Glen Greenwald, famous as Edward Snowden’s confidante
I had been working on a piece about the terrorist attack in Paris, being, as I was, especially disgusted by the hypocritical apotheosis of free speech in the wake of the murders (which was emphasised in preference to the far more worrying anti – Semitic element in the second attack on a Kosher Supermarket). It was all the more nauseating to see the press fall over each other to remind us that the attacks took place because of the ‘taboo’ of depicting the Prophet Muhammad (which is so ‘taboo’ that numerous Muslim artists in the past have done it without getting harmed in any way) and showing only the most innocuous of the images, while very deliberately sparing us the worst examples which included vulgar, nude, sexual and racist depictions of The Prophet of Islam (and black people. And Jews).
This could be no coincidence – the idea was to ensure that the attacks were framed in a ‘free speech’ and clash of values/cultures narrative with a ‘look these Muslims are trying to force you to follow their religious edicts’ manner as opposed to how we would view someone who was killed for cussing out someone else’s mother (or indeed baiting a maniacal terrorist organisation and getting themselves and a bunch of other people killed in the process) – it’s still murder but lets face it, we would have a lot less sympathy, especially if the guys they insisted on ‘Yo’ mamma’-ing were already genocidal brain cases. To this end, as I mentioned, the press ‘self censored’ by deliberately showing the least racist or offensive cartoons, seemingly to try and make the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ team look less vile than they in fact were, as many other honest commentators have noted.
That of course does not excuse murder, but the attempt to generate excess sympathy for what was bunch of xenophobic bigots shot dead by terrorist maniacs was a disgraceful exercise in propaganda of the very worst Cold War variety. It was even more loathsome to see millions demonstrating and insisting that ‘I am Charlie’, (or ‘I am a racist twat’ as it could equally be put). Again, as other commentators have said, defending free speech and condemning terror (as we must do) does not mean we must give exposure and approval to the ilk of the noxious ‘Charlie Hebdo’.
However, I had to stop writing altogether when I saw Glen Greenwald’s masterful article on the same subject – he put it much better than I could and why multiply responsa beyond necessity? So I reproduce it here in it’s entirety.
I also want to add that many Muslims should read this with a certain introspection, in that an openly gay (he’s married to man) Jew (though not ‘Bar Mitzvah-ed’, as Zionists are forever reminding us) is taking such an outspoken risk to stand up for the truth in a manner that can only harm him and will not gain him any purchase from the largely closed minded Muslim community that he seeks to assist.
His response is much better than the largely woeful Muslim responses I have seen, and so is his character.
Greenwald’s article originally published here (with many useful links and references which could not be ported over):https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/
And another ‘free speech’ cock – up here, where a man is arrested for making a ‘Twitter’ joke about accident victims in Glasgow:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-30585301
Forty-eight hours after hosting a massive march under the banner of free expression, France opened a criminal investigation of a controversial French comedian for a Facebook post he wrote about the Charlie Hebdo attack, and then this morning, arrested him for that post on charges of “defending terrorism.” The comedian, Dieudonné (above), previously sought elective office in France on what he called an “anti-Zionist” platform, has had his show banned by numerous government officials in cities throughout France, and has been criminally prosecuted several times before for expressing ideas banned in that country.
The apparently criminal viewpoint he posted on Facebook declared: “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.” Investigators concluded that this was intended to mock the “Je Suis Charlie” slogan and express support for the perpetrator of the Paris supermarket killings (whose last name was “Coulibaly”). Expressing that opinion is evidently a crime in the Republic of Liberté, which prides itself on a line of 20th Century intellectuals – from Sartre and Genet to Foucault and Derrida – whose hallmark was leaving no orthodoxy or convention unmolested, no matter how sacred.
Since that glorious “free speech” march, France has reportedly opened 54 criminal cases for “condoning terrorism.” AP reported this morning that “France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism.”
As pernicious as this arrest and related “crackdown” on some speech obviously is, it provides a critical value: namely, it underscores the utter scam that was this week’s celebration of free speech in the west. The day before the Charlie Hebdo attack, I coincidentally documented the multiple cases in the west – including in the U.S. – where Muslims have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for their political speech. Vanishingly few of this week’s bold free expression mavens have ever uttered a peep of protest about any of those cases – either before the Charlie Hebdo attack or since. That’s because “free speech,” in the hands of many westerners, actually means: it is vital that the ideas I like be protected, and the right to offend groups I dislike be cherished; anything else is fair game.
It is certainly true that many of Dieudonné’s views and statements are noxious, although he and his supporters insist that they are “satire” and all in good humor. In that regard, the controversy they provoke is similar to the now-much-beloved Charlie Hebdo cartoons (one French leftist insists the cartoonists were mocking rather than adopting racism and bigotry, but Olivier Cyran, a former writer at the magazine who resigned in 2001, wrote a powerful 2013 letter with ample documentation condemning Charlie Hebdo for descending in the post-9/11 era into full-scale, obsessive anti-Muslim bigotry).
Despite the obvious threat to free speech posed by this arrest, it is inconceivable that any mainstream western media figures would start tweeting “#JeSuisDieudonné” or would upload photographs of themselves performing his ugly Nazi-evoking arm gesture in “solidarity” with his free speech rights. That’s true even if he were murdered for his ideas rather than “merely” arrested and prosecuted for them. That’s because last week’s celebration of the Hebdo cartoonists (well beyond mourning their horrifically unjust murders) was at least as much about approval for their anti-Muslim messages as it was about the free speech rights that were invoked in their support – at least as much.
The vast bulk of the stirring “free speech” tributes over the last week have been little more than an attempt to protect and venerate speech that degrades disfavored groups while rendering off-limits speech that does the same to favored groups, all deceitfully masquerading as lofty principles of liberty. In response to my article containing anti-Jewish cartoons on Monday – which I posted to demonstrate the utter selectivity and inauthenticity of this newfound adoration of offensive speech – I was subjected to endless contortions justifying why anti-Muslim speech is perfectly great and noble while anti-Jewish speech is hideously offensive and evil (the most frequently invoked distinction – “Jews are a race/ethnicity while Muslims aren’t” – would come as a huge surprise to the world’s Asian, black, Latino and white Jews, as well as to those who identify as “Muslim” as part of their cultural identity even though they don’t pray five times a day). As always: it’s free speech if it involves ideas I like or attacks groups I dislike, but it’s something different when I’m the one who is offended.
Think about the “defending terrorism” criminal offense for which Dieudonné has been arrested. Should it really be a criminal offense – causing someone to be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned – to say something along these lines: western countries like France have been bringing violence for so long to Muslims in their countries that I now believe it’s justifiable to bring violence to France as a means of making them stop? If you want “terrorism defenses” like that to be criminally prosecuted (as opposed to societally shunned), how about those who justify, cheer for and glorify the invasion and destruction of Iraq, with its “Shock and Awe” slogan signifying an intent to terrorize the civilian population into submission and itsmonstrous tactics in Fallujah? Or how about the psychotic calls from a Fox News host, when discussing Muslims radicals, to “kill them ALL.” Why is one view permissible and the other criminally barred – other than because the force of law is being used to control political discourse and one form of terrorism (violence in the Muslim world) is done by, rather than to, the west?
For those interested, my comprehensive argument against all “hate speech” laws and other attempts to exploit the law to police political discourse is here. That essay, notably, was written to denounce a proposal by a French minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, to force Twitter to work with the French government to delete tweets which officials like this minister (and future unknown ministers) deem “hateful.” France is about as legitimate a symbol of free expression as Charlie Hebdo, which fired one of its writers in 2009 for a single supposedly anti-Semitic sentence in the midst of publishing an orgy of anti-Muslim (not just anti-Islam) content. This week’s celebration of France – and the gaggle of tyrannical leaders who joined it – had little to do with free speech and much to do with suppressing ideas they dislike while venerating ideas they prefer.
Perhaps the most intellectually corrupted figure in this regard is, unsurprisingly, France’s most celebrated (and easily the world’s most overrated) public intellectual, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. He demands criminal suppression of anything smacking of anti-Jewish views (he called for Dieudonné’s shows to be banned (“I don’t understand why anyone even sees the need for debate”) and supported the 2009 firing of the Charlie Hebdo writer for a speech offense against Jews), while shamelessly parading around all last week as the Churchillian champion of free expression when it comes to anti-Muslim cartoons.
But that, inevitably, is precisely the goal, and the effect, of laws that criminalize certain ideas and those who support such laws: to codify a system where the views they like are sanctified and the groups to which they belong protected. The views and groups they most dislike – and only them – are fair game for oppression and degradation.
The arrest of this French comedian so soon after the epic Paris free speech march underscores this point more powerfully than anything I could have written about the selectivity and fraud of this week’s “free speech” parade. It also shows – yet again – why those who want to criminalize the ideas they most dislike are at least as dangerous and tyrannical as the ideas they target: at least.
Other balanced responses:
From Oxford Philosopher Brian Klug:http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/moral-hysteria-charlie
Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman:http://www.newstatesman.com/mehdi-hasan/2015/01/muslim-i-m-fed-hypocrisy-free-speech-fundamentalists
And from literary Critic Leo Robson in the same magazine:http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/01/michel-houellebecq-frances-literary-provocateur