Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

idlewhile
Community Member

PROTESTERS around the West, horrified by the massacre in Paris, have held up pens and chanted “Je suis Charlie” — I am Charlie.

 

They lie. The Islamist terrorists are winning, and the coordinated attacks on the Charlie Hebdomagazine and kosher shop will be just one more success. One more step to our gutless surrender.

 

Al-Qaeda in Yemen didn’t attack Charlie Hebdo because we are all Charlie Hebdo.

 

The opposite. It sent in the brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi because Charlie Hebdo was almost alone.

Unlike most politicians, journalists, lawyers and other members of our ruling classes, this fearless magazine dared to mock Islam in the way the Left routinely mocks Christianity. Unlike much of our ruling class, it refused to sell out our freedom to speak.

Its greatest sin — to the Islamists — was to republish the infamous cartoons of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten which mocked Mohammed, and then to publish even more of its own, including one showing the Muslim prophet naked.

Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no.

 

No Australian newspaper dared published those pictures, too, bar one which did so in error.

The Obama administration three years ago even attacked Charlie Hebdo for publishing the naked Mohammed cartoon, saying it was “deeply offensive”.

 

President Barack Obama even told the United Nations “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” and damned a YouTube clip “Innocence of Muslims” which did just that. The filmmaker was thrown in jail.

We are all Charlie?

 

In Australia, Charlie Hebdo would almost certainly be sued into silence, to the cheers of some of the very protesters now claiming to be its great defenders.

 

Victoria now has absurd religious vilification laws, thanks to Labor, that were first used to punish two Christian preachers who at a seminar quoted the Koran’s teaching on jihad and — complained the judge — made their audience laugh.

 

Australia also has oppressive racial vilification laws which Prime Minister Tony Abbott had promised to relax but last year decided to keep, saying changing them would become a “complication” in making Muslim Australians side with the rest of us against jihadists.

One more surrender, and did you note how most “serious” journalists brayed for this muzzle? Celebrated when two of my own articles were banned?

 

But our journalists haven’t really needed a muzzle. They have been only too eager to shut themselves up rather than call out the growing threat of jihadism, brought to us by insanely stupid programs of mass immigration from the Third World.

 

When Dutch political leader Geert Wilders toured Australia to warn against the danger Islamism posed to our physical safety and our freedom, he was treated as a pariah and the protesters who pushed and heckled his audience were handed the microphone instead.

When jihadists screaming “Allahu Akbar” shot dead US soldiers at Fort Hood or coffee shop patrons in Sydney, ABC and Fairfax journalists pretended they had no idea what ideology could have motivated such slaughter.

 

When Boko Haram jihadists screaming “Allahu Akbar” kidnapped nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls, forcing them to convert to Islam and selling them to be raped, Islamist apologist and terrorism lecturer Waleed Aly refused even to acknowledge on Channel 10 that Boko Haram actually had an Islamist agenda, describing it merely as a group of vigilantes.

 

 

An armed police officer in Paris.

An armed police officer in Paris.

 

And when SBS filmed the then Mufti of Australia, Sheik Hilaly, praising suicide bombers as heroes in the Lakemba mosque just days before the September 11 attacks, it refused to air the footage for fear we might get the “wrong idea”.

This will go on. Be sure of it. Your ruling classes will not easily admit to having made an error that cannot now be fixed. It will prefer oppression to freedom, if that brings at least the illusion of peace — and many may even think they are right.

Hear already the lies.

 

You are told Muslim groups condemn the killings as unIslamic. Yet the Koran and Hadith preach death to unbelievers who mock Islam, and tell of Mohammed killing poets, singing girls and others who made fun of him.

No greater authority than the Ayatollah Khomeini, the then spiritual ruler of Iran, ordered the killing of writer Salman Rushdie for making mock of Islam in his The Satanic Verses.

 

We are also told the pen is mightier than the sword, but tell that to the people in the Charlie Hebdo office who found their fistfuls of pens no match for two Kalashnikovs.

 

Tell that now to even the brave leaders of Jyllands-Posten, who, after years of jihadist plots against their staff have had enough, refusing now to republish cartoons from Charlie Hebdo for fear of yet more attacks.

“It shows that violence works,” it admitted.

Everywhere you will find other papers making the same call.

We are all Charlie?

Bull. Absolute self-serving rubbish. The sell-outs are everywhere and will grow stronger.

The West’s political leaders have already told Muslim leaders they agree that mocking Islam is a sin, and have even passed laws — in France, too — making it unlawful.

 

They have attacked the very few journalists and politicians who dared warn against the Islamist threat.

Some now back Muslim demands for a boycott of Israel or at least greater recognition for the terrorists who run large parts of Palestinian territory.

 

Anything for peace, even if it means 
submission.

And for all the protests this past week, submission is what you must expect.

 
Message 1 of 93
Latest reply
92 REPLIES 92

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

The horror of the effect does not make the cause any less reprehensible.

 

 

when you questioned their right to

publish the cartoons - what right were

you talking about?

 

they were not actually breaking any

laws, as far as i know. (no blasphemy 

laws in france)

 

if any content was found to be libelous -

there is the option of taking legal action.

 

Reprehensible does not mean the same thing as illegal. And while there is such a thing as a moral right - as opposed to legal right - what I said regarding the right to publish was that the right to NOT be assassinated despite publshing rerehensible material, does not IMPLY a right to publish that material - meaning the one does not automatically follow from the other.. 

Message 51 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

Were you to plot a perfect satirical novel of the contemporary world, you might end it with a mass public march, led by a series of oligarchical leaders holding a banner saying "Freedom and Democracy" -- at the end of which everyone who participated would be arrested because they may well be enemies of such freedom and you can't be too careful.
We are well on the way to that. Yesterday in Paris there was a march for "free speech", occasioned by the evisceration of a satire/outrage magazine whose repeated focus gag was **bleep**-takes of Muhammad, and to a lesser extent of Jesus, the Pope, rabbis, etc. The march was led by, led by, a group of characters including:
* The Prime Minister of Turkey, the country which has jailed more journalists than anyone in the world
* The Foreign Minister of Egypt, which has Peter Greste and two other Al Jazeera staff serving 10-year prison terms on absurd charges/convictions
* Putin’s Foreign Minister, a government whose shadowy affiliated gangs have murdered dozens of journalists in the past decade and a half
* The Foreign Minister of Bahrain ('nuff said).
* The Prime Minister of Poland, whose government raided the Polish Charlie Hebdo equivalent when it "embarrassed" the government
* The Prime Minister of Ireland, where blasphemy remains an enforced criminal offence
* A sheikh from Qatar, where people are serving 15-year terms for "blasphemous" poetry
* Leaders of Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and the Palestinian territories, who all jailed journos
* Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Israel Defence Force lethally targeted journos during the Gaza invasion
* UK Prime Minister David Cameron, where Defence Advisory Notices and super-injunctions keep a host of live information from the public
* The Saudi ambassador to France, whose country has handed out a thousand lashes to a man convicted of blasphemy
* The Secretary-General of NATO, which deliberately bombed the Belgrade station of Yugoslav public TV during the Kosovo operation, killing 16 journalists
* The US Attorney-General, who works for a government which has cracked down harder on whistleblowers than any other.
Message 52 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

People who say that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't be publishing articles and cartoons which cause offence need to understand that the magazine is publishing not solely in order to  cause offence just for the sake of causing offence.

 

The magazine is publishing such "offensive" cartoons in deliberate reaction to some very offensive ideas and actions by some representatives and/or members of the Islamic faith.

 

CH publishes in order to make a social commentary on the offensively murderous actions of people who claim to be Muslim and who claim to be acting out ideas which they say they find consisent with their religious belief.

 

To say that CH (and other media) should refrain from publishing "offensive" material is to call for them to stand by idly and say nothing in the face of outrageously offensive actions of certain people who claim authority to act as they do by virtue of their religious faith and what it teaches them.

 

 

No, it's not ok to censure CH for commenting on the atrocious religion-inspired activities of certain mad people who cause death to those whom they hate.

 

Charlie Hebdo's  courage to comment on religiously-inspired violence, even in the face of personal danger, is to be absolutely appluaded and supported.

 

 

Message 53 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

Charlie Hebdo's  courage to comment on religiously-inspired violence, even in the face of personal danger, is to be absolutely appluaded and supported.

 

What about their gratuitously insulting cartoons that had no other purpose than to offend large groups of people who had never been violent themselves of incited  others to violence? - should we applaud them too

Message 54 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

they are not making social commetary though, they are ridiculing ticking timebombs, didn't that work out well for them hey.

Message 55 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

Yes, they are making commentary on a religious opinion which has threatened and which continues to threaten those who offer disagreement.

 

CH have put their very lives where their mouth is in order to condemn, in cartoons, a really dangerous and threatening  ideology, and if some people find it offensive for them to do that, well all I can do is scratch my head in bewilderment at such an attitude.

Message 56 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

"What about their gratuitously insulting cartoons that had no other purpose than to offend large groups of people who had never been violent themselves of incited  others to violence? - should we applaud them too"

 

Examples, please? or links to examples to illustrate your point, otherwise I cannot respond with an informed opinion. Satire is social commentary and it is commentary about either actions or about ideas and attitudes which inform actions.

Message 57 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

It isn't just satire though, is it? It goes way past that.

Message 58 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

Please expand. what isn't satire and how does it go "way past that"?

 

I feel like i'm channeling Bob. 😉

 

 

 

 

Message 59 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

You can figure it out.

Message 60 of 93
Latest reply