozen died in the defense of their personal ideals but in the process they shot down what France stood for – freedom, equality and fraternity.

Charlie Hebdo definitely did not support such ideals. They only wanted to demean, defame and to try and make a killing at the sales of their magazine.

They did, but how much for, and how much they had to suffer in defense of their own selfishness? A lot.

The death of a dozen at Charlie Hebdo could not have been well-planned or thought of.

But now everything seems to be quiet at the Charlie Hebdo office and their cartoonists are contorting their brains out trying to figure out who they could defame next, and how much they can gain from that, and if the French would back them the next time they are attacked by other groups.

Chances of this happening are bleak; Charlie Hebdo knows that they cannot cry wolf twice.

They were successful the last time – and I say the last time, because the French President and the French people did not know why Charlie Hebdo was put in such a spot.

Now they do. One hopes they do.

That French Cartoonists especially those at Charlie Hebdo cannot be trusted to define what is ‘Freedom, Equality and Fraternity’. They have a funny way of doing that.

And the whole of France and much of the world had also seen how funny they were trying to do that.

They may be lone wolves in Paris who had attacked the Charlie Hebdo office. But there were also lone wolves in the Cartoon industry in the same city who acted alone to do what they thought was wise and which could bring cheer to their readers.

But the lone wolves in the French cartoon industry were the ones who had created lone wolves in the city those who used other means to state their point.  


No comments: