Via Twitter – the popularity of #jesuischarlie

That little bright spot in the northwest corner of the US/Southwest corner of Canada – that’s the Vancouver-Seattle corridor. C’est nous.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Stéphane Charbonnier in the Toronto Star in 2013 said firmly that Charlie Hebdo is not racist.

Charlie, our Charlie Hebdo, is feeling decidedly ill. Because an unbelievable lie is going around, among more and more people, and we hear it every day. According to them, Charlie Hebdo has become a racist sheet.

One day, an Arab taxi driver tells someone who works for the paper, whom he recognizes, to get out of his car – supposedly because of images mocking the Muslim religion. Another day, someone refuses to do an interview with us because he “doesn’t speak to a newspaper full of racists.”

We’re almost ashamed to recall that anti-racism and a passion for equality among all people are and continue to be the founding principles of Charlie Hebdo…

Mockery of religion does not equate to racism. Yes, it can be used as a proxy or stalking horse for racism or classism or xenophobia or other kinds of othering and hierarchy-policing. It can, but it needn’t, and it’s not right to treat the two as simply interchangeable.

Charlie Hebdo is the child of May ’68, of the spirit of freedom and insolence… The Charlie Hebdo of the 1970s helped to form the critical spirit of a generation. By mocking the powers and the powerful. By laughing, sometimes uproariously, at the ills of the world. And always, always, always by defending the human individual and his universal values…

It remains to understand why. Why has this ridiculous idea been spreading like a contagious disease? We are Islamaphobes, claim those who defame us. Which means, in their own kind of Newspeak, that we are racists. That’s how this backward thinking has won over so many people.

Forty years ago, it was considered obligatory to jeer, run down, even crap on religion. Anyone who set about to criticize the way the world was going could not fail to question the great power of the biggest clerical organizations. But according to some people, in truth more and more people, these days you’ve got to shut your mouth.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Tehmina sent me this Wednesday evening my time, moments after I’d gone offline for the day. It appeared at Left Foot Forward yesterday and now I’m cross-posting it (LFF is cool with that). Tehmina is the director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

Debunking Nine False Assumptions you may have heard in the aftermath of the Paris atrocities

False Assumption One

“Charlie Hebdo magazine was needlessly provocative.”

Manufacturers of outrage and assorted agitators do not need any kind of “provocation” for their actions.  When Jyllands-Posten published the Danish cartoons in September 2005, protests in Muslim-majority countries did not start until four months later.  Mona Eltahawy’s interview with Jytte Klausen, the Danish-born author of the Yale Press’s forthcoming book, “Cartoons That Shook the World,” recognised that lag. According to Yale Press’s Web site, she argues that Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not spontaneous but, rather, that it was orchestrated “first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt,” and later by “extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria.”

Further, Quilliam Foundation Director and Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Maajid Nawaz re-tweeted a “Jesus and Mo” cartoon on 12^th January 2014.  Most of the people who called for his de-selection – and helped to whip up the resultant furore – conveniently ignored his original mention of the cartoons on the BBC’s “Big Questions” programme earlier.  The broadcast itself attracted barely a whisper on social media.

False Assumption Two

“The Left should defend all expressions of Islam at all costs.”

Professor Karima Bennoune said it best in her article, “Why Bill Maher and Ben Affleck are both wrong” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karima-bennoune/bill-maher-ben-affleck-islam_b_5937838.html): “We do not need either stereotypical generalizations, or minimizing responses to fundamentalism, however well-intentioned. What we need is a principled, anti-racist critique of Muslim fundamentalism that pulls no punches, but that also distinguishes between Islam (the diverse religious tradition) and Islamism (an extreme right wing political ideology).  We need support, understanding and to have our existence recognised.”

False Assumption Three

“The French hate Muslims, don’t they?”

From the Pew Global Attitudes survey 2014, which interviewed 7,022 citizens in seven European countries, 72% of French citizens polled said they had a favourable opinion of Muslims in their country (http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/2014-05-12_Pew-Global-Attitudes-European-Union.pdf).  This was higher than Italy, Greece, Poland, Spain, Germany, and even the UK.

False Assumption Four

“‘Not in our name’ campaigns are a real help!”

As well-intentioned as these undoubtedly are, they send out a problematic subliminal message to non-Muslims: that Muslims are unwilling to sort out the problems in their own back yard.  No-one is expecting us to eradicate all gender segregation in public events overnight, or to change the minds of all homophobic preachers in a few months, or to re-introduce music lessons in all Muslim-majority schools that have cancelled them.  No-one is saying that we have to devote several years of our lives and careers doing this (as I have). However, we are expected to make some effort to condemn obscurantism from all quarters, or as much as we are able to within our own circles of influence.  Given that the Qu’ran takes such a strong line on humans challenging injustice wherever we find it, this shouldn’t be too difficult.

False Assumption Five

“Religious minorities have less to gain from democratic freedoms than the majority.”

The same legislation that promotes freedom of expression also protects freedom of religion, and from religion.  Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion (unless state interference with these is shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim).  In a non-legal context, the culture of rights and freedoms we have in the UK leads to strong civil society projects that monitor anti-Muslim attacks, such as Tell MAMA.

False Assumption Six

“Condemnation is sufficient.”

Sombre press releases and widely-shared Facebook updates are better than nothing, but many of their authors have inadvertently contributed to the problem in the past.  How?  By endorsing blasphemy laws, treating the words of Zakir Naik and Junaid Jamshed as gospel, or turning a blind eye when feminist or progressive Muslim activists (like Sara Khan of Inspire) are viciously attacked for their work on Twitter.

False Assumption Seven

“It is always someone else’s fault.”

Then there are those who won’t even condemn acts of violence and terrorism, but automatically paint the attacks as false-flag operations, with a cast of extras to rival “Titanic.”  In my experience, attempting to reason with these people is a waste of time and energy.  Better to leave them to their echo chambers.

False Assumption Eight

“Beliefs deserve more protection than people.”

Under the Equality Act 2010, beliefs are only protected insofar as they apply to the rights of individuals.  For instance, it is unlawful for someone to discriminate against you because of your religion or belief (or because you have no religion or belief):

• in any aspect of employment
• when providing goods, facilities and services
• when providing education
• in using or disposing of premises, or
• when exercising public functions.

False Assumption Nine

“The way forward is to treat each event as a passing accident of horror.”

Laissez-faire approaches like these have led us to the near-perpetual state of tragedy we are in.  These acts are neither passing nor accidental; they are part of one long atrocity continuum, compounded by mainstream society’s cowardice and unwillingness to champion unpopular causes.  Instead, campaigning groups that happily take on the far-right should challenge the Muslim right-wing with equal ferocity, rather than giving their behaviour a free pass.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally a comment by Salty Current on Charlie Hebdo is not racist.

This is a tough one. I don’t think you can legitimately make the claim that Charlie Hebdo was a racist publication, but to say as a blanket statement that it was not racist, full stop? That seems extremely unlikely, given what we know about the pervasiveness of racism*.

I didn’t write that title, but honestly if this is how people are going to be arguing, I don’t think a real discussion can be had. People haven’t been making general statements like “No one’s immune from racism.” They’ve been arguing for the past day or so that CH is a racist publication, using a couple of cartoons as alleged illustrations. The clear implication is that they are espousing racist ideas in the manner of Minute and other racist publications, using racist tropes and dog whistles for humor not caring about who’s hurt, or at the very least disregarding whether their content promotes racism. People are just flinging these claims out there and then failing even to acknowledge when the images’ context and intent are revealed to them.

The idea that racism is pervasive and so therefore they’re racist like everyone is just vacuous here. References to people you know who found certain (uncited) images racist are a problem. As was discussed on the other thread, many people are taking the images at face value, without knowing, in one case, that an image was explicitly targeted at a racist rightwing publication. People are interpreting the cartoons and speculating about their effects without knowing relevant facts about their targets, the contemporary political context, the historical context, CH’s history, the local history of visual humor, or their public reputation (the fact that they openly consider themselves to be and present themselves as an antiracist publication doesn’t, of course, mean that they’re purified of any racism, but it’s certainly relevant to the assessment of both racist intent and the local reception of the images).

Sure, but that implies there isn’t a racist Left.

No, it doesn’t. I’m trying to understand why people are seizing on a couple of putative examples as evidence of CH’s racism, ignoring their intent and the context of the images’ production and reception to cling to weak arguments about possible splash damage and so on. Why people are allowing others to declare that it’s a racist publication and “Je ne suis pas Charlie” and the like while demanding that anyone challenging these claims prove that CH is entirely free of any trace of racism, even unintentional, or let the claims stand. I find this morally and intellectually irresponsible, and I’m trying to understand the reasons people might be doing it. One motivation that I’ve experienced is that we recognize the danger of millions of people being seen as allied with and encouraging the FN and other violent far-Right European parties, so we want to make sure that isn’t the message we’re sending by showing solidarity with CH. But vetting CH shouldn’t mean demanding perfection, or failing to appreciate the complexities and pitfalls of political humor in this context. We’re far from perfect ourselves.

Charlie Hebdo’s intent with the particular cartoons that are appearing as examples, while important and significant, isn’t any more magic than anyone else’s.

Magic and highly relevant are not the same thing.

(I also know a few people who are clearly over-compensating because I know they do not know enough about not being white or the French cultural context to make a decent judgment on whether any of the cartoons are racist.)

I see it as wise and basic fairness to people who were just massacred to try to understand the situation as well as possible before forming judgments.

Ultimately, I don’t think it’s useful at this point to either make the claim that Charlie Hebdo was a racist publication or that it wasn’t racist at all. I think both are pretty clearly false. I do think it’s important to remember and celebrate and perpetuate what the victims stood for, even when their execution was flawed.

Ultimately, I think that’s an empty comment. It suggests that there is no definition of racist or possibility of intelligent investigation of the evidence to come to any even tentative conclusion. It fails to remember or perpetuate what they stood for, or even to show any real concern with finding out what they stood for.

***

Yes. He was. I’m appalled to see that racism, transphobia and misogyny defended.

This thread is about racism. You haven’t seen racism defended here. You’ve seen people who are trying to form a fair and informed impression of other imperfect human beings.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

From the IHEU –

IHEU ‏@IHEU 1 hour ago
The international symbol of humanism; redesigned in solidarity.

http://iheu.org/iheu-statement-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/ …

#JeSuisCharlie #FreeRaif

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Bill Donohue put out one of his press releases yesterday, saying that the people at Charlie Hebdo deserved what they got.

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.

Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.

Evil theocratic bastard. Yes we should and must tolerate satire of “religious figures.” There’s nothing special about religious figures, and they don’t get to have magic circles drawn around them. Bill Donohue lives in a secular democracy with strong protections for freedom of the press. If he wants Catholic fascism, he’ll have to emigrate (though I’m not sure where to; falangism isn’t very popular these days).

While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger againstCharlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence. This, however, does not empty the issue. Madison was right when he said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”

Vile, disgusting, hateful man.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The New Yorker’s next cover, by Ana Juan:

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Maryam also rejects the claim that the people at Charlie Hebdo brought the massacre on themselves or even perhaps deserved it.

A quick look at the English-speaking media shows that whilst many condemn the violence itself, they also assert that Charlie Hebdo courted (and maybe deserved?) a strong response from “Muslims”. Charlie’s regular cartoonists did not spare Islam, any other religion, nor fanatics and bigots.

This trend in the media requires our attention. Apparently secularists, agnostics and atheists must keep silent and do not deserve the kind of respect that believers are entitled to; nor can they enjoy free speech to the same degree.

Religion and religious figures deserve respect; people with no religion and thus no religious figures – they’re on their own.

In the name of “respect” of religions and of the religious sentiments of believers, it is indeed the fanatical religious-Right that is being supported and given centre stage. Meanwhile, those who are on the forefront of countering armed fundamentalists are left to their own devices. It is high time to give these secularists prominence, to recognise their courage and their political clarity and to stop labelling them “Islamophobic”.

In October 2014, secularists – including atheists, agnostics and believers from many countries, in particular many Muslim-majority countries, met in London to denounce the religious-Right and to demand being seen as its alternative. It is high time to learn from their analysis and lived experiences.

The tragic massacre in Paris will undoubtedly give fuel to the traditional xenophobic far-Right and the immediate danger is an increase in racism, marginalization and exclusion of people of Muslim descent in Europe and further.  We do not want to witness “anti-Muslim witch hunts” nor do we welcome the promotion of “moderate” Islamists by governments as official political partners. What is needed is a straightforward analysis of the political nature of armed Islamists: they are an extreme-Right political force, working under the guise of religion and they aim at political power. They should be combated by political means and mass mobilisation, not by giving extra privileges to any religion.

Their persistent demand for the extension of blasphemy laws around the world is a real danger for all. France has a long – and now growingly endangered – tradition of secularism; which allows dissent from religions and the right to express this dissent. It has had a rich tradition to mock and caricature powers that be – religious or otherwise. Let us keep this hard won right which cost so many lives in history, and, alas, still does – as Charlie Hebdo’s twelve dead and numerous wounded demonstrate.

There follows a list of signatures. You can add yours in the comments.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Salty Current has a post explaining the nature of Charlie Hebdo’s satire.

In 2011, I recommended a documentary about the paper and their struggles surrounding the publication of anti-Islamist cartoons. What struck me in the film, surprising given the paper’s (often self-promoted) image as not just irreverent but irresponsible, was how thoughtfully the people at Charlie Hebdo approached humor in this case.

Guess what, they didn’t approach it the way, say, Ricky Gervais does, basically saying that (as Salty puts it) “humor should offend.”

The attitude of the editors at Charlie Hebdo, as shown in the film, was quite different.

They recognized the potential for harm to innocent people and went to great lengths to avoid, as far as possible, provoking racist sentiment, trying to ensure that the humor itself was clearly targeted at Islamists and wouldn’t be seen as a characterization of Muslims generally. Rather than using an appeal to free speech as a blanket justification for any statements, they acted to defend everyone’s right to publish – without much support from the government or the rest of the French media – while remaining thoughtful about what they did say. Their publication of these satirical cartoons, they emphasized, formed part of a history of satirizing numerous religions and political tendencies.

The people at Charlie Hebdo have been courageous, refusing to shrink from sharply mocking even the most humorless and violent. But it would be a disservice to present them as heedless provocateurs or martyrs of a freedom of speech devoid of all content and ethical responsibility, or to react to this attack in a careless and stupid manner. As portrayed in the documentary, they represent an approach to humor that is as thoughtful and responsible as it is raucous and hard-hitting. That, I believe, should guide the response to this vicious attack.

I’ll have to see that documentary.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Photos via Stephanie Beauge of AFP on Twitter:

New York Times World @nytimesworld · 4 hours ago
A crowd gathered in Toulouse for the national moment of silence for the #CharlieHebdo victims http://nyti.ms/1tR6TG7

This one made me choke up:

Grégoire Lemarchand @greglemarchand · 5 hours ago
#JeSuisCharlie #AFP

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Meanwhile things continue to get more horrendous every day in northern Nigeria.

Bodies lay strewn on the streets of a key north-eastern Nigerian town following an assault by militant Islamists, officials have told the BBC.

The Boko Haram group attacked Baga town on Wednesday, after over-running a military base there on Saturday, they said.

Almost the entire town had been torched and the militants were now raiding nearby areas, they added.

…

Musa Alhaji Bukar, a senior government official in the area, said that fleeing residents told him that Baga, which had a population of about 10,000, was now “virtually non-existent”.

“It has been burnt down,” he told the BBC Hausa service.

Ten thousand people either killed or driven away – that’s “ethnic cleansing” on a large scale.

The BBC includes tragic pictures.

Boko Haram was now in control of Baga and 16 neighbouring towns after the military retreated, Mr Bukar said.

While he raised fears that some 2,000 had been killed in the raids, other reports put the number in the hundreds.

…

Fleeing residents spoke of the stench of rotting corpses on the streets and surrounding bushes, he said.

That’s Boko Haram.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Maryam wrote a letter to Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief, Gerard Biard.

Dear Gerard

I spoke on a panel with you in November last year at the International Feminist and Secular Network in Paris.

I am writing to express my outrage at the cold-blooded murder of freethinkers at Charlie Hebdo today and to give my unequivocal support.

Freedom of expression and the criticism of religion and Islam are basic rights. Clearly, free expression without the right to criticise religion is meaningless. Throughout history, criticism of religion (that which is deemed sacred or taboo) has been intrinsic to human progress.

And that, of course, is exactly why the murderous theocrats hate it and kill it wherever they can. They don’t want human progress. They want human stagnation and submission, with themselves as enforcers.

The Islamists who killed today said they were “avenging” Islam’s prophet but Mohammed cartoons are merely an excuse. The aim of such acts of terrorism – whether in Paris or Afghanistan – are to defend their theocratic and inhuman values. They must know that we too will defend our human values – secularism, equality, citizenship, the right to religion and to be free from religion, the right to criticise and mock religion… which are not “western” values but universal ones.

Today’s killers are part of the same movement that massacres schoolchildren in Peshawar, throws acid in the faces of “improperly veiled” women in Iran and crucifies secularists in Kobane.

And destroys whole towns in Nigeria.

The battle to commemorate the lives lost today is an ongoing one. It’s a battle between secularists versus theocrats everywhere. And it is a fight that we have to win. No ifs or buts.

In solidarity

Maryam Namazie

She’s right you know.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A press release from CFI – more horror in the world – this time not from people we can safely label terrorists but from our motherfucking allies. This isn’t black-clad murderers storming an office in Paris, it’s Saudi Arabia in all its respectable state glory, meting out ONE THOUSAND LASHES to Raif Badawi for the crime of uttering humanist values in public.

Raif Badawi, the Saudi Arabian human rights activist serving a decade in prison for “insulting Islam” and running a liberal website, will begin to suffer the first 50 of his 1000 lashes tomorrow morning, the Center for Inquiry has learned. CFI demands that the Saudi Arabian government end this persecution, forego this brutal punishment, and free Raif immediately.

“It’s not too late for Saudi officials to discover their humanity and make the choice to spare Raif this barbaric cruelty,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of CFI. “The notion that Islam or any religion must be protected from questioning is incompatible with fundamental human rights, and can motivate extremists to engage in outrageous acts, as confirmed by the attacks in Paris. It is human beings who deserve respect, and it is the right to free expression that must be protected.”

Said Lindsay, “We unequivocally demand that Raif not be harmed and that he be released without charge, and we also ask the world community to stand with us in pressuring Saudi Arabia to do the right thing.”

Badawi, a 30-year-old father of three, was convicted of “insulting Islam” and other crimes of dissent in 2013 for helping to found the website Liberal Saudi Network, which was dedicated to fostering debate on religion and politics, and promoting respect for the freedom of religion, belief, and expression, as well as women’s rights. For his crime, Badawi was sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes, which was in May increased to 10 years and 1000 lashes, plus an onerous fine and a ban on travel and access to electronic media for 10 years following his prison term.

A Saudi Government official will flog Badawi in public after Friday prayers in front of al-Jafali mosque in Jeddah.

In December, CFI acquired a rare official judicial document from Saudi Arabia’s criminal court in Jeddah, which outlined the quasi-theocratic reasoning upon which it punishes those who dare question the government or its interpretation of Islam. More: http://bit.ly/CFI_Badawi_Doc

CFI has repeatedly spoken out on Badawi’s behalf at the UN Human Rights Council, and on one such occasion this past July, the Saudi delegation tried unsuccessfully to shout down CFI’s spokesperson. In addition, CFI has also held protests, waged publicity campaigns, and worked alongside diplomatic allies to free Raif Badawi and return him to his family. Learn more about CFI’s efforts to fight blasphemy laws and other forms of religious persecution at the Campaign for the Free Expression. (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cfe)

It’s absolutely horrific, and these are not criminals hunted by the police, they are government officials in a state that is an ally of the US and the UK and other more-or-less secular democracies. Never forget that. Our governments suborn covertly endorse these horrors.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Via Twitter

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Last night one of the items in the BBC World Service’s coverage of the Charlie Hebdo massacre was sound from the Paris protest: people chanting “je m’appelle Charlie” over and over. It made me lachrymose all over again – somehow the “je m’appelle” was an extra tug.

This is agonizing to look at too.

Via BipartisanReport

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Via NBC Nightly News on Twitter:

NBC Nightly News ‏@NBCNightlyNews 8 minutes ago
PHOTOS: Eiffel Tower goes dark in honor of those killed in yesterday’s terror attack pic.twitter.com/186xbDsvuz

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Shaheen Hashmat addresses the problem of what to do when a religion is hijacked by violent fanatics.

I am not religious myself, but I do come from a Muslim background. I know how widely beliefs and values can differ within the same family. And I have first-hand experience of how difficult it can be to express criticism, or opposing viewpoints, to those who are conservative in their outlook. Especially when they are close relatives.

It’s this feeling that, many agree, has led to the identity crisis currently occurring within Islam. There is much disagreement among Muslims themselves about which is the true interpretation to follow.

Of course the actions of radical sects are unacceptable by any moral code that values basic human rights – and it’s important to understand that the majority of Muslims find them as abhorrent as the rest of us. But, despite the rejection of such extremists as ‘true’ Muslims, I believe it’s important to accept that there are some hardcore, right-wing sects of Islam that do adhere to literal interpretations of the Q’uran.

Just as there have been and still are hardcore, right-wing sects of Christianity that do adhere to literal interpretations of the bible. Some of them have been violent, and/or endorsed violence.

Acts of terrorism, preceded by cries of ‘Allah Akbar’ (God is greatest), are now being carried out by a growing body of religious fundamentalists, who are successfully claiming their version of ‘Muslim’ as the only true definition of the term.

Having personally endured, within my own family, the abuse that is so often justified in the name of Islam, I am continually frustrated to see this replicated at an international level and denied as being an issue within moderate religious groups.

By acknowledging this, I am emphatically not dismissing the equally worrying issue of anti-Muslim bigotry. I’m just as committed to fighting that as I am to combating terrorism.

But a religion is defined by its followers. They are the ones who interpret scripture and incorporate it into everyday practice. So it’s vital, should that religion be ‘hijacked’ in any way, that the majority at least discusses the problem.

Silence won’t help.

As arrests are made in the hunt for the gunmen responsible for yesterday’s horrific attack, one thing is very clear: free speech – and the freedom to speak out against extremist, non-democratic behaviour, whether in the press or your community – is our most precious resource and must be protected at all costs.

The Muslim community must step up to the plate, along with everyone else.

We really are all Charlie Hebdo in the sense that we are all vulnerable to the men with guns. Free discussion and respect for human rights are our only defense.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Via Gnu Atheism on Facebook:

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Tehmina tackles nine false assumptions about the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

False Assumption One

‘Charlie Hebdo magazine was needlessly provocative’

Manufacturers of outrage and assorted agitators do not need any kind of ‘provocation’ for their actions. When Jyllands-Posten published the Danish cartoons in September 2005, protests in Muslim-majority countries did not start until four months later.

The outrage and the resulting protests (and riots and killings) were worked up. They were worked up by some reactionary clerics, one of whom has since publicly regretted what he did.

False Assumption Four

‘Not in Our Name campaigns are helpful’

As well-intentioned as these undoubtedly are, the ‘Not in my name’ campaigns spearheaded by Muslims send out a problematic subliminal message to non-Muslims: that Muslims are unwilling to sort out the problems in their own back yard.

No-one is expecting us to eradicate all gender segregation in public events overnight, or to change the minds of all homophobic preachers in a few months, or to re-introduce music lessons in all Muslim-majority schools that have cancelled them. No-one is saying that we have to devote several years of our lives and careers doing this (as I have).

However, we are expected to make some effort to condemn obscurantism from all quarters, or as much as we are able to within our own circles of influence. Given that the Qu’ran takes such a strong line on humans challenging injustice wherever we find it, this shouldn’t be too difficult.

If only there were a million Tehminas.

False Assumption Six

‘Condemnation is sufficient’

Sombre press releases and widely-shared Facebook updates are better than nothing, but many of their authors have inadvertently contributed to the problem in the past.

How?

By endorsing blasphemy laws, treating the words of Zakir Naik and Junaid Jamshed as gospel, or turning a blind eye when feminist or progressive Muslim activists (like Sara Khan of Inspire) are viciously attacked for their work on Twitter.

Maajid Nawaz is another who is viciously and endlessly attacked for his work.

False Assumption Seven

‘It is always someone else’s fault’

Then there are those who won’t even condemn acts of violence and terrorism, but automatically paint the attacks as false-flag operations, with a cast of extras to rival ‘Titanic’. In my experience, attempting to reason with these people is a waste of time and energy. Better to leave them to their echo chambers.

And the last one:

False Assumption Nine

‘The way forward is to treat each event as a passing accident of horror’

Laissez-faire approaches like these have led us to the predicament we are in. These acts are neither passing nor accidental; they are part of one long atrocity continuum, compounded by mainstream society’s cowardice and unwillingness to champion unpopular causes.

Instead, campaigning groups that happily take on the far-right should challenge the Muslim right-wing with equal ferocity, rather than giving their behaviour a free pass.

There was a segment in CNN’s coverage last night in which a journalist talked about “both sides” in France – the far right and the Islamists – as if Islamists were on the left. The far right and the Islamists are not both sides, they are the same side, even though they hate each other. Islamists are in no way on the left.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A cringe-free statement from  Charlie Klendjian, Secretary of the Lawyers’ Secular Society:

The Lawyers’ Secular Society condemns unequivocally the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo which has left at least twelve people dead.

But that is the easy part. Equally unequivocally, we affirm the right to free speech even – indeed especially – where this mocks, offends and ridicules religious sensibilities.

The first word we should hear after the statement “free speech is important” is“therefore”. It is not “but”.

Precisely. I’ve been hearing way too many “buts” about Charlie Hebdo. Way too many “but it’s not ok to mock anyone’s sacred figures.” Nonsense. If it’s not ok to mock the sacred, then we’re all stuck in the groveling child role. “Sacred figures” are a scam to coerce money or deference or obedience or submission or all of those out of people who are seen as inferiors to the sacred figure. Satire tells us there are no sacred figures, there are only people.

We are appalled that so many news outlets, in reporting this massacre, have again chosen to self-censor. Their calls for “solidarity” seem hollow at best.

Religious ideas are not immune from scrutiny, criticism or ridicule. The more they seek to be, the more they present a compelling reason why they should not be.

Free speech without the right to mock, offend or ridicule is not free speech. Without free speech there is no freedom.

What we have seen in France is the application of de facto sharia law, for the “crime” of blasphemy. Blasphemy codes, whether informal or formal, have no place whatsoever in a civilised society. The best way to defeat them is to breach them: repeatedly, proudly, defiantly and unapologetically.

Freedom is in grave peril and we must defend it with all our might.

We have to cling hard to the right to blaspheme.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)