Shooting at Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris

[Nin]

I think most of you know by now that today in Paris there has been a shooting at the main office of the humorous news paper "Charlie Hebdo". Two or three men entered the redaction and shot - so far there are twelve dead, among which four rather well-known press cartoonists and one police man.

Charlie Hebdo has been several times in the past in the line of fire for having published caricatures of Mohamed which have been wildly attacked by islamists. In general, they are absolutely anti-religious, against the right wing parties, very critic of the system and often rather rude and open in tone. But they are also one of the very free voices of press and employ great cartoonists, known for their work in press in all of the French speaking countries. There had been attacks on Charlie Hebdo before, but only with material losses. The main redactor had police protection and the building was under police observance. However, the attackers escaped.

This attack is a deep shock. On the one hand, it is an attack on the freedom of thought and speech. If Charlie Hebdo is sometimes going very far in the critic of extremism of all sorts and does not fear vulgarity, it is still a journal which reflects an important part of the public opinion and a freedom of thought - and the freedom to laugh about everything - which I think lacks more and more in our societies. On the other hand, there is a fear that this attack, which is very probably the work of an islamic group will encourage the rise of anti-islam throughout Europe and will be used by the very same populist parties which Charlie Hebdo was fighting too. I think namely of the French Right Wing Party of Marine Le Pen (Front National), a party like UKIP or the German movement of Pegida. The encounter of different civilizations may be a difficult one, but it is also enriching and many of the reactions to islamophobia in the recent months have been from my point of view very encouraging. In Germany, for instance, to hinder demonstrations from Pegida (short for Patriotic Europeans against the islamization of the Occident), the cardinal of Cologne has ordered to stop the illumination of the cathedral so that the crowd found itself in the dark... But it is undeniable that in Europe the question of the place of islam in European societies is one to create divisions and hatred. Lastly, several of the recent islamic terrorist movements like Isis are so difficult to bear that a global rejection of islam can seem like the easiest or even like the best answer.

But today, most of all, lives have been lost and voices of tolerance and freedom, loud voices, disturbing voices, beautiful voices. I do not like the direction of polarization our societies are taking recently and personally I loath religion as well as patriotism, seeing in both vectors of intolerance. This shooting at Charlie Hebdo goes in that same direction and I fear that the reaction to this act of barbary will even more push in that very same direction. It is truly a sad day.


Some more information:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/h ... .kmjX5NOgq
http://time.com/3657246/paris-charlie-hebdo-shooting/

[Teremia]

I have been in tears about this off and on all day. I deeply fear what it means for France and for Europe. And a friend of mine lives in that neighborhood and came into that street just five minutes after it happened. We are all in shock.

[Impenitent]

It is not just in France and Europe; this creeping zealotry is everywhere - it reached Sydney in December.

It's not possible to construct a cohesive response to this, not personally anyway, and I don't think it's possible globally either. It is almost an inhuman thing because the perpetrators appear to have lost all sense of the humanity of others. We are all Other in the eyes and minds of this ideology.

[Pearly Di]

Ghastly, heart-breaking and deeply worrying.

This attack is a deep shock. On the one hand, it is an attack on the freedom of thought and speech. If Charlie Hebdo is sometimes going very far in the critic of extremism of all sorts and does not fear vulgarity, it is still a journal which reflects an important part of the public opinion and a freedom of thought - and the freedom to laugh about everything - which I think lacks more and more in our societies.

The freedom to mock sacred cows is an important thing in a liberal democracy.

If it's OK to criticise and mock Christianity, it is OK to criticise and mock Islam, without being called 'Islamophobic'. In this respect, Charlie Hebdo (I am not at all familiar with this magazine) seems to have been consistent. If they regarded all religions as being legitimate targets for satire, then that is at least a level playing field. The freedom to say what you like about another person's belief system, without fear of reprisal or the secret police (be they religious or secular) knocking on your door is a freedom which has been hard fought for. Totalitarian societies, be they Fascist or Communist, do not tolerate such freedom of expression. Neither do hardcore Islamist societies: witness the appalling human rights violations enacted under Pakistan's pernicious blasphemy laws. (Please do note, I am not having a 'pop' at Islam in particular: after all, the Christian West was just as intolerant of 'heretics' just a few centuries ago.)

'Islamophobic' means, to me, acting hatefully towards Muslims simply because they are Muslims - and it's irrelevant as to what 'kind' of Muslims they are, prejudice is prejudice. It does not, should not, mean that you can't criticise or disagree with certain beliefs. These are two separate issues. I personally disagree with Islam. I have no problem with anyone else who believes in Islam. If some bigot goes and torches a mosque, or sets about persecuting the Muslim family in their street, then that bigot should be brought to justice and tried for their crime.

In Germany, for instance, to hinder demonstrations from Pegida (short for Patriotic Europeans against the islamization of the Occident), the cardinal of Cologne has ordered to stop the illumination of the cathedral so that the crowd found itself in the dark... But it is undeniable that in Europe the question of the place of islam in European societies is one to create divisions and hatred. Lastly, several of the recent islamic terrorist movements like Isis are so difficult to bear that a global rejection of islam can seem like the easiest or even like the best answer.

Yes, this.

It was pretty chilling to see those anti-Islamist demos in Germany the other night. Good for the cardinal to order the lights of the cathedral to go out. Fortunately, the chilling factor has not been lost on so many Germans who have put on counter-demonstrations.

It is not just in France and Europe; this creeping zealotry is everywhere - it reached Sydney in December.

It's not possible to construct a cohesive response to this, not personally anyway, and I don't think it's possible globally either. It is almost an inhuman thing because the perpetrators appear to have lost all sense of the humanity of others. We are all Other in the eyes and minds of this ideology.

Exactly. It is a deeply horrible worldview. An amoral, nihilistic one. An inhuman one. We've seen its like before, albeit in different guises.

[Nin]

We've seen its like before, albeit in different guises.

Well, for me there is still something different about this: you are not safe in any other place. If you take a traditional totalitarian system, if you do not live in that system - e.g. if you lived in the US during the Cold War - you were rather safe from the impact a communist system had on your every day life. Here, we see democratic, functioning states totally overwhelmed by this ideology without supporting it or without being at war and occupied by a force adhering to the ideology. You cannot hide or run from it (or only ever so little).

The attack has been compared to 9/11 - which may seem exaggerated if you look at the number of victims. But the traumatic effect for Europe - at the very least for French speaking Europe - is very high. It's not only very scary, but it's an outright attack at the foundations of democracy and "western" society. Freedom of speech is a human right. And of course, there is fear of the implications. Already, Marine Le Pen, leader of the extreme right has called for the re-legalisation of the death penalty. An attack like this will feed the extreme populist right in Europe and this is most certainly not what the writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were standing for.

On the other hand, you hear people say things against the news-paper because despite earlier threats after the images of Mohamed and an earlier attack, they never toned down. I rather admire them for it. One of the victims, who was under constant police protection, had said in an interview: "I prefer to die standing than to live on my knees." (Je prefer mourir debout que de vivre à genoux). So, that's what happened, after all.

I have my theory about the origin of evil: I do think that most, if not all acts of evil are committed on two basis factors: one is the desire and the certainty to do good. "I am acting for the good of....." And the attackers might see themselves as the good in the story, those who defend divine values. I see therein the greatest danger of religion. Religion, by claiming a divine origin, cannot be refuted by logic or science. It is unattackable in one way. The other reason for evil is the sense of entitlement. "I will get what is due to me". Maybe that played a role for the attackers, to get the behavior they felt entitled to expect towards islam. It is anyway, a terrible shame.

[Pearly Di]

Well, for me there is still something different about this: you are not safe in any other place. If you take a traditional totalitarian system, if you do not live in that system - e.g. if you lived in the US during the Cold War - you were rather safe from the impact a communist system had on your every day life. Here, we see democratic, functioning states totally overwhelmed by this ideology without supporting it or without being at war and occupied by a force adhering to the ideology. You cannot hide or run from it (or only ever so little).

I'm not prepared to accept that we are 'totally overwhelmed' by it ... yet. It's a horrible thing, but it may yet implode.

An attack like this will feed the extreme populist right in Europe and this is most certainly not what the writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were standing for.

It also feeds right into the agenda of those who commit these atrocities. These people seem to delight in mayhem and misery, and picking a fight with both the Left and the Right in Europe would suit them equally. Or so it seems to me.

I have my theory about the origin of evil: I do think that most, if not all acts of evil are committed on two basis factors: one is the desire and the certainty to do good. "I am acting for the good of....." And the attackers might see themselves as the good in the story, those who defend divine values.

Gandalf had a similar view. He said he would be worse than Saruman if he took the One Ring because he would justify his actions for 'the greater good'.

I see therein the greatest danger of religion. Religion, by claiming a divine origin, cannot be refuted by logic or science. It is unattackable in one way. The other reason for evil is the sense of entitlement. "I will get what is due to me". Maybe that played a role for the attackers, to get the behavior they felt entitled to expect towards islam. It is anyway, a terrible shame.

Religion most certainly carries that danger, Nin, but the problem, I believe, goes deeper than the existence of religion. Get rid of religion and you will not have eliminated the danger of extreme self-righteousness and self-justification from the human heart. The current Communist government in North Korea is as self-justifying and self-serving as it gets, and the horrors they are perpetuating on those who defy them, or those they deem to be dangers to the system, are as terrible as anything that can be imagined.

[Túrin Turambar]

Six random observations:

1. I agree with Nin’s point that this is particularly troubling because it represents the universalisation of the Islamic Fundamentalists’ moral code. They believe that publishing cartoons of Mohammed should carry the death penalty, and they have no issues with extending that rule to France (and Denmark, and the Netherlands, among other countries). You cannot completely escape them anywhere.

2. This also goes to show, again, that terrorist organisations are not the biggest threat to the west. Individuals without any contact with Islamic State (or who have fought in Syria and then returned) can be inspired by it to carry out attacks of their own. Particularly with the internet and Youtube.

3. Another feature of these sorts of attacks by Islamic extremists is their staggering brutality. The beheadings of aid workers by Islamic State, done slowly with a knife, the active targeting of schools and children (Peshwar, the attack on the Jewish school in France a few years ago, and Boko Haram), the shooting of the wounded (Muslim) police officer at point-blank range – this goes beyond the sorts of things done by the IRA or the Red Brigades (to my knowledge). This is a systemic barbarism like that of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Second World War. I read in the news today that Boko Haram has attacked a town in Nigeria and killed up to 2,000 people, mostly children and the elderly who were not able to run away fast enough. It occurs to me that Islamic State publishing such garish videos of executions is actually a recruitment tool, which raises some serious questions about how the people they’re recruiting end up thinking like this.

4. On that note, it is inevitable I suppose that terrorist attacks in Sydney and Paris get more coverage than those in the developing world, but it should not be forgotten that, in the time that Islamic extremists have killed a dozen people in Australia and France, they have killed hundreds of Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Nigeria. And that far more Iraqi and Syrian soldiers and Muslim Peshmerga fighters have been involved in the fight against them than western police officers.

5. It is a sad mathematical reality is that, even if violent extremists make up only 1% of 1% of the world’s Muslim population, that’s still 100,000 people. Easily enough to carry out fortnightly terrorist attacks across the world. Sydney, Peshwar, Paris – where next?

6. I am starting to become cynical about hashtag activism. #bringbackourgirls did nothing to stop Boko Haram – they have simply gone and kidnapped more girls. #illridewithyou doesn’t seem to have protected anyone – rather than being attacked or harassed on public transport as part of some sort of backlash that rarely eventuates, it has been shown yet again that the world’s Muslims are in far more danger from being killed by Muslim extremists (and I thought starting the campaign while the hostage situation in Sydney was still in progress was in pretty bad taste, but anyway). I doubt that #jesuischarlie will be any different. Would many of the people tweeting this message actually have the courage to publish provocative cartoons of Mohammed in the way that Charlie Hebdo did?

[Túrin Turambar]

And as if to further the point about the universalisation of Sharia Law, we can see a fine model for the Charlie Hebdo killers in our very own ally in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia, a blogger has been sentenced to a $266,000 fine, 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for insulting Islam. I hope I live to see the day that the west can kick its addiction to oil and tell the truly appalling regime in Riyadh exactly where to go.

[Frelga]

Meanwhile.

The front page of the upcoming "survivors" edition of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo shows a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad holding up a "Je suis Charlie" sign under the words: "All is forgiven".

The front page was released to media ahead of the magazine's publication on Wednesday, its first issue since an attack on the weekly's Paris offices last week left 12 people dead, including several cartoonists. It also shows Muhammad with a tear in his eye.

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/0 ... di_1179193

Those guys have guts.

[Nin]

Yes, they do. Emotion was vivid in the last days in France. The demonstration of sunday in Paris has been the hugest in that city since 1944 - since the liberation from the Germans... huger than may 1968, huger than France winning the World Cup or the bicentennial of the French Revolution. It is seen in the media as a Republican affirmation. There was no incidence of violence during the manifestation and most (but unfortunately not all) people take care of not making the mistake of mixing up islam and islamists, muslims and terrorists. Islam is the second religion in France. It is also important, that, while deep catholic in culture, France is totally laic in all official affairs. Religion is not taught at school and all religious symbols are banned from public schools, marriage is purely civic and so on.

It is hard to say what creates this much emotion. The number of victims is not so high and does not explain it - but a symbol has been attacked, something worth fighting for: the right to laugh about everything, including religion (and all religions), the right to be critic of everything, a right of free speech and free thought. Charlie Hebdo always had more admirers than readers and I often found them limit in their humor and not very funny, quite often. Usually I don't do Hashtags and changed profile pictures on Facebook, but I did this time. Not so much for the persons as for telling that this is something that I believe in: the pen (or the pencil) being mightier than the sword (or the machine gun). Something I want to believe in.

In the last days, Boko Haram has perpetuated a massacre in Nigeria, far more persons than in Paris. Yet, the emotion is not there. Of course, the indignation one can share is limited and it's just not possible to cry on every sad news.

[Slavex]

the march in Paris was a sad sad thing, it shows how powerless the western nations actually are in this fight. This is the best they could do, march. Sorry, not impressed. It's also a sad reality that the freedoms we enjoy are what allow this stuff to happen. Look at Iraq before they took out Hussein, it was relatively peaceful there, but that was because no one dared to do anything for fear of what would happen, and people randomly disappeared, some say to prove the point that no one was safe from his enforcers. No one would say this was the way to live, yet, it was safer than what exists now.
I expect that we will see more of these attacks, and other atrocities along with them and that this will be the standard for a long time.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I don't see how western nations are "powerless." Yes, terrorist attacks will happen from time to time, but they're hardly an existential threat when all such murderous idealists can do is shoot up office buildings and kill unarmed people. If anything, it's a humiliating blow to Islamist fanatics everywhere, and barely a blip for western nations, whose governments and societies are not only extraordinarily resilient in the face of such attacks, but also remarkably capable of bouncing back in defense of their system of government.

China's military buildup, the rise of explicitly anti-Semitic political movements in Europe, climate change and rapid population growth are far more existential concerns than pathetic Islamist terrorism, IMO.