Wanted: More, not Less, Blasphemers

After Islamic extremists opened fire inside Charlie Hebdo’s offices, editors worldwide had to decide whether or not to publish the offending cartoons. Some did, most didn’t. Big surprise. Christopher Massie cites the reason Slate’s editor-in-chief Julia Turner gave as to why she did publish them:

“What kind of magazine is Charlie Hebdo? What kind of work does it publish? What are the controversies it’s been embroiled in in the past? To help our readers begin to understand the answers to these questions and grasp what happened this morning in Paris, we wanted to show them the work.”

But hey, let not something as inconvenient as the facts or the truth get in the way of the offense takers and the never-give-offense-to-Muslims brigade who call themselves secular and liberal (Ironical, they call themselves liberal but don't want freedom of speech and expression!).

Unless, of course, it ridicules or mocks Christians (in India, replace that with Hindus). Like Time’s “giving in to the monsters that just massacred a bunch of people” (as Daily Beast editor Noah Shachtman puts it). So what exactly did Time do? They published a list of 18 Controversial Covers published by Charlie Hebdo. Guess what the list did not include? The Mohammed and offensive to Muslims ones! And what did it include? One of Pope Benedict XVI coming out as gay. And another of conference of “pedophile bishops” (one of whom appears to be a conniving, green-skinned Joseph Ratzinger). Yeah, because that’s what’s relevant here. Because it was a Christian fanatic who was the terrorist. Way to go, Time.

Ross Douthat wrote this great article on the “need” for blasphemy in the context of what happened at Charlie Hebdo. I repeat, in the context of what happened at Charlie Hebdo. Note that point before you read on.

He points out that “laws against blasphemy (usually described these days as “restrictions on hate speech”) are inherently illiberal”. While he states that:

“Liberty requires accepting the freedom to offend, yes, but it also allows people, institutions and communities to both call for and exercise restraint.”

Note that he says both are allowed. He also agrees that provocation for the heck of it (or worse, just for publicity) may not be something worth defending but then points out that “we are not in a vacuum”:

“The kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good.”

He goes on to say that we need more blasphemers in the current scenario:

“When offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.”

And:

“If publishing something might get you slaughtered and you publish it anyway, by definition you are striking a blow for freedom, and that’s precisely the context when you need your fellow citizens to set aside their squeamishness and rise to your defense.”

To conclude, I totally agree with this comment by a former Muslim who grew up in Saudi Arabia as the daughter of Pakistani expatriates and now lives in the US:

“I find the liberal cowardice around speaking out about Islamism disgusting.”